[MIM passed the following resolution unanimously in the first session of the 2005 Congress. Hours after the resolution's being written, Chirac and Blair started bashing each other as predicted in the resolution.]
Despite what French imperialist leaders believe about the economy and their professional message delivered to the French labor aristocracy, the French "No" (55%) vote on the EU constitution underscored the MIM analysis of the labor aristocracy's independent interests. It also proves what MIM has said countless times--that bourgeois internationalism is a pipedream. The imperialists are simply too small in number to implement political dreams for larger confederations and true free trade. Such utopias are only possible under advanced stages of communism, and it won't be the imperialists getting us there as the main force.
The case of the United $tates is different, because settlers killed off the First Nations to establish one language and economy. In Europe, the many languages and territories persist and continue to have force as Stalin predicted. The failure of the EU Constitution referendum is vindication of Stalin's scientific activity, vindication of his choice of what the most powerful social forces are in terms of the national question--language, territory, economy and common culture.
The case of France proves that exploiters are no solid bedrock for internationalism or even Pan- European formations. United as imperialists can be with both Chirac's right-wing party and the the "Socialist Party" favoring the EU Constitution, and with the endorsement of former President Valery Giscard d'Estaing, the social-democratic leader of Germany Schroeder, the social-democratic Spanish prime minister Jos Luis Zapatero, Italian prime minister Berlusconi and France's two main newspapers Le Figaro and Le Monde, the divisions among exploiters still spilled out in France of all places, the least likely from a strictly political point of view that forgets that exploiters are always divided among themselves. The division that mattered was between the small exploiters and their imperialist partners.
The BBC put it this way: "For the past two months, it [the campaign--MC5] has pitted the political elite against French workers and trade unionists, who are in rebellious mood - fearing that the Treaty is a charter for big business."(1) One bourgeois put it this way: "'We should never have allowed more than eight countries into Europe,' says Robert Bobet, who runs a chain of bakeries in Paris. "'It is not selfish to say we can't pay for Lithuania and Latvia.'"(2) A French worker put it this way with regard to contractors bringing their own supplies from the Czech Republic: "'It's not only a story about workmanship, it's a story about all of the material they bring here, because they don't buy anything here,' Bannire says. 'They have an advantage over us. ... For the next 10 years, they can underbid us by 35%-40%,' he adds, referring to the time it may take for Czech wages and cost structures to reach Western European levels."(3) The French are pretty clear that their one month vacations and lack of overtime work stem from their economic nationalism, an unwillingness to allow in competitors.
MIM refers to those French so-called workers as petty- bourgeoisie, but they are correct in understanding that the European imperialists favor the EU as a means of competitive posturing and European imperialism.
The "No" vote was in no way on account of divisions among imperialists or imperialist incompetence. French President Chirac fought a brilliant and long fight for the EU constitution, stretching over years. We can even say his opposition to the Iraq War was part of a greater plan for the EU. It hugely boosted his approval ratings to oppose the u.$. war and his low approval rating prior to the vote turned out to be a factor in the "no" vote--something MIM refers to as the ad hominem nature of pre-scientific politics. Without Chirac's intervention on Iraq, we can imagine how more lop-sided the EU vote would have been.
Chirac's offer on Iraq would have enticed a real proletariat interested in Iraq and a counterweight to the united $tates. On the other hand, it is also true that a successful EU emergence increases the possibilities for European imperialist militarism--not that there is none now, but as a matter of degree.
The Iraq question tantalized the labor aristocracy of France too, but demonstrating the difference between a labor aristocracy and a proletariat, the French population fizzled on the point the way the whole anti-war movement in Europe did not suffice to stop Uncle $am in Iraq.
