Re: The EU question

[Greg Schofield <gschofield@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:09  30/04/01 -0400, you wrote:
> Mine responded:
>
> > so you are insinuating the NAFTA/US  line that entry to NAFTA will benefit
> > the Mexican workers. do you have any evidence for this? what are the
> > Mexican workers themselves thinking about being part of NAFTA? did you ask
> > them individually? how do you support your argument with a cost benefit
> > analysis? I am expecting you to cite scholarly Marxist references with
> > concrete evidences and data.
>
> I'll ignore the unrealistic demands.  However, as the topics in this list
> turn, I'll be glad to state my opinion on NAFTA.  I have to admit that my
> opinion of NAFTA is not nearly as categorical as Mine's opinion on the
> European Union, NAFTA, FMI, WB, etc.  My genuine interest was to
> understand the serious rationale behind the leftist call to shun the
> European Union.  I didn't mean to disturb anyone.

Julio the problem is that by asking such a straightforward and reasonable
question leads some to believe that there is an outright attack being
launched - which says far more than any particular argument.

I mentioned in an earlier post about virginal oppositionalism, it is the
current curse of the movement, a sign of deathly decay. Whether it is the
EU or NAFTA, or anything else for that matter, the first thing discounted
is the actual distribution of political power, the realistic first question
about us (the communist movement) and them (the ruling class). The fact
that the we are in no position to really effect the general outcome is
ignored, we talk in terms of being a determining power, we put forward
political positions that place us in the imaginery position of already
leading the working class and thus remain virginally pure at all times.

The alternative is to take us as we really are (not a pretty picture), to
assume that far from leading the working class we are marginal to it in
almost every sense. Then when things like the EU and NAFTA become political
issues (naturally not through anything we have done) we have a duty to
analyse the situation and suggest, given the balance of forces, what might
be done, in however a modest way, to secure the interests of the working
class under these changing conditions.

We cannot remain virgins and do this, it is an act of carnality which
brings up all the dangers and risks of pursuing a realistic strategy. Hence
when you pose a straightforward and reasonable question which addresses a
real problem (the basis of left dissent over the EU question) you cut to
the heart of the real problem and thus are overwhelmed by passionate
responses out of all proportion to the questions actually posed.

Little wonder the movement is in such a mess!

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia