A dream of capitalists: “United States of Europe”

In order to make a true interpretation on the European Union debate which has taken place during the recent years both in the bourgeois milieus and also in the left circles, it will be useful, first of all, to express an important point. It is necessary to make a distinction between two different subjects, the European Union (EU) in its concrete existence with an uncertain fate, and the “United States of Europe” that has not been realised in any ways though it was talked so much. In fact the capitalists’ dream of “United States of Europe” has an old history and was turned out to be nothing in every time before the ruling laws of capitalist system. The European Union, with its realised and realisable aspects, is a temporary economic union established between various capitalist countries. And the formation of this kind of unities is always possible. Yet, it is not possible, on the base of capitalism, to overcome the divisions in the form of nation-states and to reach a peaceful fusion of those European states. This kind of a fusion can only be achieved under the government of the working class, on the base of United Workers’ Soviets of Europe. It is known that, the debate over the “United States of Europe” has enlivened in the conjecture of World War I. However the history of this idea goes further in the past. For example in the period of French Revolution, dream of an Europe, integrated from the point of view of economic relations and of cultural-historical base, was considered by bourgeois ideologues. In the following years, founders of Marxism too had come face to face with that debate of “Europe, united over the capitalist base”. This bourgeois dream was also defended by some organisations extending into the working class. One of the ideas that were proposed by Peace and Freedom Union constituted in 1867 in Switzerland by petty-bourgeois republicans and liberals was to establish the “United States of Europe”. The Union adopted the thesis that wars in Europe could only be prevented by that way. Marx and Engels criticised this pacifist attitude that was creating illusions in the working class about the nature of both internationalism and of capitalism. For example Engels referred this subject in 1875 while he was criticising German social-democrats’ Gotha programme.[1] Lasallites were setting up a hope of “union” belonging to liberal bourgeoisie, a hope of capitalist “United States of Europe” against the working class internationalism; whereas German workers leading the European workers movement had taken an internationalist attitude against the war. With supporting each other under hard conditions as in big strikes, they gave samples of the route that must be followed.

Kautsky and the “United States of Europe”

The Second International too adopted the slogan for a “United States of Europe” on a bourgeois base. For instance, Otto Bauer was uttering that the United States of Europe was not a dream and the European nations would reach that goal as an inevitable result of capitalist development. In Lenin’s phrase, hand in hand with their imperialist bourgeoisie, socialist-masked social-chauvinists in European countries were trying to build an imperialist Europe over the shoulders of Asia and Africa. In the period of First World War, the idea of “United States of Europe” was brought into agenda at a level enough to have an important repercussion. Let’s remember briefly the conditions at that time. In a world dragging towards an imperialist war, militarism was rising and a feverish preparation for re-sharing the world was being made in the big capitalist countries. The most concrete indicator of this was the increased expenditures on armament. The situation was forcing Marxists to be prepared ideologically, politically and organisationally in a revolutionary manner against the approaching war. Just at such conditions, Kautsky, admitted as the foremost Marxist authority of that period, began to develop analysis that would cause pacifist attitudes against imperialist wars.[2] He proposed the idea that armament and wars could not be assumed as an unavoidable product of imperialism. In order that the conflicts of interest between imperialist countries not to cause a war, he was advising European bourgeoisie to behave reasonably. He was uttering that agreeing with each other and exploiting the rest of the world altogether would be more suitable both for their interests and for restricting the manoeuvre area of reactionary Tsarist Russia. Kautsky, claiming that the “United States of Europe” established on a base of bourgeois parliamentarism would open a period of permanent peace, was writing the followings in his article dated 1911: “… the realisation of such understandings betokens no guarantee for the permanent duration of the peace, which shall for ever ban the spectre of war. Therefore there is today only one way: The union of the States of European civilisation in a confederation with a universal trade policy, a federal Parliament, a federal Government and a federal arm – the establishment of the United States of Europe. This attained, something enormous would have been achieved. These United States would possess such overwhelming power that, without any war, they could compel all other nations, so far as these did not willingly do so, to join them, to disband their armies and give up their fleets. But with this would also disappear every necessity for the new United States themselves to be armed. They could then not merely give up all further armaments – the standing army, the warships for attack – the abandonment of which we to-day demand, but also every means of defence; even the citizen army itself would no longer be necessary. Thereby would the era of eternal peace be securely founded …”[3] In this way the debate, whether an economic union achieved between European countries would be able to abolish the competition struggle between imperialist powers of the Continent, has fallen on the agenda since that times. According to those who consider and defend the economic unity of Europe as a lasting and progressing formation, steps taken towards the unity would have given the division of Europe into nation-states to an end and integrated them under in the frame of “United States of Europe”. Debates going on this axis had inevitably found its reflections among the revolutionary Marxists of the time and Rosa, Lenin and Trotsky assumed their own attitudes on this question.

Rosa and the “United States of Europe”

Rosa, as early as 1911, uncovered the real economic character of the capitalist United States of Europe project, which was supported among the German social-democrats by Ledebour and Kautsky. From one aspect this project was utopian because the modern nation-state was a historical product of economical development and it was impossible to overcome it by voluntary decisions. Although the concept of Europe was reflecting a geographical and, to a certain extent, a historical-cultural union base, the “United States of Europe” that was considered as a lasting economic union which would integrate nation-states under a single roof, could not get along well with the inherent realities of capitalism because of two reasons. Firstly, as long as the capitalist states continue to exist in Europe, a complete abolishment of the contradiction and the competition between them was not possible. Secondly, a European capitalism in which the economical relations would intensify solely on a continental scale could only be supposed as a speculation of mind. Because, in reality, capitalism was a world system and Europe was not an isolated and self-sufficient economic unity within this world economy. Another more important point on which Rosa was attracting attention about this utopian project was the sly imperialist intentions that were tried to cover with the lies of “peace epoch” by the European imperialist powers. In spite of all radical masks, capitalists’ “United States of Europe” project could not offer any progressive solution to the working class. Whenever the bourgeois politicians defend the “Europenity” idea -unity of European states-, this was accompanied in each case by the bare or hidden denigration against “yellow danger”, “black continent” or “inferior races”. Shortly, the “United States of Europe” defended by bourgeoisie could not go beyond the point of being an imperialist abortion. “And now if we, as Social Democrats, were to try to fill this old skin with fresh and apparently revolutionary wine, then it must be said that the advantages would not be on our side but on that of the bourgeoisie”[4] says Rosa. Because, whichever “revolutionary” cover was used, a “United States of Europe” project that remains under the frame work of capitalist social order would mean, from the economical point of view, a tariff war with the USA. Therefore political results of this project would not be the “peace” but, on the contrary, imperialist conflicts and wars. Thus, Rosa was raising the voice of revolutionary Marxism against people such as Kautsky who was telling liberal “peace” tales to the working class while the world was actually being dragged into a hellish war. She kept this attitude till end. She referred to the same subject in “Thesis On the Tasks of International Social-Democracy” in the well-known Junius pamphlet in 1915. Eighth article of the thesis explains clearly that the world peace could be assured neither through unbiased courts of capitalist diplomats, diplomatic “disarmament” treaties nor utopian or, in fact, reactionary projects like the “United States of Europe”. Because, as Rosa expresses, “imperialism, militarism and war can never be abolished nor attenuated so long as the capitalist class exercises, uncontested, its class hegemony. The sole means of successful resistance, and the only guarantee of the peace of the world, is the capacity for action and the revolutionary will of the international proletariat to hurl its full weight into the balance.”[5]

Lenin and the “United States of Europe”

In October 1914, Lenin too referred to the United States of Europe question that caused various debates at that time, in The Manifesto of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party. Manifesto defended the slogan of republican United States of Europe against Europe under the reactionary oppression of monarchies. It says that “The formation of a republican United States of Europe should be the immediate political slogan of Europe’s Social-Democrats.”[6] However, social-democrats had to be very careful when they were defending this slogan. Because the bourgeoisie who was ready to promise everything in order to drag proletariat into the general stream of chauvinism was also using the United States of Europe slogan for its own interests. Therefore proletariat had to be absolutely clarified about the fact that this watchword would be a lie and a meaningless slogan unless the German, Australian and Russian monarchies were liquidated. In Bern Conference of the RSDLP Sections Abroad, the United States of Europe question was again considered and this time Lenin expressed some doubts. Debate about the slogan for a “United State of Europe” was going on along one-dimension and getting a solely political character. But the question had also got a more important dimension, an economical meaning. So the Conference decided to postpone debates for studying the economic side of the question in party press. Then Lenin published his article named “On the Slogan for a United States of Europe” in August 1915 for this reason. According to this article, the slogan for a “United States of Europe” was formulised directly as an immediate political slogan in the Central Committee’s Manifesto. However, to avoid any misunderstanding it was not satisfied with only mentioning about republican United States of Europe and emphasised especially that this aim would be a false and meaningless one “without the revolutionary overthrow of the German, Austrian and Russian monarchies”. That’s why there was no problem in the political content. But this slogan had a problem from the standpoint of economical content. Lenin concluded that the “United States of Europe” under capitalist relations was economically either impossible or a reactionary target. It was impossible because in the capitalist system the nation-state, just as the private property, was not a temporary fact but a fundamental expression of capitalist contradiction. It was reactionary because rival European imperialist forces like France and Germany were trying to carry out this unity by means of imperialist wars and military aggressiveness. In his article, Lenin refers to economic basis of the matter and lists the main lines of the subject that will be treated subsequently in detail in his book called Imperialism. First of all, capital has assumed an international and monopolist character and the world has been carved up by a handful of great powers. A repartition could only be took place according to the power balance between big capitalist countries, and this balance changes with the course of economic development. “Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.”[7] Lenin, thus explained that an absolute interest unity that would put an end to division of European countries into nation-states was not possible. Hence a permanent unification was also impossible. Therefore, the thought of preventing wars by means of a “United States of Europe” under capitalism was completely unfounded. Temporary agreements between capitalists and between states were possible and the suppositions about a European union could be considered only in this content. However, such an agreement could express a positive meaning only for European bourgeoisies’ interests. What about the interests of the working class? Lenin was uttering that an agreement between capitalists would mean a jointly suppressing socialism in Europe and a jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole was in an economic stagnation. On these economic conditions a United States of Europe would result an organisation of reaction also in point of retarding America’s more rapid development. Therefore, the times when the cause of socialism was associated only with Europe had gone for ever. Thus, after investigating the question of United States of Europe from various aspects, Lenin ended his article as follows: “after repeated discussions … the Central Organ’s editors have come to the conclusion that the slogan for a United States of Europe is an erroneous one.”[8] Other than its impossibility, the idea of a United States of Europe emerged from the extension needs of European monopolist capital is imperialist and reactionary for working class. For this reason, points emphasised in Lenin’s article titled as On the Slogan for a United States of Europe are completely true and corresponding to the concrete reality. However, the critical attitude of Lenin, in the same article, towards Trotsky for his defence of the slogan for a United States of Europe is strange. Because, Trotsky does not defend a United States of Europe on a capitalist base. On the contrary, the United States of Europe which Trotsky defends is a Europe unified under a workers’ power. True person that was addressed by Lenin’s criticism could only be Kautsky. And thus Lenin too was criticising Trotsky as he was thinking that Trotsky had been inspired by Kautskist thoughts. However, as can easily be understood from Trotsky’s thought on the United State of Europe, his approach has nothing in common with Kautskist political attitude. Another point that must be clarified in Lenin’s article causing various debates is in regard to the strategy of proletarian revolution. It is known that Stalinists, in order to strike “Trotskyism”, have been trying to use this article as evidence regarding the “socialism in one country”. Yet the truth of the matter is that those lines being distorted by Stalinists are not about the construction of socialism but the conquest of the power. In regard to the impossibility of constructing socialism in one country, the light of revolutionary Marxism is so shining that it will be completely useless to try to find essential and important differences between Lenin and Trotsky. Lenin deals with the slogan for a United States of Europe adopted by Trotsky from the point of its meaning under a workers’ power too. As he thinks that this approach would mean to defend simultaneous revolutions on the whole European continent, Lenin declares that such an approach is false. Because, according to Lenin, the European working class, in this case, would be obliged to wait for a simultaneous revolution and realisation of the goal of United States of Europe. However, it is possible to overthrown the capitalist state at first in a several or even in one country. And when it comes on the agenda, this probability points to a mission that must be fulfilled. But it is not true to say that defending the goal of United States of Europe Trotsky, in regard to the conquest of political power, has been taken a “waiting” attitude which was completely different from that of Lenin. Because the fact which Trotsky tried to express insistently was not that the power could not be conquered by proletariat in one country, but that workers’ power could not be protected and socialism could not be built in one country. Likewise, Trotsky explains that there were no essential differences on this subject between himself and Lenin and quotes the following lines from “1915 Peace Program” as proof: “Not a single country must ‘wait’ for the other countries in its struggle. It will be useful and necessary to repeat this elementary idea so that temporizing international inaction may not be substituted for parallel international action. Without waiting for the others, we must begin and continue the struggle on national grounds with the full conviction that our initiative will provide an impulse to the struggle in other countries.”[9]

Trotsky and the “United States of Europe”

In some articles written by Trotsky during the First World War, there is the slogan for a United States of Europe having neither monarchies nor permanent armies.[10] He thinks that a Europe which has not been divided by tariffs and national borders would be a positive step with respect to transition to socialist organisation of the world economy. He tries to associate this slogan directly with the revolutionary struggle of working class aiming the conquest of power. However, because of some reasons such as usage of this same slogan by bourgeoisie and especially distortions made by Kautsky, this subject has followed a very controversial course. In addition, at the beginning Trotsky, too, could not clarify sufficiently that by this slogan he had defended essentially a working class power in Europe. This situation caused Trotsky to be misunderstood and considered as if he defends a bourgeois democratic United States of Europe. Yet Trotsky puts forward the idea that the proletariat must stand against the imperialist war with a social revolution programme. He raises the working class’ peace programme against smashing of Europe by bloody conflicts between imperialist powers. He defends that a peace programme which would give an end to the destruction of productive forces, to imperialist wars and to savage militarism, could be implemented only on the base of a Europe unified and integrated under a workers’ power. Thus, just as Lenin, Trotsky too was rejecting the possibility that a capitalist United States of Europe could be realized. Against the distorting efforts of his primary articles related to the slogan of the United States of Europe, he reminds that he did not defend a United States in a capitalist frame even in 1914: “That was also my approach to the question when I advanced the slogan of the United States of Europe exclusively as a prospective state form of the proletarian dictatorship in Europe”.[11] Since that time, he had been defending the following idea: “A more or less complete economic unification of Europe accomplished from above through an agreement between capitalist governments is a utopia. Along this road matters cannot proceed beyond partial compromises and half measures”.[12] He was calling attention to an extremely important reality by saying that an economic unification of Europe would in fact entail colossal advantages both to the producer and consumer and to the development of culture in general. However, such a unification could be succeeded only by the revolutionary struggle of European workers. Therefore, the realisation of the goal of workers’ United States of Europe was becoming a revolutionary task of the European proletariat in its struggle against the imperialist protectionism, the nationalist isolationism and the militarism as an instrument of these all. Since the formulation of a “United States of Europe without monarchies, permanent armies and secret diplomacy” he propagandised in Peace Programme had caused various speculations, he had to return this subject in the following years. In the extended version of his article dated 1923, he treated the claims of his opponents who were distorting his views by setting forth that this slogan could acquire a reactionary and an imperialist content under certain conditions. In fact, he was trying to clarify an important point which is related to the essential character difference between two lines starting from the era of Marx and Engels and reaching till now, with respect to organise, secure and develop the working class power. The petty-bourgeois socialism is, in essence, a national-developmentalism covered with a bit of revolutionary phrases. Whereas the proletarian socialism stands over a scientific and a wide scoped base, completely free from the obsession of national borders reflecting the interest of bourgeoisie. In general, proletariat does not have any interest in the division of world into nation-states. Moreover, in capitalist Europe, the bourgeoisies’ relatively revolutionary nationalism epoch has finally ended. Revolutionary Marxism does not stand for the national market and tariffs against the process advancing in the direction of economic integration. If the continents’ imperialist powers support some kinds of unifications for their interest, revolutionary working class will make a stand against this with the goal of creating a united soviet government of workers, not with the flag of “national defence”. This is the main line of what Trotsky tried to argue in his Peace Programme. A United States of Europe on a capitalist base is really impossible. However let us imagine for a while an integrated Europe not divided into nation-states and tariffs. This assumption would mean a broader material basis for socialism objectively. Therefore Trotsky was saying that: “If the capitalist states of Europe succeed­ed in merging into an imperialist trust, this would be a step forward as compared with the existing situation, for it would first of all create a unified, all-European material base for the working class movement.”[13] It is no doubt that economic and political development of the world tends to gravitate toward a unified world economy. For this reason, Trotsky reminds that the question of “Why a European Federation and not a World Federation?” might be asked against arguing the slogan for a United States of Europe. However, if we take into consideration the concrete situation of that period, it could easily be seen that such a question would be an abstract and a dogmatic one. Because, the concrete problem that must be solved was concerned not with the future socialist economy of the world but with finding a revolutionary way out of the present Europe impasse. Europe is not only a geographic term; it also reflects an economic and cultural-historic community. In the First World War, even after the intervention of the USA, it was Europe that was the arena of war. Saying that “the revolutionary problems confront first of all the European proletariat”, Trotsky explains that setting forth the slogan of the United States of Europe was not depend on his choice but on the Marxist analysis of the concrete situation. The slogan for a United States of Europe defended by Trotsky with a proletarian content since 1915s was rejected by Lenin and Bolshevik Party for a period. But following the October Revolution this attitude had changed in a certain degree. Because it became clear for the Marxists that the meaning of this slogan was to create the workers' united Europe in connection with advancing the world revolution. Thus, the article named “Is the Slogan of ‘the United States of Europe’ a Timely One?”[14] written by Trotsky in 1923 on the Ruhr Crisis[15], was adopted officially by the Executive Committee of the Comintern in spite of a considerable opposition. Trotsky made the following consideration about the matter in 1928: “It was no mere accident that, despite all prejudices, the slogan of a Soviet United States of Europe was adopted precisely in 1923, at a time when a revolutionary explosion was expected in Germany, and when the question of the state interrelationships in Europe assumed an extremely burning character. Every new aggravation, of the European and indeed of the world crisis is sufficiently sharp to bring to the fore the main political problems and to invest the slogan of the United States of Europe with attractive power.”[16] As Trotsky explained in his article on Ruhr Crisis, Europe was smashed, cut up, divided, exhausted, upset, disorganised and Balkanised and transformed into a madhouse. The need of the productive forces for a broader arena of development that was not hampered by tariff walls was laying at the bottom of the war. The aggressive methods adopted by the ruling bourgeoisie to overcome obstacles created by the national frontiers were causing disintegration to be more severe and millions of people to die. Another bourgeois attempt for organising the unity of Europe over this base, for example the rising militarism in Germany, would cause either collapsing of European civilisation or the counter-revolutionary domination of American imperialism over the globe. In these circumstances, only the proletariat could rescue Europe from disintegration. But, while the revolutionary wave was withdrawing, in order to join workers and toilers under the revolutionary flag of the proletariat, it was necessary to set forth transitional slogans which could gain masses for the goals of struggle. At that period, the Comintern had proposed “a workers’ and peasants’ government” as the slogan of united front. Trotsky insisted on the idea that this slogan had to be incorporated with the call for a United States of Europe that would be realised by the workers’ own efforts. Only such an orientation could save Europe from an economic decay and from enslavement to American capitalism. The slogan of the United States of Europe must be regarded as a step toward the dictatorship of the proletariat. “The United States of Europe –a purely revolutionary perspective– is the next stage in our general revolutionary perspective”, said Trotsky.[17] Commenting the slogan not as founding directly the dictatorship of the proletariat but as a step on the way towards it could be seen as if it might create some confusion; yet this was not an important problem.Because this approach was not erecting various governmental stages before the revolutionary power of workers, and was only aiming to advance mass struggle to the goal of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Advancing of revolutionary struggle would already raise this slogan to its real content. On the other hand, although it was not possible to impose apriori a sequence on the process of world revolution, it was absolutely possible that course of events might cause Europe to get ahead of America. For Trotsky, the events in Europe were important from this point of view and it was extremely probable that these events could affect America. Trotsky was thinking that a probable revolution in Europe would absolutely break the self-confidence of American capitalist class and accelerate the process of conquering the power by American working class. He was not stopping at the point of arguing the idea of European Federation realised under a workers’ power, and by defending probable workers’ Soviet federations in the Middle East, Balkans etc. he was trying to embody the goal of World Soviet Federation. He was considering that, for a united Europe, Soviet Union might form a reliable bridge reaching over to Asia. Thus, together with Soviet Union, the united Europe could constitute a centre of attraction for the oppressed peoples of Asia. The revolutionary block of European and Asian peoples could confront the threat from the USA. A non-unified Europe could not achieve this. The slogan for a United States of Europe that was adopted by the Comintern in 1923 was able to last its validity only till 1926. In a pamphlet titled as “the Socialist United States of Europe”, written by John Pepper and printed in 1926 by the official publishing house of the Comintern, the followings were said: “It is very important that we not only have a critical position towards this bourgeois-social democratic demand (‘Pan-Europe’), by demolishing its fraudulent pacifist contents, but that at the same time we set up against it a positive slogan which can actually be the comprehensive political slogan for our transitional demands. For the next period the slogan of the United States of Socialist Europe must serve as the comprehensive political slogan for the European communist parties.”[18] However these were the last ones for this kind. The goal of founding workers’ United States of Europe got its share amply from Stalinist attacks associated with the establishment of absolute domination of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and in the Comintern. Because it is impossible to comport a goal directly related to the world revolution with the Stalinist theory of “socialism in one country”. Trotsky explained that the ideology of socialism in one country would inevitably cause blurring the reactionary role of nation-state, which has already become tight for productive forces, reconciling with it, idealising it, and thus reducing the importance of revolutionary internationalism. In very deed, this Stalinist ideology is a defence of nation-state covered with a socialist jargon. That’s why everything related to the perspective of world revolution, including the goal of a United States of Europe based on workers’ soviets was eliminated from the Cominterns’ draft program published in 1928 with the signs of Stalin and Buharin. In an environment where criticisms were forbidden and opposing voices were silenced, draft program was adopted in the sixth congress of the Comintern without an important change. Trotsky was criticising Stalinist attitude which finds its expression in the draft, and adding that there was no acceptable reason for the elimination of United States of Europe approach, which had a content of soviets’ power, from the program of the world communist movement. Trotsky has continued to defend resolutely the perspective of the world revolution against hostile attitude of the leadership of Stalinist Comintern towards this perspective. In an article titled as “Disarmament and the United States of Europe” and published in 1929, Trotsky once again set forth clearly that Europe had to be united under a revolutionary workers’ power. As Trotsky indicated, the productive forces have definitely outgrown the framework of the national state and now they have to be conceived only on a world scale. In fact, the imperialist war had grown out of the contradiction between the productive forces and national boundaries. There is no doubt that socialism can not attain its full development even in the limits of a single continent. Therefore, “the Socialist United States of Europe represents the historical slogan which is a stage on the road to the world socialist federation.”[19] Just as Lenin, Trotsky had also carried out a lasting struggle to save working class from the evil of social-chauvinism raised during imperialist war especially in European countries. In a document of the Fourth International dated 1940, he reminds its main mission to the European working class being dragged once again into an imperialist war: “Against the reactionary slogan of ‘national defense’ it is necessary to advance the slogan of revolutionary destruction of the national state. To the mad-house of capitalist Europe it is necessary to counterpose the program of the Socialist United States of Europe as a stage on the road to the Socialist United States of the World.”[20] Enormous rising of American imperialism, on the one hand, sharpened the contradictions among capitalist European countries worrying about a bigger share from the world market; on the other hand, it also incited bourgeois dreams of confronting the USA by uniting. Trotsky, in one of his article, was expressing brilliantly the exact material source of this bourgeois dream about a United States of Europe: “If the capitalist world were able to endure several more decades without revolutionary paroxysms, then these decades would unquestionably witness the uninterrupted growth of American world dictatorship.”[21] However, this process would inevitably sharpen contradictions between USA and Europe. Because, the USA would force Europe to strive for an ever increasing rationalisation and at the same time would leave Europe an ever decreasing share of the world market. Thus, the competition among European countries for a bigger share of the world market would inevitably become aggravated. At the same time, under the pressure of USA, capitalist powers of Europe would also try to unite their forces. As we are finishing the subject of the United States of Europe, it seems that there is not a lot of things that must be added to Trotsky’s words. In the imperialist world wars that transform the world into a hell, the working class had suffered two times from following the liberal bourgeois lies. And today American imperialism is declaring war all around in order to become unrivalled sovereign of the world. Neither “United Nations” nor “European Union” is able to prevent this madness. On the contrary, all present unions of the imperialist system are dragging into deep crisis in the period of a new sharing war. American imperialism claims to introduce a new “order” to the world on lines of the interest of its own oil and arm barons. We will see whether the European Union, supposedly proceeding in a road to become a capitalist “United States of Europe”, can exist as a “unity” even at the present level. The allegation that capitalist Europe can represent an anti-war and a democratic choice against the aggressive USA will inevitably collapse once again with a big uproar. In the imperialist epoch, the argument that democracy and peace can be achieved by the capitalist Europe is a poisonous lie for the working class. A democratic and peaceful world can be achieved only and only by the revolutionary power of the working class. Therefore the sole salvation for our world being under the invasion of imperialist aggressors is the proletarian world revolution that will sweep away capitalism from our planet. The slogan of the United Workers’ Soviets of Europe as a part of Workers’ Soviets of the World, which will be a gift of this revolution to humanity, is still valid.