Poland and eastern Europe
Numerous news agencies reported that it was the appearance of the Polish proletariat that scared the hell out of the French labor aristocracy: "The No camp has capitalized on public fears concerning the future-fears of lower-paid Polish plumbers coming to France and undercutting competitors, fears that the country's generous public health system could be cut back. For many the referendum has crystalized national insecurities." (4) If there had been a French proletariat of significance, it would have welcomed the chance to take the struggle for gains to a larger audience. Fighting to preserve what one has is not fighting with "nothing to lose but their chains."
The various pseudo-socialists running amok could not make out what was of principal importance to the international proletariat in the EU Constitution. The Socialist Party leaders of France support the EU Constitution, but polls leading up to the vote showed that the labor aristocracy bread-and-butter voter of the Socialist Party was not buying and instead rather more agreed with fascist Le Pen. In fact, the "No" vote was so sweeping in victory, that only the over age 65 group voted "Yes." This was substantial proof of MIM's thesis that social- democracy paves the way for fascism. The older generation fears another fascism, another World War II and puts European unity above anything else. It was the protection of a national share of super-profits driving the social-democratic voter both to the "Socialist Party" and in instances such as this referendum, Le Pen. The unity of Le Pen and the so-called "extreme Left" in France proves completely MIM's thesis on militant parasitism's having two wings. These wings united in the referendum vote for all to see.
No real communist alternative visible in Western Europe
Contrary to stupid so-called Marxists everywhere, this was not a case of a restive rank-and-file opposing reactionary leaders. It was a case of the labor aristocracy distrusting its own imperialists on the division of the spoils of global exploitation. Like a madly jealous lover, the French labor aristocracy did not want to share French imperialists with the Polish (or other eastern European) proletariat. Even worse is the scare that the French labor aristocracy is having over Turkey's joining the EU. In other words, it was the labor aristocracy voting to preserve its national interests, over and against the imperialists who are less wedded to deriving their profits from any particular nationality. It was a case where the global outlook of the imperialists was less conservative and less chauvinist, at least in terms of the political campaign connected to this referendum if not the final outcome of the EU process down the road.
Parties and organizations we had not heard much out of lately came out in force in France and neighboring countries to oppose the EU Constitution. The bottom line is that these organizations--without exception that MIM could find-- postured for social-democratic voters. As always in Western Europe the alleged communists did not differ from social-democrats in their goals, only their strategies.
So in May, we could find parties claim to uphold Marx, Lenin and Stalin springing to life on the French referendum. One French-speaking party gave ten reasons to oppose the EU Constitution. The last reason referred to the Third World and how the EU did nothing to stop pillage there. All the other reasons referred to social-democratic and reformist demands for the work week, minimum wage and pensions.
The EU Constitution vote exposed social-democratic lies about "false consciousness" in the imperialist country so-called workers. These lies have long served to deny exploitation is going on by imperialist country populations in a particular way--using Marxist rhetoric. They are the small exploiter version of imperialists' lies about "bringing jobs" to the Third World through "investment."
The major French imperialist leaders supported the EU treaty. Any votes against the EU treaty could only have come from an independent source apart from the imperialists--and MIM would have said this had the "no" vote only come to 40%, because unity of the imperialists and media for the EU Constitution would have made even 40% (not 55%) an astonishing statement. The attacks on the Polish plumbers did NOT come from the imperialists who lost this referendum because of them. Those attacks came from the labor aristocracy acting in its own independent interests. The blame for that chauvinism falls squarely on the labor aristocracy--nationalist-minded so-called workers only in countries where super-exploitation makes it possible for wide-scale conversion of workers into the petty-bourgeoisie.
The real proletariat and most exploited workers of Europe favor the European Union. They know it means free travel and the ability to look for work in more places. MIM struggled in vain to find any Western European mention of the interests of eastern European workers in the new Euro-centric Comintern meeting in Brussels, Belgium in May 2005.
The Brussels meeting was a concrete example of what happens to this day as it happened in the 2nd International and even the Third International, where pan-European interests took the forefront, but within that the views of the truly exploited section of workers did not find articulation.
