RE: [A-List] European Workers Party

["Mark Jones" <markjones011@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jorge Figueiredo  wrote:

>> Grandiose and ambitious idea.  The rationale is good,
but a good rationale it's necessary but not sufficient to
develop a idea.

First step for this project of future European Workers Party :
to translate the rationale document for European languages.

Second step : to explain relations of this EWP with
already existing workers parties in some European countries.

Third step: to know similar projects, at national levels,
in each country and to articulate an to integrate
in this project.  You could see, for instance,
the Portuguese manifesto published at
http://resistir.info/manifesto/manifesto_trad_ingles.html

Fourth step : to explain why a party and not,
more modestly, a platform for understanding,
common actions, etc.  Would be possible to begin
with a centralized organization ab initio?

But a like grandiose ideas.<<

Jorge asks "why a party and not,more modestly, a platform for
understanding." The answer is given in the words of your own manifesto, at
he above url: "without revolutionary organizations there can be no
revolution". (The Manifesto is great btw and everyone should read it.)

Whyy a *European* Workers' Party?

As the Portugese Manifesto goes on to state:

>> "In a eloquent and timely essay about the rebirth of communism, the
French philosopher Georges Gastaud reminds us that in the gigantic struggle
of the exploited against the exploiters, the class content of contemporary
universalism confronts humanity with objectives, which for their
revolutionary significance were unimaginable a few years ago. For example,
in combating imperialist globalization in Europe, the goal for
clear-thinking communists should be transferred from the "reform of the
European Union from the break with the treaties of Maastricht, Nice and
Amsterdam, from a rupture with the single currency guided by the Frankfurt
Bank, and with a professional army guided by NATO."

In other words, by ruptures that lead to global crisis that capitalism is
unable to resist. The final result would be the destruction of the system of
power that represents today a threat to the very survival of humanity.

The philosopher doesn't generalize. The rupture, as he conceives it, would
come about as the result of multiple and diverse types of actions at
different times and places.

The defenders of "movementism" forget that all the great revolutions, before
they began, seemed as if they were absolutely impossible. Yet they happened.

They also forget that without revolutionary organizations there can be no
revolution.<<

 The epoch of bourgeois revolutions is long dead. Today, bourgeois
counter-revolution in Russia and elsewhere, is accompanied by black
reaction, mass immiseration, loss of social and human rights, state terror
and economic collapse. The project for a European capitalist state is
fraught with contradiction. It can only come to fruition thru militarism and
war. The European bourgeoisies is afraid of this and is politically
paralysed as a result. But equally, the capitalist states of Europe are no
longer viable against American and Asian competition. In the new period of
imperialist rivalry between giant superpowers, Europe itself must be a
superpower to survivor. Therefore, an iron logic is forcing a European
military superstate into being, and this is the primary political reality
the European workers' movement must face: how to oppose the rebirth of
European militarism, how to confront the nascent power of the emergent Euro
superstate. All forms of pan-European organisation can play a role, but
sooner or later the question of the creation of a pan-European party of the
workers is posed, not by us, but by history.

Mark