Imperialist unions cannot be permanent

There have been several imperialist unions on different levels since the beginning of the twentieth century and formation of such unions today is quite possible. But, because of deep crises of capitalist system which are unavoidable, such unions are always bound to contain the risk of disintegration. Lenin noted that the imperialist tendency to form big empires was, in practice, being frequently materialised in the form of imperialist alliances of sovereign and politically independent states. He says: “Such an alliance is possible and is encountered not only in the form of an economic merger of the finance capital of two countries, but also in the form of military “co-operation” in an imperialist war.” [1] It must be kept in mind that multi-national companies have a complicated structure and that the tendency of capital towards union makes its way through counteracting factors. Kautsky denied this important fact and asserted that it was possible capitalism might enter a new phase beyond imperialism from an economic point of view. Moving from Hilferding’s “organised capitalism” Kautsky said competition and struggle among finance capital groups with different national identities could be overcome. For him, the finance capital united on an international level could usher in a new era, an era of “ultra-imperialism,” based on a joint exploitation of the world. In criticism of Kautsky, Lenin says that it is possible only in an abstract sense that the monopolist tendency leads to a world monopoly. All dead abstractions about “ultra-imperialism” would serve to divert attention away from the profoundness of existing contradictions. Best answer to these kinds of dead abstractions is to lay bare concrete economic realities of the world economy. It is in contrast to concrete structural features of capitalism to claim that the tendency towards union operating among big capital groups would completely abolish competition among nation-states. It is completely wrong to jump over to an extreme as if a real tendency is realised hundred percent in reality. This is against Marxist method which seeks to grasp things in their contradictions in life. Monopolisation and internationalisation of capital do not lessen contradictions on a national and world scale, rather aggravate them. On the other hand, rise of competition to the level of a competition among monopolies encourages economic unions both on a national and international level. The existence of monopolist capitalist countries such as the US having enormous resources drives other countries having no such power towards union. Regardless of the level of such drives, they essentially rest not on an abstract wish for union but on quest for maximizing capitalist interests. Unions formed by major capitalist powers to divide the world into spheres of influence, though they might include some weak countries, would be imperialist unions first and foremost pursuing the interests of the former countries, not abolishing the conflicts among them. It is thus in contrast to real workings of capitalism to perceive imperialist unions and alliances as unbreakable, static and stable unions. Capitalist blocs cannot be lasting. They change as the power balance changes. The assumption that EU or similar unions can abolish the contradictions between member nation-states and start an era of super-union free of inner conflicts has not stood, and cannot stand, the test of realities. In capitalism division of interests and spheres of interest is solely based on the general economic, financial, military might of the parties involved. The balance of power between those involved does not remain same, but it changes. For capitalism means unequal development and it is impossible for countries, industries, monopolies to develop equally. As Lenin said, it is unthinkable that the balance between imperialist powers would remain same in 10 or 20 years’ time. The history of imperialism is full of examples proving the possibility of formation of military, economic alliances, coalitions, blocs, institutions when there are joint interests between various capitalist powers for them to stand against their rivals. European Union is exactly such a union. Formed out of certain concrete conditions and calculations, such unions break up when conditions change, and there will be new ones. The fate of the European Union should certainly be assessed in this framework.

America’s rivalry has given rise to the European Union

Contrary to what some bourgeois writers tried to portray, the European Union in its whole actual course has in no way advanced towards lifting the borders between European countries. What essentially motivated the union was not the tale of integrating the common historical and cultural identity of Europe but economic interests as always the case with such formations. The main motive that lay beneath the progress from the EEC to the EU was to gain more competitiveness by getting united against the USA and Japan. The mounting competition among imperialist powers in 1960s, between the USA and Europe in particular, motivated the aim of advancing the economic unity of Europe. The competition between the trading blocs of America and Europe was feverishly addressed by some bourgeois European writers to accelerate the efforts towards EU. Servan-Scheiber’s book entitled The American Challenge was an important example of this genre in 1960s. [2] In imperialist era which is based on worldwide movement of finance capital, it is impossible to bring a “common market” under control and protection based solely on the interests of the member states. Other grand rivals would seek and find ways into this “market” as long as they find it profitable and advantageous. Thus European common market has been an attractive place for investment and sale for American and Japanese companies during the period of economic upswing. Imperialist capital groups that belong to different trading blocs try to be active both within their own trade bloc and in the rivals’ and divide the lot according to their size and might regardless of national or continental identities. Thus, just as it is not possible in a capitalist partnership for all partners to get equal shares, it is not a rule that the ones to get the most out of the European common market must necessarily be its members. Hence the effort of those countries such as Germany and France not content with the common market to seek a tighter monetary and economic union in the face of rivals. Also “deterrent” measures to prevent member states to resort to devaluation to increase their exports were brought in.