In saying this we mean in no way to excuse the Polish proletariat itself for not producing leaders to intervene in this sorry state of affairs. The Polish bourgeoisie took a major gamble in thumbing its nose at France and Germany by sending troops to Iraq. As long as it was a matter of negotiating with other imperialists man- to-man, the Polish bourgeoisie could regard itself highly for negotiating skills. The Polish bourgeoisie did not reckon with the French labor aristocracy. In the end, the so-tough Polish negotiator had to go to the press and France to campaign for the "yes" vote by saying among other things that France "is" the EU. It was potentially too little, too late, a mark of incompetence.
From an economic standpoint, there is no case at all for the Polish move into Iraq. It made Poland look like Amerikan lackeys and it made existing EU members suspicious of Polish intentions. On the BBC after the EU defeat, a French talking head pointed out the impression the Polish made by sending troops to Iraq. It is only in consideration of geopolitics via Russia that Poland's actions make even the slightest sense. Yet such geopolitics are again a reason that exploiter unity is a pipedream.
Poland has so much to gain from the EU or so it thinks, but even in such a circumstance, it cannot go forward with a single-minded policy to achieve EU progress. Rather, the Polish bourgeoisie succeeded in alienating the French labor aristocracy, and this is important because Polish leaders never had any chance of uniting the proletariat for another approach--because there is no French proletariat to bail it out. For the Polish bourgeoisie to claim a right to rule, it needed to do a competent job via the Western European labor aristocracy. To do a good job, the Polish bourgeoisie needed to convince the French labor aristocracy that a united EU could improve European imperialist interests against Amerika and the rest of the world. Instead, Poland only sent plumbers to France and it sent troops to Iraq, thereby jettisoning the potential image of a united Europe with distinct interests. If the end result is going to be to support the united $tates, then the question becomes why there is to be a European Union in the eyes of the French labor aristocracy. Of course aiding the Polish bourgeoisie in their mistake were the Spanish, British, Portuguese and Italian government leaders. So again the question arises as to the true ability to unite exploiters of different languages under the same roof, because it was not the Polish alone who contributed to the French vote result.
In the sprint to the finish line, Chirac held back nothing. Aside from the open political statements he made, he made numerous arrangements favorable to the political atmosphere for the treaty. He pointed out that without a united Europe, Uncle $am would be able to pick off Europeans and divide them for U.$. interests: Voting "no" provided "'the ultra-liberals with the upper hand, reducing Europe to a mere market.'"(5)
Dispensing with mis-use of the "false consciousness" idea when referring to exploiter action
Because the French imperialists united to support the European Union Constitution with a "yes," the phony Marxists are now left with only one logical position: "The 'no' vote was not false consciousness foisted by the imperialists. Instead it was a vote against 'globalization' by a 'rebellious' proletariat," as the phony Marxists always say. Left out is how this supposed opposition to globalization plays out--through defense of national interests and a play for a higher share of super-profits aided with chauvinistic appeals against eastern Europe and Turkey.
The French "no" vote also confirmed MIM's approach to foreign policy in the late imperialist era. As we observed before on why the French Popular Front worked in France in the 1930s but a similar approach among the Germans could not unite the social-democrats and communists in the 1930s, the reason is the interests of the labor aristocracy and how it picks and chooses its foreign policy. On May 29, the European labor aristocracy allied itself with u.$. imperialists in order to squeeze more out of empire at home--increased pensions etc. There was a tussle with the imperialists at home, so the labor aristocracy looked to imperialists abroad to unite with. A united EU is a counterweight to u.$. imperialism, and despite rhetoric contrary, the "no" vote was a vote for u.$. imperialism's continued dominance relative to European imperialism.
There may have been some truth that the EU constitution reflected an attempt to gain the future vote of England to join the EU. So opponents said it was lacking in "social Europe" features and instead reflected "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism. On the other hand, social-democratic or Anglo-Saxon-style capitalism-- whichever capitalism the EU has or has in the future-- ditching the EU constitution hurt the EU as a geopolitical force and enabled u.$. imperialism as a geopolitical force. The EU Constitution was to create a unified Foreign Ministry for Europe.
