On 2008-05-12 02:17 +0100, dusty allegedly wrote:
> On May 12, 8:47 am, Vngelis <meberr...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On May 9, 8:00 pm, nada <dwalters...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> So has the EU and NAFTA. IN fact since the proponents of Open Borders
>> took their cue from Soros funded programmes the world over the borders
>> have been axed in 27 EU countries. So in practice your policies are
>> being implemented.
>>
>> Which implies it is no longer a demand but a reality. Now because they
>> haven't as yet been abolished all the way to Asia has probably to do
>> with the opposition to the EU Constitution which wanted expansion to
>> occur in that direction as well but was stopped by the majority of
>> French people.
>> vngelis
>
> But according to the logic of some of the views expressed here about
> state legislation against open borders, it would have been wrong for
> working people and their organisations to agitate against and vote on
> these grounds against the amendment to the EU constitution. If you
> oppose state legislation on control of immigration/illegals then you
> must logically sup****t the repeal of that legislation.
>
> And the reverse applies too. If it is correct to vote against the
> amendment to the EU constitution on the grounds of opposing expansion
> of immigration then why not use the state to enforce immigration
> policies favoured by working people and their organisations?
>
> I may have said this before: this approach seems to arise from two
> things - a deep USA "free market" individualism ("freedom" in the
> "land of the free") and relatedly the failure to have built a mass
> party of labour and the concomitant need to engage in the ongoing life
> of such a party.
Dusty, I'm not sure whether the reasons you put forth up there are meant
ironically in part or even in toto. I'm not going to address those, but
rather your understanding of the EU which seems to me is inaccurate.
There is *no* EU constitution. There is *no* EU state. The EU is a
****ing scam, a bureaucratic parasite atop national governments,
controlled directly by a US/European reactionary elite and cor****ations
(this is not phraseology, that's a fact), set to implement tighter
control over national governments where these are unwilling to destroy
their countries (which is fairly rare) or to provide them a pretext to
implement more reactionary measures, to justify these vis-à-vis the
voters (by far the more frequent case). One example alone: EIGHTY-FIVE
PERCENT of all laws passed in the French parliament are *transpositions*
of EU-directives -- viz. diktats issued by a small, unelected body of
bureaucrats. This is a total perversion of the whole bourgeois political
philosophy (which hasn't yet been totally abandoned, officially).
There is no EU constitution and the matter at hand isn't an amendment to
it. It's just a huge catalogue of lawyertalk designed as a ruleset for
the EU's internal functioning. Even its ratification by the members is
more cosmetic than anything else. They don't even need it. The first
attempt for this particular set of rules was indeed smashed by the
French and Netherlandish voters three years ago, praise 'em. Guess what?
In some occasions since then, they've acted AS THOUGH IT HAD BEEN
IMPLEMENTED, promulgating laws based on so-called articles which were
supposed to have been SCRAPPED, as far as govspeak went.
This doesn't mean, however, that there's no point fighting it, for a
successful struggle in that question would strengthen the opposition and
shake those up who were, until now, only passively opposed.
Moreover, I'd like to make a point about the whole question of state and
class-struggle, as it seems to me there's an aspect that's generally
underestimated. There is a direct, pro****tional relation****p between the
grade of the class-struggle within a national entity, and its level of
sovereignty. US capital owns Europe politically. The European nations
are NOT sovereign.
I don't know whether this point about sovereignty has been made anywhere
in the Marxist corpus, but I think it's a fact. To pick an example, the
Italian workers are engaged in a class-struggle with the Italian
capitalists. But the Italian capitalists themselves are also engaged in
a class-struggle, at least in a partial one (not merely economic
competition!), with the /US/ ruling class. And the Italian workers are
engaged in a class-struggle with the latter, too (I could have picked
any European country as an example). It should be clear this three-way
relation****p will prevent the struggle between the Italian workers and
the Italian capitalists from ever reaching its full potential.
So what's my point? My point is that in such a situation, we cannot
simply say: "we ignore the EU and focus on class-struggle at home, and
solving that problem will solve everything else". Talking about
"enforcing policies in the national context" is pointless when the
national context itself is being targeted. Policies are
made and held in Brussels, more and more. There is no control or
influence to be had for the people in the EU headquarters. So I don't
think this will work. The issue of sovereignty must be addressed
before that.
To put it differently, if the goal on our size of the class-struggle is
to seize power, we need something actually to seize. We need the power
to be where we can reach it, id est within the body where the
class-struggle will take place. And this has to be the national body --
unless we intend to build a unified and coordinated revolutionary party
in all European countries. But I think that is unachievable, due to the
many language barriers.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain in the FROM address from
"invalid" to "net"
|