From EEC to EU

In the aftermath of the Second World War Europe was in ruins and exhausted. The US imperialism however kept its ascendency and became a world hegemonic power. The Bretton-Woods agreement, for instance, was one of the embodiments of the domination of American economy. As Trotsky said, the centre of gravity of the world economy had shifted from Mediterranean to Pacific. In a decline accelerated by the Second World War, Europe came to be in need of America’s aid. It was surely unthinkable that the USA would not rush to the rescue of European capitalism against the danger of a revolution in Europe at a time when the Soviet Union set out to form its “socialist” bloc. More importantly, as in the aftermath of all big imperialist wars, the USA considered Europe a profitable area of reconstruction and a fruitful area of investment after the destruction of Europe. With the aid of the USA through Marshall Plan the old continent began to experience a new capitalist boom. The main conditions of the plan disclosed by the US General Marshall were that the tension between France and Germany would be ended, economies of European countries be internationalised and financial discipline be established. On the other hand, there was the need to protect the European market in the face of big rivals such as the USA and Japan, which led the way to European common market and customs union. As it is impossible for European nation-states individually to cope with the world competition in imperialist era, they set out for an economic union among themselves. In the first place the European Coal and Steel Community was established in 1952 to protect steel and coal industries which were very important at that time. The six founding member states were France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg, which were called The Six. This is followed by preparations for a more extensive common market including other commodities and a wider union. In 1957 Treaty of Rome was signed by the Six and European Economic Community was founded. The main aim of the EEC was to establish a common market and a customs union wherein free movement of commodities, services, capital and workforce would be possible. And in January 1959 the member states made the first reduction in tariffs which was 10%. In July 1968 tariffs among member states were removed and a common tariff was agreed to be applied to non-member countries. The main problem of European big capital was to survive and strengthen the European trade bloc vis-à-vis US (and Japanese) imperialism. In striving to solve this problem various European countries signed an agreement for a single market in 1987 that can pursue a common policy of prices. EEC would begin to be called European Community with 1980s and later in 1993 it turned into European Union. In 1997 the Union made a decision to expand, obviously considering the new balance of forces in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. [3] The Delors Report of the EU, dated 1989, set the convergence criteria for member countries to follow in order to proceed towards financial and economic union. And the Maastricht Treaty signed in 1992 set various economic and financial criteria for the member states. One aspect of the treaty was to achieve European Monetary Union (EMU) and start a common European currency. Many member countries entered new millennium with euro as their currency and in 2002 the euro became the only currency of the EU by and large. Another criterion in the Maastricht Treaty was that the budget deficit in member countries must be at most 3% of the GDP. Even the relatively strong Germany has failed to meet this criterion. With the pretext of reducing deficit public expenditures have been cut across Europe. The attack on the social rights won by hard struggles of the working class has gone rampant through practices such as privatisation, de-unionisation, outsourcing, and flexible work regime. These measures imposed as criteria for union by European capitalists clearly demonstrate whose union is the European Union. Many economic and financial criteria that can be implemented in a feverish economic conjuncture have not worked due to the conditions of stagnation. For instance, although the EU criteria require that the tendency to union not be hindered by protective measures, with the insufficient level of economic growth member states became worried to maintain their national income and budget balances. In fact this project for union was already maimed due to the spasm experienced by the world economy when the leading imperialist powers of the EU, i.e. German and French imperialisms, imposed single currency and boosted the propaganda for union. The future of the EMU which is presented to be a lasting monetary union is uncertain in the event of the EU going into a process of disintegration. One of the main reasons for the hegemony war launched by the US imperialism in Iraq is the contention between euro and dollar which is a direct consequence of the rivalry between EU and USA. If we consider historical examples, we can see that a stable system of currency can only be possible in a period of ascendency with a relative balance secured under a hegemonic power like in the example of Bretton Woods in the aftermath of the Second World War.

EU is a contradictory union

In the period of feverish economic growth after the Second World War until 1974 the big capitalist powers of Europe indeed moved on towards economic union as it suited their interests. Headed by Germany and France, this process of getting united was not without contradictions and problems. For instance, as France under De Gaulle was sceptical of Britain for its intimacy with the USA vetoed her first application to join the EEC and Britain could join only later in 1973. Over time there would be many conflicts among member states. The EU experience demonstrated that a union of nation-states without contradictions is not possible under capitalism. At turning points where political balances change or economic situation deteriorates these contradictions deepen and bring serious tensions, conflicts. And the time when the Soviet Union collapsed was such a time. German unification in the aftermath of the collapse of Stalinism made Germany potentially a big economic power. In the struggle for hegemony going on within the EU German imperialism made a leap forward and embarked on taking a strong role in Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Slovakia an so on. It also advanced its role in the Russian market in its effort to surpass the rivals. While the Bosnian war revealed the imperialist ambitions of the EU, it also demonstrated the impossibility of an EU free of conflicts of interest among member countries. It exposed the impossibility of the big powers of Europe, i.e. France, Germany and Britain, to follow a common foreign policy. Because whenever it suited their interests each of them could draw near to another power, i.e. the USA, without bothering about its European “brothers”. France seeks to limit the hegemony of German imperialism within the EU and place an alliance of France-Germany at the heart of the union. And Germany is conscious of the fact that it can pursue its imperialist ambitions only under a cover of Europeanism. German imperialism needs to develop its power in political, diplomatic and military terms as well. Quests for coming close to Russia, plans to form a European Army outside NATO, the propaganda that a European federation can be set up, are all consequences of it. As to Britain, although certain bourgeois sections opt for the EU, she is kind of an extension of the USA within the EU. [4] Because the USA is the guarantor and protector of investments of London across the world. Britain, in search of maintaining her superiority and cunning skills in world politics and diplomacy obtained during the era of big colonial empires, is playing the role of a scornful imperialist power coupling its assets with the economic and military power of the USA. Hence, as if to prove its exceptional imperialist position, it has neither become part of Schengen nor euro, let alone its insistence on not changing certain standards including things like traffic direction. Its essential role in the EU is to weaken the role of the France-Germany axis. It is in search of undermining the EU by making it something different from what France and Germany intend it to be, and this effort includes its policy to include countries like Eastern European countries and Turkey that are supposed to play the role of Trojan horses of the USA.