It's not that MIM is saying EU imperialism would be any less bad than u.$. imperialism. What we are trying to do is point out how the interests of the labor aristocracy manifest themselves so that we fully understand exploiter divisions. At times it can seem the exploiters are on "a roll" and unstoppable. Yet they always stop themselves. For the EU to come apart in the country it started 50 years ago is the ultimate proof of the self- division of the exploiters and the massive delusion that imperialists can ever bring peace: even when acting in united fashion, the imperialists can't even arrange a pan-European business deal of 25 countries, because of the nature of their class system. So, if the pan-European imperialists cannot even bring about a business deal among themselves, they have no chance of organizing global peace. It's not just the divisions among the imperialists but also the division between the imperialists and petty-bourgeoisie that counts.
The responsibility of scientific communists regarding Eastern Europe and the EU
For decades, MIM has said there is a real proletariat in eastern Europe, not Western Europe. That fissure has now expressed itself politically in a decisive manner. The EU vote is a confirmation of how MIM has chosen the correct focal point of analysis with its cardinal principle on the labor aristocracy.
Sadly, the international communist movement is still so pitifully weak that we have seen often where the body overrules the head. In other words, we have in the imperialist countries many who know how to fight unemployment and for welfare benefits but not much else. The trouble is that these militant parasitic fighters also name themselves the members of scientific communist parties.
Any analysis of the EU had to start with the question of the eastern European proletariat, how to arouse it and advocate its interests in the best way. The discussion that did not happen is 1) how the eastern European leadership did not correctly perceive eastern Europe's self-interests vis-a-vis u.$. imperialism and Chirac ; 2) whether joining the EU is in fact a means of buying out the eastern European proletariat and breaking its solidarity with the international proletariat; 3) whether it is actually possible for the EU to buy out the Poles, Ukrainians, Turks etc. the way French have been. In some sense, a collapse of the EU would be a bitter blow that would drive the eastern European proletariat back toward communism, so this is not an easy question for communists to answer.
Even if one had concluded that the chance to upset the combined imperialists of Europe and cause some instability was too great to pass on so that a "no" vote was necessary, communist scientists still should have been at the frontlines shooting down the chauvinist reasons for voting "no." It has to do with what kind of instability we want to cause. Winning with scare tactics about Polish plumbers is not really winning.
Now when they go to the Polish and Turkish proletariat, how can those who supported "no" hold their heads up high? The scientific communists of Poland and Turkey may forgive, but the Polish proletarians will ask if we cannot get along with them in the EU, why should they get along with us in an international Soviet?
The EU is about a qualitative change for the people of eastern Europe that needed addressing. In contrast, all the points raised by Western Europeans were matters of degree: 1) EU could be militarist. True, but French imperialists were busy sending troops all over the planet before too. It could be that biting off eastern Europe into the EU is going to be a major distraction that limits the ability of the EU to project militarist ambitions. This has to be considered in any question of degree as well. 2) The EU serves as a basis for attacking social-democratic gains. True, but if we are talking about real proletarians and not the petty-bourgeoisie, then the battle is won in class struggle, not through exploiter-nationalist attacks on treaties. Class struggle depends on the unity of the international proletariat, not attacks on Poles and Turks!
Underlying much of the "no" vote activism seems to be some misunderstanding of where power comes from: "Before the Swedish entry in EU Sweden sometimes voted together with third world countries f.i. in the UN , but since the entry in to the EU Sweden always sided with the imperialist world against the aspirations of third world countries," said one Swedish organization calling itself communist. What is more, this is something cardinal or close to it for the Swedes: "we do claim that communists in all EU countries must agree that the mutual goal in the struggle against the EU is that EU shall be dissolved." Furthermore, we heard, "A revolutionary position must do the opposite: put the dissolvement of the EU as the common task for the workers of Europe." Actually, it is not our goal to dissolve the EU, but to dissolve imperialism. Alleged Swedish geopolitical neutrality that in fact benefits from integration into the imperialist financial system is a question of degree, not an end to imperialism. Sweden is an imperialist country already.
