Toward a European Left Strategy of Building a Socialist Alternative (Baier, Gauthier, Kaindl, Mesec, Sakellaridis)
Objavljeno:
The European Union is often celebrated in the liberal commonsense discourse as a pacifistic project that finally brought peace, prosperity and brotherhood to modern Europe after centuries of wars between European nations or states. Furthermore, the EU is celebrated as a democratic project: immediately after the Second World War, at the very onset of European integration, the main ideological momentum of ‘democracy’ was antifascism; however, after the defeat of real socialism, the main ideological focus of the EU turned against ‘totalitarianism’ in an attempt to equate socialism with fascism.
The notion of the EU as an anti-totalitarian organisation reveals the purpose of contemporary European integration. In its opposition to both fascism and socialism, it betrays its liberal, more precisely, neoliberal bias spearheaded mainly against any kind of socialist or even Keynesian reforms. Mechanisms of preventing socialist ‘totalitarianism’ are constituent parts of the EU treaties (such as the Maastricht Treaty, the Lisbon Treaty), projects (the single currency project and the common market), pacts (such as the Growth and Stability Pact, the Six Pack) and the institutional framework notorious for its democratic deficit.
The crisis exposed the antisocialist and therefore antisocial bias of this kind of ‘union’. The common market policies are disabling the member states to compete in the common market in any other way than by suppressing the working classes. The single currency outsourced the monetary policies of the member states to the European Central Bank, which is not willing to play the role of lender in last resort whose main goal is to lower inflation, and thus pushes the member states into the cold hands of private financial markets. Its treaties and pacts are imposing a ‘straightjacket’ on member states. They are imposing fiscal rules on the one hand, while on the other they don’t provide fiscal transfers to guarantee convergence between the member states. And last but not least, the technocratic and authoritarian character of supranational institutions, which don’t even correspond to bourgeois democratic standards, are disabling the people and progressive forces to even slightly change these mechanisms. The dictatorship of the capitalist élites is perfected in this institutional framework.
The results of this kind of integration are of course no less than devastating. In the Union that pushed its member states into ruthless competition the wages of its working classes are being suppressed, its welfare state decomposed and once sacred social rights denied. Furthermore, the Union’s periphery, which was unable to catch up with far more advanced industrial production of the core, experienced drastic erosion of the productive base and finally fell into a debt trap. The expected miracle of the free market policies turned into a nightmare. States are diverging rather than converging, the tensions between the core and periphery are escalating, and the working classes are thrown into brutal exploitation and misery. The only profiteer in this story is – naturally – the European bourgeoisie.
Therefore, the EU is no less than a project of European capitalist élites aimed at imposing neoliberalism masked as ‘European integration’. To us, the anticapitalist left, this poses the following riddle: if the bias of the really existing European integration is neoliberal, how can we respond? Is it possible to change the institutional framework to function in favour of the working classes? Is a ‘good euro’ possible and if so, under which circumstances? And if it is impossible, how risky would it be to exit the euro zone and the EU? And finally: is a socialist Europe possible?
From Tahrir Square to Zuccotti Park, from Athens to Madrid, millions have mobilised and are mobilising against the dictatorship of capital, whatever its local expression might be. Although such massive protests and upheavals would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, with the onset of the gr...
I will examine two key aspects of Evgeny Preobrazhensky’s concept of ‘primitive socialist accumulation’: the notions that (a) the essential differences between socialism and capitalism are nationalised property and economic planning, and that (b) a transition from capitalism to socialism can take pl...
‘There is probably no other region in Europe where the past and present of the left are so severely out of sync with one another as they are in former Yugoslavia’, Boris Kanzleiter and Đorde Tomić write in a discussion of the state of the post-Yugoslav Left in the Balkans.
The Age of Austerity ushered in by the global crisis of 2008-9 centrally involves cheapening the reproduction of labour-power by means of reducing both private wages and the social wage administered by the state. These policies have decided class, gender, racial and generational dimensions. To prope...
The Liberation Front of the Slovenian Nation was an organisation that led political armed resistance against fascist invaders and local quislings. It was established on 27 April 1941 in Ljubljana, shortly after the Axis powers disintegrated the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. It consisted of 18 groups; with...
If we don't understand a system as it is fully developed [its 'Being'] and thus its critical characteristics, we cannot investigate the 'becoming' of those characteristics. This is why Marx discussed primitive (or original) accumulation of capital only at the end of Volume 1 of Capital. Exclusive...
The barbaric wave of austerity crashing across Europe and much of the rest of the world both resembles and differs from the classical period of primitive accumulation which deprived masses of people of their means of production. Although landgrabs continue in this modern version of primitive accumul...
Since at least the time Rosa Luxemburg wrote The Accumulation of Capital, there have been various applications and theoretical developments of Marx’s historical account of the so-called primitive accumulation. Luxemburg argued that Marxists should expand Marx’s fixed historical description and rew...
The management and manipulation of crises is, according to David Harvey, one of the most important features of the so-called accumulation by dispossession, that is, the continuation and proliferation of accumulation practises that were grasped by Marx as ‘primitive’ or ‘original’. Debt crises, espec...
It is very symptomatic that the story of the great historical break of 1989 in Eastern Europe is usually articulated in purely political terms, often with obvious romantically-nationalistic overtones: winds of change have swept away old curtains and walls of the obsolete system, bringing about a sec...
It is impossible to talk about primitive accumulation without talking about commons. On the other hand, the reverse is not just possible but seems to be the norm, at least since commons began to gain general public currency after Ostrom’s Nobel prize and Hardt and Negri’s popularisations. Relieved f...
Primitive accumulation is not just the historical starting point of capitalism, but, qua coercive proletarianisation, central to its essence. The separation of labour from the means of existence holds sway in the concept of capital. Primitive accumulation is therefore not just a historical past fr...