Turkey’s uncertain EU journey

Turkey-EU relations have had their ups and downs for the last 40 years with an uncertain future. Turkey made its application for full membership of EEC in 1959. In its reply EEC recommended a partnership agreement that would be in force until the point where full membership criteria are reached. This agreement was signed in 12 September 1963. According to this agreement called Ankara Agreement after a certain transition period Turkey would completely join the European Customs Union. At the end of this period of preparation Additional Protocol was signed in 13 November 1970 and it was put in force in 1973. With the protocol first tariff reductions were made and preparations for membership were accelerated. But Turkey was not going to be able to fulfil its obligations due to economic and political crisis conditions and the angle between the EEC and Turkey would grow. After the military coup in 12 September 1980 the Community suspended its relations with Turkey and financial cooperation was ceased. Negotiations restarted in 1986 thanks to factors such as the first parliamentary elections after the coup held in 1983 in Turkey and the beginning of integration with the world economy in 1984. In 14 April 1987 Turkey applied for full membership and tariff reductions began in 1988 with a rapid pace. It was agreed that the process of customs union would be complete in 1995 and following the negotiations and preparations in the years that followed Customs Union between the EU and Turkey started on January 1, 1996. However, despite the process of expansion agreed in the 1997 summit of the EU, the Turkey problem remained unsolved and only in the Helsinki summit in December 1999 Turkey was given the status of candidate member in the framework of certain conditions. In 2000 the EU drew up the Accession Partnership Document for Turkey. And a plan for partnership relation between EU and Turkey (a road map) was drawn. Afterwards Turkey made some legal regulations to comply with the EU criteria and the so called “harmonization package” was passed hastily from parliament. There was a general mood that in the 2002 December summit Turkey who seemed to have convinced the EU that it was implementing certain criteria would be given a date for full membership. But in reality among the conditions put forward by the EU was the solution of Cyprus question. TUSİAD, the union of big capital, and pro-EU bourgeois milieus pressed for a speeding up of reforms in political and legal sphere in Turkey and a solution for gangrenous questions like Cyprus according to the demands of the EU. The Ecevit government which was said to be an obstacle for the process of change had to step down and early elections were held. The elections on 3 December 2002 put an end to the period of old political parties and coalition governments of them. These old parties have in recent years been discredited in the eyes of the masses. Even in the first days of its rule the AKP was anxious to speed up the process of joining the EU with the pressure of the pro-EU big capital milieus. But the strife between the USA and EU which for a long time has its reflection in the ruling circles in Turkey was soon to put its grip over the AKP government and the fate of the process of joining the EU was again to fall into uncertainty. And the expectation of Turkey for membership was to fall to the barbed wire of Cyprus question in the Copenhagen summit. While the summit which was held on 12-13 December 2002 gave the date 16 April 2003 for membership of Southern Cyprus, it was declared that the situation with Turkey was to be overviewed at the end of December 2003. It is nearly impossible for the traditional ruling forces in Turkey, the high level state bureaucracy, the army staff being in the first place, to come to terms with any proposals for a political solution to Cyprus question or Kurdish question and act in accordance with the EU. Although in recent years organisations of big capital have increasingly taken an attitude in favour of the EU, the decisive role of the army staff in the ruling heights of Turkey can by no means be ignored. And the primary role belongs to this element of ruling elite in uniform as a strategic partner of the USA within the NATO alliance in drawing Turkey into the war front. In fact, as a peculiarity of the capitalist development in Turkey, the army is in the position of the representative of one of the biggest financial capital groups. Although the chief of staff appeared to be taking a softer position about EU criteria since the last days of Ecevit government, the new order of warfare being involved in the Middle East has made the cooperation with the USA more important. The conflicting process over the EU flows in fact from the Turkish bourgeoisie’s need for a deeper incorporation into the imperialist system. Keep in mind that all sections of the big bourgeoisie know very well that national isolation would mean sort of an economic and political suicide. What matters to them is to choose their allies according to their own interests in this scramble for greater share. The fact that a bourgeois section or organisation which appears to stand against the EU with a jargon of “national independence” is in fact an expression of their effort to blur the consciousness of the masses and to conceal their choice, let’s say, in favour of the USA instead of the EU. The fact that there was no certain date determined for Turkey’s full membership in the December 2002 Copenhagen summit is considered a retrograde step taken by the EU in its endeavour to dismiss a perspective of Turkey’s membership. One element that strengthened the hand of the alliance of Germany and France who are unwilling about Turkey’s membership was that the ruling circles in Turkey and Northern Cyprus were unwilling to accept the Annan Plan which proposes a “joint state” on the Cyprus question and that they were also in search of a US backing for their cause. Moreover, preparations for an Iraq war by the USA without EU consent have already increased the tensions between the USA and EU. Thus the EU membership of both Turkey and Northern Cyprus has now entered in a process of utter uncertainty. Although there may be some new developments in the EU course of Turkey depending on the course of the hegemony war between imperialist powers this question is not simply a question of joining the EU. This long-time painful question has become part of the “new world order” which is now being forged through the flames of imperialist wars.

The fate of the European Union is uncertain

The European Union spearheaded by Germany and France has for some time been under serious tension. Europe had been in a disadvantageous position against its main rival, namely the USA, due to factors such as low growth rates, high labour costs and insufficient industrial integration level around the continent. Additionally, the big crisis and war atmosphere increased the tension within the EU bringing it to the brink of disintegration. In fact the plan of the EU to expand towards Middle and East Europe, Balkans even Turkey means in a sense a watering down of the union by the USA. The USA intends to undermine the EU and take it under its hegemony by encouraging the entry of those countries that are considered to be easier to keep under control of the US. At a time when American imperialism raises the tension in a drive to reshape the world the EU is cracking while it tries to expand. With its current attitude Britain, as one of the biggest components of the EU, takes its side with the USA and not with the EU. Many EU members support the US’ war coalition either directly or indirectly. The plight of the EU displays that it is not at all the kind of union that progresses towards a joint state contrary to the promoters of the myth of a capitalist European Federation. European Union is essentially an economic union. It is an economic association formed by the big capital in various European countries to maintain and expand their spheres of hegemony. While the fact that it is based on the European continent gives it a unique character, in the final analysis, it has similar foundations with other economic unions encountered in the monopolist stage of capitalism. Of course it cannot be ignored that the geographical and cultural affinity of European countries gives a special importance to the commercial and economic relations among them. However, overrating the question of “union” of European countries and arguing that the nation-states of Europe will unite under a new nation-state would be completely wrong. The dream of a United States of Europe came into the stage by the pressing need of overcoming the narrow framework of nation-states which is an obstacle to European capitalism which had elevated to the monopolist stage. However it was but a delusion that these fetters could be overcome and productive forces would continue their development without contradiction under capitalism. While some are waiting for the train that is supposed to carry the EU to the United States of Europe in a manner of political mindlessness, the real world has begun to shake by the US’ hegemony war. With this new period we have just entered, let alone the delusion to achieve a United States of Europe, all capitalist alliances which marked the long period after the Second World War are cracking. The fate of all capitalist unions and blocks from NATO through the United Nations to the EU is uncertain. Since every “union” based on conflicts of interest is destined to fall apart with reshuffling of cards. In a word, the fate of the European Union which is said to progress towards the goal of United States of Europe is not certain even in its present form. Therefore let alone the dream of a capitalist United States of Europe even a project of a lasting European Union is destined to fail in the test of realities. [1] Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, LCW, v.23 [2] In this book, published in September 1967, Jean-Jacques Servan-Schreiber advocated that, in the face of the challenge posed by America, Europe needed a change in organisation and mentality and a technological breakthrough in order not to become a satellite of it. He said the only way to counter the competition of America was economic, financial, political and judicial cooperation, reviving the bourgeois’ dream of United States of Europe. He advanced the idea that a big state to cope with big affairs in Europe must be a federal state like the USA necessitated by international division of labour. And he was trying to implant this idea to the working class as a hope. Contending that the European left needed a renewal, he advised the way for a social conciliation among workers’ unions, boss’ unions and governments. According to this, those countries such as Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Estonia that are more advanced in terms of complying the EU criteria would be accepted as members in the first round, and be followed by a second round of countries such as Slovak Republic, Lithuania, Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania. And later Malta, Turkey and South Cyprus were added to the list. This was the plan for enlargement of the EU, which means addition of 13 candidate members to the existing 15 members, i.e. Germany, France, Britain, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Austria, Ireland, Spain, Greece and Portugal. [4] For instance, Thatcher, who was one of the most prominent figures of neoliberal wave, claimed that all problems that are dealt with by the world were generated by Europe and that founding of EU was “perhaps the biggest stupidity of modern age.” As former leader of Tories Thatcher says Britain must withdraw from key agreements of the EU such as agriculture, fisheries and defence.