The numerous but united little parties of Western Europe pushing forward "no" may confuse our comrades in Eastern Europe. It's not that the Western European workers are more "advanced" than the workers of eastern Europe, and that is what accounts for their unity on "no" while no such voice rang out in eastern Europe, not at all. The great, great grand-parents of today's Western Europeans may have fought hard in class struggle, but we cannot say that of today's Western Europeans. It's not that these supposed representatives of the workers in Western Europe see something that the Polish proletariat does not. No, the alphabet soup of the Western European so-called Left united on "no" and stood tall against all the imperialists combined, because the militant wing of parasitism was united all along as MIM charged, from Le Pen to the Trotskyists:
"There were the Communists, the Socialists, the Greens, the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (Trotskyist), the Republican Movement of the Left (nationalist), the Radical Party of the Left (radical), Attac (anti-globalist), Copernic (anti- European), Alternative Libertaire (anti-bosses and police), the Alternative Movement (alternative), the CGT (a large, radical trades union federation), FO (a breakaway from the CGT) and SUD (a breakaway from the FO)."(6) A reporter for a British paper said: "It was astonishing to hear the Trotskyists, of the teacher and civil servant- dominated LCR, cheering for the Parti Communiste Franais (PCF), which is the last direct descendant of Stalinism outside of Cuba and North Korea."(6) The part about the PCF being a legitimate descendant of Stalin is false, but the idea that the alphabet soup united on economic nationalism in France is 100% true and exactly what MIM has said and predicted all along.
In contrast, the bourgeoisie pretends bafflement, but in fairness, it cannot admit that there is a division among exploiters as clear-cut as MIM has said: "The No camp spanned the anti-capitalist Trotskyite left, through to the notionally pro- European but anti-constitution socialists, through the anti-European sovereigntist right, to the fascistic National Front.
"'This No was about everything,' says Olivier Duhamel, a constitutional expert and political analyst. 'Voters were in the mood to say: the answer is No, what is the question?'"(7) This point of view from the bourgeoisie reflects its myopic, pragmatist side. In fact, the two sides of the referendum were crystal-clear in class terms. The social-democrats, fascists and Trotskyists do all fit together in their representation of the labor aristocracy.
The job of the Marxist is to look at the interests of the international proletariat as a whole, not to fight for social-democracy in the richest European countries harder than the social- democrats do. There is no progressive role for economic nationalism in the imperialist countries such as France. The positive lessons from the "no" vote in France are 1) the total bankruptcy of parties calling themselves "communist" in Europe; 2) the fact that the EU will now be internally busy with its own instability--negotiations between the imperialists and petty-bourgeoisie. In an unintended way, that will put more burden on u.$. imperialism as the sore thumb sticking out on the world stage.
What the position of the vanguard of the Polish proletariat and the international proletariat should have been
We needed to hear from Polish communists on the EU vote in France, prior to the EU vote May 29 and we did not. This is an historical failure both of MIM for not finding scientific comrades sufficient for a vanguard party in Poland, and even moreso for the Polish proletariat. When we say "Polish," we could also be saying the eastern European proletariat in general in terms of its hopes in the EU now or for joining it in the future.
Because the existence of imperialism itself is not on the ballot, the easiest position for the international proletariat to take on how imperialist countries organize themselves is abstention. Abstention should be the default position on EU questions. Otherwise, some special incentives from enemy classes should be forthcoming.
