An elusive distortion of the issue. My reference was to peace in western Europe, not world peace. And as I argued, the European Union grew consciously out of Schuman's Iron and Steel Confederation established between France and Germany specifically for this purpose.
>Chris:
>Many serious marxists now consider Lenin's analysis of imperialism in 1916,
>based heavily on the work of Hobson, to be inadequate in some respects. One
>of these is Paul Cockshott, for whom Louis has expressed admiration.
>
>Louis:
>I have never read Paul Cockshott on imperialism. If his hatred for Irish
>nationalism is any indication of what he has to say on broader questions of
>"the periphery," then I'm not very hopeful.
I do not recall Paul Cockshott expressing hatred for Irish nationalism. A particularly disciplined poster, he was arguing a case that the development of economic and political forces in Ireland did not awaken the protestant community of Northern Ireland to national life. Further developments this decade have proved him right, for reasons, as I argued not just in this case, of capitalism developing to a stage that stretches beyond the national state.
>Chris:
>...In Lenin's day and for a few decades after, division of the world really
>meant division. Cartels meant massive trade barriers which could only be
>broken down by war. Now we are very far from that. We are certainly talking
>about a world in which the different capitals will dominate according to
>their relative strength, but
>they will continue to interpenetrate in the main capitalist economies. Eg
>the extent to which Brown and Williamson is US capital while its parent,
>British Anglo-American Tobacco (BAT) is British capital might need some
>quite detailed analysis. I do not imply that transnationals are purely
>transnational. But there is very considerable interpenetration of
>capitalist interests.
>
>Louis:
>The point I was making is that collaboration between European nations on a
>common currency simply puts them on a war footing against rival blocs of
>capital. The Philippino journalist saw this quite clearly.
It certainly puts them in a stronger position in relation to other capitals. This may lead to conflict or collusion. It will not necessarily be expressed in open military warfare. What does LP mean by a "war footing". Or is he being deliberately ambiguous because he know he cannot argue that preparations for military war between different blocs, is necessarily an inherent feature of current imperialism.
>Chris:
>I think Louis Proyect needs to demonstrate a much more sustained analysis
>of Lenin's criticism of Kautsky, of where Lenin's theory of imperialism
>remains valid, and where it needs to be altered, and above all modern data
>as to how developments with the euro are leading to war rather than peace.
>I have presented a historical survey which stands on its merits.
>
>Louis:
>Your historical survey does not "stand on its merits." It is simply
>bonkers.
As arrogant and profound a statement as LP's statement that "neo-liberalism does not exist".
>European imperialism is extremely warlike and adopting a common
>currency will only make it more dangerous.
To use the term "extremely warlike" for a bloc that did not lead the recent attack on Iraq debases the possibility of appropriate language in relation to the bloc that did.
The second contention that adopting a common currency will only make it more dangerous is by no means necessarily the case. Most of the conflict between the imperialist power blocs will be economic skirmishing. Certain aspects of that are highly technical. Bad money drives out good. It may be that the dollar remains the main currency of international trade, whereas the euro becomes the main currency for reserves. Whether this forces interest rate rises in the USA is very hard to tell at this stage. The point is that there is no evidence of Europe arming for a military confrontation with the USA. That is quite different from the position that Lenin analysed in 1916.
Of course LP's position as on the second world war from 1941 to 1945 is to oppose any distinction between different imperialisms on principle.
> It is pushing the Russian people into such a desperate state
>that all sorts of obscurantism and threats of internecine war are on the
>increase.
Europe's conduct towards Russia has been more benign than the USA.
>The Nation Magazine is America's most prestigious left-liberal publication
>and their European correspondent does not see the Eurodollar as anything
>except an expedient measure to shore up a rightward drifting Social
Democracy.
The Eurodollar?! What is LP talking about? Does he know that he does not know?
>
>In the same issue, Lester Thurow, a staunch Clintonite, sees no particular
>new epoch engendered by the Eurodollar and strikes this cautionary note:
>
>"While America must reinvigorate fiscal policies to remain prosperous, the
>world is going to have to build a new economic locomotive for itself. That
>can only be done with close cross-country coordination of monetary and
>fiscal policies among Europe, Japan and the United States, a project they
>have thus far demonstrated no ability to undertake."
A staunch Clintonite will not over-emphasise the significance of the euro.
This is sloppy analysis devoid of theoretical content, snatching at quite logically contradictory arguments.
If there is any truth to the accusation that I am dabbling in Kautskyism, I would presumably be playing down the possible anatagonisms between the euro bloc and the dollar, and I would be arguing that they could all merge peacefully. Whereas I am saying the opposite. But here is LP quoting a representative of US imperialism saying that there is *no* great significance to the emergence of the euro and there should be close coordination between imperialist states.
So does LP think the birth of the euro intensifies or mitigates the contradiction between US and European imperialism???
What a muddle.
Perhaps Fidel Castro can help LP: From the speech last week at the 40th anniversary of the Cuban revolution -
"The dollar and the euro are eyeing each other warily. A promising adversary to the privileged US currency has emerged."
Chris Burford
London.