EU and the delusion of peaceful capitalist development

Liberals and their leftwing variations seasoned with Marxism are very keen to present EU imperialism as an alternative of democracy and peace against U.S. imperialism. These empty dreams spread by the media feed illusions entertained by the masses. Yet, there can be nothing as erroneous as to envisage that humanity’s need for a real peace can be brought by some imperialist alliance. The argument that the European Union is, or can be, a power protecting world peace against the aggressive USA is one of the empty dreams liked by those who seek to escape from disturbing realities of capitalist system such as destructive crises and imperialist wars. And history of imperialism, as if to tear apart this curtain of dream, subjected peoples of the world to realities such as the great depression and wars of re-divide. In fact, this is a well-known fact by all Marxists. However, in the beginning of twenty first century when an imperialist war of re-divide is in progress, as in the beginning of twentieth century, the masses are again being exposed to “peace” dreams. Such attitudes mean nothing but reviving the evil of Kautskyism. The social chauvinists of the Second International who took side with “their own” bourgeois governments during the first imperialist war and voted for war expenditures had created democratic and peaceful illusions in the masses before the war. That is why the working masses were pushed into a position of passive waiting while imperialist powers were in feverish preparations for war. And the illusions were still alive when the war broke out. All social-pacifists tried to prevent workers from using the class struggle weapon against imperialist war of re-divide. Millions of people who experienced the horrors of the First World War were made believe that that war was the last one. But with the second imperialist war of re-divide, the world was once again covered with the blood of millions of workers. But the bad memories of the past seemed to have been forgotten in the long years that followed the world war. In those years when the world workers’ movement was in decline there was a big political void. And in many regional wars, in Yugoslavia, Somali, Rwanda, and Palestine, where imperialist powers settled their accounts, it was those peoples living there who were deeply affected as the saying goes: “An ember burns where it falls”. As present day developments strikingly vindicate once more, no period in the history of imperialism justified reformists disseminating peace illusions. In only those periods of long-term economic upswing there were relative peaceful alliances among great capitalist powers. However, a worldwide economic stagnation has inevitably aggravated contradictions and sparked new wars. Therefore, relatively “peaceful” periods are in the last analysis nothing but “breathing spaces” between wars. As Lenin put it, imperialist unions that were taken by those like Kautsky as embryos of a post-imperialism period of peace are in fact means of transition from peaceful division of the world to non-peaceful division, and vice-versa. In capitalism, once relations of power changed, there is no other means but force to resolve contradictions. The most characteristic feature of imperialism is the competition for hegemony among a few great powers. If the strife for hegemony and re-devision of spheres of influence among imperialist powers somehow set some imperialist countries against one another, the parties would have to settle their accounts and set a new balance of power according to their real strengths. This is in the nature of capitalism. Capitalism cannot exist without competition and conflicts among nation-states, including imperialist era. This does not only concern the world in general but also the European continent in particular. If tension rises as a consequence of heated competition and bring two European countries -say Britain and Germany- against each other, then the ruling bourgeois of these countries will never heed those social priests preaching “European Union”. What form the tensions among countries can take is of secondary importance compared to the main factor, i.e. economic competition. Keep in mind that at some point speeches and diplomacy in the struggle among striving capitalist powers come to an end and guns start to talk both in the era of capitalist colonialism and in the era of imperialist expansion. The idea that the process of internationalisation of capital can lessen the conflicts among nation-states, or even usher in a new era that transcends nation-states is utterly unfounded. As Trotsky put, “So long, however, as the main productive forces of society are held by trusts, i.e., isolated capitalist cliques, and so long as the national state remains a pliant tool in the hands of these cliques, the struggle for markets, for sources of raw materials, for domination of the world, must inevitably assume a more and more destructive character.” [1] With the new millennium imperialist system has plunged into such a deep and acute crisis different from the previous periodic crises that even bourgeois strategists cannot predict the time when it will end. This is the reason lying beneath the determination of the US to drive the whole world into hysteria of war in the new period started in the aftermath of the 11th of September.

EU and the dream of a stable democracy

We know that with the beginning of the 20th century our world became the stage for the highest stage of capitalism, the rise of the international rule of finance capital. With capitalist production reaching greater dimensions the era of free competition was replaced by the era of monopoly capitalism. The economic essence of imperialism means giant monopolies on a national and international level. These monopolies find expression in the formation of various unions on a national and international level, in the rise of power of giant banks transcending national boundaries, centralisation in the hands of a few of capital concentrated enormously. With the development of monopolism, political superstructure of capitalism changes from democracy to political reaction. Lenin said, “imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field.”[2] This assessment is essentially correct and is a reply to those arguments that imperialist era has created an expansion in democracy compared to the previous era of capitalism. But as Lenin pointed out, this fact does not mean that differences in political regimes in bourgeois order are removed. As can be seen throughout all history of capitalism, also within the imperialist stage there can be differences in political structuring of the bourgeois order depending on the country and time. For example, in European countries there have been, for a long time, relatively bourgeois democratic regimes compared to countries like Turkey. No doubt that in the last analysis certain economic realities underlie this difference. In those countries like Turkey that frequently fall into the grip of crises the bourgeois order has proved that it has been short of breath for a western European type bourgeois democracy. In any case, to avoid any misunderstandings, we must clearly state that the democracy in Europe is a class democracy; the democracy of the ruling bourgeois class, i.e. parliamentary form of its class dictatorship. Although this fact is so clear for the Marxists, the “democratic” framework of the European Union might look appealing for the working masses of those countries that have failed to achieve even this level of democratic life. This is understandable. But, to tell the truth, the bourgeois democratic framework that is presently possessed by the European Union is in fact not a lasting and stable one at all. This framework is a consequence of a long period of economic upswing that stretches from the aftermath of the Second World War to recent times. One should not forget that before this period, big imperialist power Germany which leads the European Union at present was suffering under Hitler fascism. Some people argued that the relatively peaceful and democratic period in the aftermath of the Second World War is a new phase which has been built on the lessons of world war and fascism and which will never be lost again. For them, political and legal unity in Europe would usher in an era of democracy and set an example for other parts of the world. These kinds of mindless ideas that have been propagated among the masses are nothing new. At a time when European continent was convulsed by the rule of fascism and a second world war, petty-bourgeois pacifism took comfort in a dream of “democracy” that was to be brought by the Allied imperialist powers. Against these kinds of delusions Trotsky said that the pledge that a democratic European federation would be created was the most vulgar one of all pacifist lies. State was not an abstraction but an instrument of monopoly capitalism. As long as capitalist property was maintained a “democratic federation” in Europe would be a very bad repetition of League of Nations at most. The dream of an ideal and enduring “European democracy” stems from a mindset which cannot or does not want to grasp the essential features of imperialism. And although it has been popular for a long time, it seems that it cannot stand the burning realities of the day. The European continent is not immune to consequences of the great crisis that has shaken the USA, the hegemonic power of imperialist system, to its foundations and brought down the Twin Towers that have been the symbol of the capitalist American dream. Accordingly, with the stumbling in economy in recent years the first targets to come under attack in Europe have been the democratic and social rights of the working class. The US’s declaration of war against the world and the rising workers’ movement in European countries toll the bells for the European bourgeoisie. In the new period we have entered, the ruling bourgeois will attempt to restrict the bourgeois democratic framework at the cost of damaging the veneer of “historical-cultural superiority of Europe”. It is not the job of Marxists to sow illusions about bourgeois democracy among the working class by exaggerating the relatively broader aspects of the bourgeois democratic regime in Europe in comparison to Turkey. This is what the liberal lefts are doing. Our task is to erect the alternative of workers’ democracy vis-à-vis bourgeois democracy which has a limited significance in its essential character, even in its broadest form, for the working class and which, in fact, veils exploitation. However revolutionary struggle is a long-running one. One cannot attain the goal at once. It is a “childhood disorder” to assume that the realities that can be grasped easily by revolutionary cadres can be grasped by the masses immediately and easily. We know what bourgeois democracy in European countries mean in the last analysis. At a time when workers’ democracy is a burning need, bourgeois democracy, even in its “European form,” cannot be regarded as a remedy as it is indeed the rule of the bourgeois class. It is this bourgeois democracy that fuels xenophobia, and uses the conditions it brings immigrant workers in as a threat to cut down the rights of the European working class. Consequently, the pledge that EU membership will bring all members an ever-widening wealth and democracy is a hollow pledge. For us it is not a justifiable thing to tie the hope for a better future to an imperialist union instead of relying on the organised power and struggle of the working class. But we must employ a very careful language in our propaganda towards the masses. One cannot do away with the illusions of the masses at one blow. Most of the working masses in Turkey and Northern Cyprus look at their own plight and nurture aspirations for a democratic regime at least on the level of European democracy. In European countries, however, we see developments in the opposite direction. The most powerful factor to end these illusions of the masses in Turkey and Northern Cyprus that have a sympathetic attitude towards EU membership in relation to expanding democratic rights will in the last analysis be their own experience in real life. Moreover the present realities of capitalist system surface in a more striking and quicker way than in the past. To make up liberal tales that Turkey will be a heaven of democracy should it join the EU is something genuine Marxists cannot do. But the alternative is not to argue for a despotic-repressive statism in the name of nationalist leftism which is neither fish nor fowl. In other words, not to tail-end EU-loving liberals does not justify at all the kind of opposition to EU that is reduced to the level of nationalist bourgeois. In fact, the latter are much more an obstacle than the former to the progress of the working class. And they force the working class into the old repressive framework. For example, it is not a bad thing at all, with respect to a state of general inaction, that for the working class of Turkey to demand a broader democratic regime in the example of European countries and embark on a struggle for more advanced demands. But one thing should never be forgotten! Advanced demands can be won and preserved by having confidence in and relying on one’s own organised strength, not by relying on the organisations of the bourgeois such as the EU.