Abstention maximizes the possible leverage to force the Europeans out of Iraq for example--a real goal of the international proletariat. In exchange for a "yes" vote for the EU constitution, the proletariat should ask for troops withdrawals from Iraq and similar such goals. There are potential benefits to "no" votes as well: "no" votes expose imperialist pipedreams sooner and speed up the day of re-Sovietizing eastern Europe. Nonetheless, "no" campaigns should occur along with disowning of "no" campaigns against "Piotr the plumber." In other words, real communists would not stand by silently with the "Piotr the plumber" propaganda in the air, even if those real communists had organized a "no" campaign.
The first point to understand in Poland's interests is that political impressions do not come overnight. Going to France at the last minute and saying France "is" the EU and hoping France will vote for an EU constitution is not enough.
At least as far back as the decision to send troops to Iraq, Poland needed to consider its interests. The Polish proletariat had no interest in sending troops to Iraq. That was the incompetent Polish bourgeoisie's doing.
Despite being the world's largest market, the united $tates has the least to offer Poland economically of three potential partners--the EU, ex-USSR and the united $tates. The united $tates has all the internal political problems of the EU, but none of the geographic closeness that makes it a good business partner. When the eastern European bourgeoisie sent troops to Iraq for Bu$h, it was not thinking about European public opinion in general and it was giving too much weight to unrepresentative European leaders--either that or it made the mistake of putting the united $tates ahead of Poland's EU ambitions.
The worst outcome for Poland is to become a U.$. lackey. That is the long-term recipe for economic backwardness. The best route is for Poland to get on a genuine communist road and organizing Soviet trade harmony. Barring that correct long-term view, integration with the EU as soon as possible can take Poland from being at one stage of capitalism to being in the imperialist stage of capitalism, an integrated part of imperialism. In either a communist trade future or an EU trade future, Poland has no interest in sending troops to Iraq.
Thus far we have seen that the French labor aristocracy is chauvinist and the Polish bourgeoisie is incompetent. From the standpoint of the international proletariat we must also single out others for blame.
In the background, the next important actor is Russian nationalism. As of yet, incompetent Russian nationalists have yet to understand that the ex-Soviet economy was not held down by its breadth. When the Soviet Union fell apart, economies everywhere fell down, but nationalists everywhere have yet to admit it in the open. Each nationality of the ex-Soviet Union thought, "as soon as we stop subsidizing X, our economy will be better off." What a farce and misunderstanding of the mutual benefits of bourgeois trade, never mind socialist cooperation.
Nor is this nationalism limited to the government itself. In the so-called opposition, nationalism is also rampant and bone-headed. While Limonov organizes people to fight in the streets, he is also putting forward the slogan "Russia is all, and the rest nothing." Then these dim bulbs wonder why the Polish bourgeoisie manages to run to Uncle $am and why Limonov's brand of fascism has to compete with Hitlerite brands in eastern Europe. Limonov supporters have the nerve to travel to Iraq, when it is their ideology that drives the Ukrainians and Poles to join in occupation of Iraq--even while majorities of the populations in both countries oppose the invasion of Iraq. Gorbachev and Limonov both were Amerikan exports to Russia. This is an example of how the ex-Soviet Union is still wrestling with Brezhnev era stupidity and needs to go "way out" to go anywhere.
The true leaders of the international proletariat find it astonishing that the Polish bourgeoisie would do anything to jeopardize obtaining more EU economic visas. It shows concretely that when we scientific communists say u.$. imperialism is the number one enemy, that has concrete economic meaning for the eastern European proletariat.
The contours of the coming struggle
Technically, the French and Dutch could re-vote before 2007. French Parliament could have voted for the treaty as well without having a referendum, so the imperialist elite is now having many regrets about its past strategy. Our first support should go to the imperialists' ramming the treaty through, because that is the course for the most trouble between imperialists and labor aristocracy.
Assuming the imperialists do not ignore the vote and try to ram through the treaty one way or another, there are several likely results. The European rulers will look for new targets to attack in order to weld together a European majority for the future. We of the proletariat favor the road blaming the English, and not the road blaming Turkey or eastern Europe, so we seek to channel the imperialist efforts along those lines.
