[A-List] Fwd: EWP, 2nd International and the fall of the fSU

[Mark Jones <markjones011@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm forwarding this from Nestor. I'm very grateful for his ideas and for 
the contributions of Domhnall and others. There is a lot to think about and 
weare thinking.

Mark


---------------------

Dear Mark,
Maybe you can repost or use what follows.
Been reading your comments to my comments re: EWP.
Then, an ENORMOUS idea appeared in my mind.
What you are trying to do is to put the train that the 2nd. International 
derailed in 1914 back on its track. Yes, I feel that you are trying to 
reconstruct, in the conditions of the our times, the 2nd. International, 
which, in its core, was a European international. The fall of the fSU in 
the early 90s has taken the world back to the conditions that preceded WW 
I. Only that the 2nd. International does not exist. We are ten years late, 
then: this idea of an EWP is the correct answer to Lenin´s astonishment at 
the news that the German Social Democracy had quit the path of revolution 
for good.
The host of events triggered by the stalemate of 1923 killed in bud the 
3rd. International, at least in its intended role as inheritortor of the 
2nd. This strategic defeat was not overcome, not even by the attempt to 
build a planet-wide International, which not only was too Muscovite but 
-more important, IMHO- was hampered from the onset by an irreductible 
contradiction between workers in the privileged capitalist world and the 
remaining formations, which was ably used by the bourgeoisies in Western 
Europe.
You know that, at this point, I might add that the policies followed by the 
SU leadership did not weaken, but in fact they strengthened, the grip of 
those bourgeoisies on West European workers, but since this may be subject 
to debate I will just make the point without requesting anyone to take it 
as Holy Writ. Because the fact is that after 1923, whatever the 
responsabilities that may fall on Stalin and the Soviet leadership, Western 
Europe was lost for revolutionary work for a whole historic period (the 
lousy behavior of Italian and French proletariats during the years 
immediately following WW II was paradigmatic in this sense, IMHO). Trotsky 
was right when he wrote, during the early stages of WW II, that if the 
outcome of this war was not a socialist revolution in Europe, then most 
books would have to be rewritten. Your idea is the best way to write the 
book again.
From the point of view of the bourgeosie, the new age has "elliminated" 
the anomalous persistence of the Soviet Union as a paradoxically 
destabilizing stabilizer. Thus, after a whole century of protracted trench 
warfare against this monster that had come to life in Petrograd, they can 
return to "business as usual". Business as usual means, in fact, 
recolonization of the planet, militarization of international relations, 
and inter-imperialist rivalry at an unprecedented level. This is a general 
move with the bourgeoisie, but the enormous difference with 1917 is that 
the European bourgeoisies are conscious that they will not be able to 
struggle with their American or Asian counterparts without strong unification.
Thus, it is awe, not love, which binds European bourgeoisies into a single 
bloc: as you rightly point out, the Shylockian idea of a United Europe 
comes to life first as a means to prevent contagion from the East and now 
it exists as the expression of the will of the European bourgeoisie to wage 
battle for world domination against USA and Asia (what will Aussies and 
NZlanders do in this respect, is still a mistery that defies imagination). 
But let us focus on Europe again. The fact is that workers should take good 
note of this perspective, and organize from the starting point that it is 
love, not awe, which must take the center of the stage.
The single serious problem I see with the EWP are its Eastern and Southern 
limits. This is not a matter of chance, but a matter of accepting that the 
Eastern border of "Europe" is fuzzy (its Southern border, particularly its 
Southwestern border, is not easy to draw either). The whole Eastern 
Mediterranean basin can be both imagined as traversed by the North-South 
divide or as a single unit. Same runs, IMHO, for the Western 
Russia/Belarus/Ukraine bloc. And what about the Moghreb (Morocco, Algeria, 
Tunisia?) and its links with Italy, France and Spain?
Of course, I am not thinking in terms of physical geography, but in terms 
of the history of both areas during the last century. The idea that Europe 
"ends" in Turkey may be thus both enticing and dangerous. Let us include 
Turkey. The bourgeois will include Cyprus. What to do with Alexandria, thus 
with Egypt, then? What to do with Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco? What about 
Lebanon, Syria, Israel, if the EWP takes hold in Turkey and Turkey becomes 
a member of the EU? The approach that these issues should be left to the 
decission of the peoples in the area is IMHO the most reasonable one. Trial 
and error might be the watchward here. But the general idea, this grandiose 
(as someone on A-list said) vision of a unified party of the European 
working class as opposed to the unified might of coallescent European 
bourgeoisies, should prove a mighty lever to put the train of history back 
on its track and in due course.
Hope you can go further ahead on this line. You are beginning to correct 
the betrayal of renegade Kautsky. Not bad, not bad at all... Best wishes 
from your friend in the ravaged "South of the South".