First, the EU will not be making sudden moves to please Turkey. There is even a risk that the Turkish rulers will decide that the EU game is not worth the candle, not worth the long-term efforts, particularly given the Turkish election cycle that the rulers seek to use. Asia looks better to Turkey now. Turkey will come under more pressure to act like Western Europeans before coming into the EU.
Secondly, it seems that potential new members from eastern Europe may be on hold.
Thirdly, we could be in for a round of U.$. and England-bashing--a good thing in MIM's book. Chirac will think about bashing Poles harder to make them come into line, and really it should be Polish self-bashing given what happened, but in the end, the French imperialists have to admit that there is no guarantee no matter what they do by writing pro-English treaties that the English will join the EU when it comes to a vote. Polls tend to show that proposition highly iffy. In one circumstance or another though, there is no real opposition of the French or the Poles to an EU. The Poles and Ukrainians really want an EU, but the British do not.
The realities of English business today say that the question of EU or not could be batted around forever. Given English ideology known as pragmatism, MIM doubts there would be a real EU consensus until after the English saw their economy going down swiftly because of exclusion.
The French referendum was a case where the labor aristocracy could have used intensified inter-imperialist rivalry as proof of the EU's merits, but the labor aristocracy did not see enough rivalry. So here, the labor aristocracy is an active element for inter-imperialist war, not in the short run, but in building the climate.
The EU elite was hoping for a quick and sweeping victory, with a continental vote "yes" followed by a British vote for "yes." Taking in England in a monumental historical vote would have built a European military that could be a global factor. Now there is new life for another strategic option--starting without England and forcing it in on continental terms later. For all it's individualist ideology and foreign policy alliance with the united $tates, the English economy still depends on Europe. The ownership class may tilt fairly evenly between the united $tates and Europe, but the economy on the ground in England may leave England no long-term choice but to join the EU on any terms.
The European political elite will seek to convince its labor aristocracy of their alliance through the above sort of moves. There is also the potential that eastern European rulers will wise up and think twice about serving as u.$. lackeys. The eastern European rulers really cannot do anything about "Piotr the plumber" as an image without giving up the benefits of the EU, so eastern Europe starts with one strike against it in the minds of the labor aristocracy, but it was not necessary for those eastern European rulers to make the enlarging EU look like an extension of the united $tates. In the long-run, the public opinion of eastern Europe seeks the same social-democratic and parasitic life that France is talking about.
Finally, for the eastern European proletariat itself, the EU rejection shows why the Soviet road is the sure bet. Poles, Ukrainians, Macedonians etc. should consider whether they want to spend the next 25 years hoping and trying to integrate into an imperialist empire when it's possible it will end up more talk than action. We scientific communists should walk the road with the eastern European proletariat together. We may not convince everyone that the Soviet road is the best one available immediately, but we should work on eliminating the u.$. lackey option with the combined strength of the EU and Soviet options as an alternative. In the coming months, the European bourgeoisie may have a hard time groping to a strategy, but we should everywhere favor bashing England for its rebate, its Anglo-Saxon market ideology and its role in the Iraq War. Otherwise, tensions will tend to spill over into bashing of the proletariat and oppressed nations. The scientific communists should be in favor of letting the drive for European unity occur at English imperialist expense. We are not in a position to stop inter-imperialist rivalry yet, but we can try to make life more difficult for anti-Polish and anti-Turkish chauvinists.
2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ws/2005/05/28/weu228.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/28/i xnewstop.html
4. http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/200 5/05/26/euconstitution050526.html
5. http://politics.guardian.co.uk/eu/story/0,9061,149 3638,00.html
6. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/story.jsp?sto ry=641441
7. http://news.ft.com/cms/s/875be9ba- d171-11d9-9c1d-00000e2511c8.html