Petty-bourgeois opposition is a dead end

Capitalist unions are no charity institutions. It is contrary to the logic of capitalism that all partners gain equally. For example, relatively less developed countries and regions are put in a disadvantageous position due to the common agriculture and price policy within the European Union. Likewise, common customs policy works in the same way. These consequences result in an opposition in the European Union countries, members and candidates alike, of farmers and the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois sections whose interests are damaged. However, while opposing to joining capitalist unions, these opposition currents that do not aim at the foundations of capitalism, wallow in a defence of “national capitalism” which is incompatible with the economic realities of the day. The main feature of petty-bourgeois opposition, with all its tendencies, left, right, reformist or revolutionary, against imperialism is that they detach existing problems from the dominant tendency of capitalist development. For example, when Turkey applied for membership to the European Common Market in 1963, Turkish left objected with the slogan: “they are common/partners we are the market.” While this slogan is an expression of unequal relations within imperialist-capitalist unions, the extent of reaction was in general on the level of a so-called anti-imperialism detached from a genuine struggle against capitalism. And this slogan, given the conditions of that period, even meant defence of national capitalism against Europe. Petty-bourgeois leftism opposes defence of “national independence” against the historical tendency of capitalism towards unity. This attitude is not revolutionary but nationalist in essence. Since national independence in reality means achievement of political independence, that is establishment of nation-state. In all countries where political independence has been achieved and a bourgeois rule has been established, the urge to carry on the struggle against imperialism with the aim of “national independence” but not of socialism is essentially to subscribe to “national capitalism.” And this, in the last analysis, means to advocate an impossible and retrogressive goal, that is, national isolation. When it comes to opposing EU we have to remember this reality. We should fight the kind of opposition to EU which is based on petty-bourgeois nationalist hysteria as it leads to serving bourgeois nationalism. What is needed is a kind of opposition to EU which is based on anti-capitalism in order the working class struggle to be placed in an internationalist revolutionary path and to be strengthened. This and only this attitude can clear the minds of the workers and toilers who require satisfactory answers. In imperialist stage of capitalism a “national capitalism” isolated from outside is never possible. Since capitalist system rests on mutual dependence relations with unequal workings. Therefore, the fact that weaker capitalist countries with respect to powerful imperialist countries have a tendency towards economic convergence and partnership/collaboration on an international level with this or that advanced capitalist country or countries cannot be regarded as a mere question of political choice. This tendency flows from a need imposed by inner workings of capitalist system. Although in certain periods some bourgeois governments appear to take a reverse path under the pretext of “national interests” the end result remains more or less the same. No bourgeois government has ever managed to turn back the wheels of the economy with simultaneously talking about “economic independence” and remaining in capitalist system. While all those bourgeois governments that have undergone economic regression and collapse under talk of “economic independence” could turn their backs on an imperialist power, they have not, or cannot, come up with an outcome other than going into the orbit of another imperialist power. When we dig in the petty-bourgeois left circles’ discourse covered with revolutionary guise we will see not a future that represent a transcending of capitalist system towards socialism but an aspiration for “a country that gives the highest priority to fully independent and national interests.” The petty-bourgeois left groups in Turkey or north Cypru s that have swung to nationalist line reveal in a striking way what this aspiration really means. These circles cover their propaganda with revolutionary words that they borrow from Marxism as long as they speak in the abstract. However, when it comes to a serious and concrete problem they do not shrink away from offering their direct or indirect support to their bourgeois under the pretext of “national interests.” Who are they? No need to count their names here, but you can arrive at right addresses if you follow, for example in Turkey, the nationalist attitudes (oppressor nation nationalism) on the Kurdish question. Or, it is quite instructive, for example, that the communist party of Greek Cyprus, i.e. AKEL, tail-ended their nationalist bourgeois and supported nationalist Papadopulous in the last elections. In fact it is quite common to come across such attitudes on the question of EU among so-called “communist” parties and petty-bourgeois left circles in Turkey. A genuine revolutionary, a genuine Marxist stands against EU or a likewise imperialist union not from the standpoint of defending the “national interests” of his own ruling bourgeoisie, but of the aims of the revolutionary working class struggle. To content oneself with saying “no” to imperialist unions and institutions and not to make the necessity of ending capitalism the major axis is petty-bourgeois leftism. All those petty-bourgeois left currents that take struggle against imperialism as only a defence of “national economy-national state,” seek to direct the attention of the working class not towards a future transcending capitalist system but towards the past, i.e. founding period of nation-states. Capitalist mode of production is a global system that creates a world market and connects the destinies of different nations. In the course of capitalist development different nations’ achievement of independence has not been simultaneous with the capitalist development of domestic market. But all countries advancing on capitalist foundations have faced at a certain stage the need to become incorporated into the imperialist system and went on advancing in this direction. In imperialist age, salvation of the proletariat, and toilers at large, in those countries which have established their nation-states and achieved national independence (to the extent it is possible under capitalism) requires not turning backwards but moving forward. The only way for salvation is to overthrow the unfair “globalisation” created by capitalism and build an egalitarian and exploitation-less globalisation in its place, that is, universal socialism. Therefore, a genuine and revolutionary struggle against the globalisation of the imperialist stage of capitalism bringing so much suffering to workers, can only be waged under the internationalist flag of socialism, and not under the flag of “national independence.”

The debate on accession to the EU is an internal question of the bourgeoisie

The way that Marx handled the debate between free trade and protectionism in his time is worth remembering as an historical example. Since replacing the title of the subject with “Joining the EU or Staying out of It?” will not change the essence. Marx pointed out how the pro-free trade faction of the bourgeoisie, advocating the change for its self interest, tried to present this change as though it was also for the good of the working class. He unmasked the true intentions of bourgeois layers that acted as liberals or progressives, in order that the working class was not deluded by them. In terms of economic workings of the bourgeois rule, there is no policy that can work to the mutual benefit of the bourgeoisie and the working class, neither free trade nor protectionism. In reality, whether under protectionism or free trade, workers will still remain to be the exploited class that produces the surplus value. Nothing, then, can be a more self-derogatory attitude for a wage-slave than to take sides in the dispute as to which one of the bourgeois alternatives is more favourable to remain a slave. Marxists do not preach to the working class on taking this or that side of a debate within the bourgeoisie. However, such questions have historical and social backgrounds and this is precisely the point where it is essential to enlighten the working class. As is known, as long as capitalism is not overthrown, it has to proceed in such a way as to strengthen economic ties and commercial relations on a world scale. Some bourgeois groups benefit from this trend whereas others’ interests are harmed. Thus, economic and political preferences are shaped in this context. For instance, the bourgeois elements that are highly dependent on the domestic market would insist on ‘‘protectionism’’ for their self-interests and base its propaganda on slogans such as “defend national interests!” As for pro-free traders, they would stand up for opening up to foreign markets and becoming well-known trade-marks etc. in the world arena as they cover their propaganda with a discourse in which they say that the best way to protect and develop “the national interests” is to take their way. So, this was the essence of the debate over “free trade” that occurred within the bourgeoisie in Marx’s day. The fundamental tendency of capitalist development was in many points in accord with the arguments of pro-free traders. Pro-protectionists were representing nationalism and conservatism which were by no means compatible with the long-term interests of the working class. The leftists who confined themselves to shouting “No!” to the change offered by pro-free trade layers of the bourgeoisie were not actually opposing the bourgeois rule. Such a stance did not amount to anything more than offering support to one of the bourgeois alternatives, and what’s more, to an alternative that would strengthen the nationalist, conservative and oppressive bourgeois layers. On the other side, even though those who wore themselves out for “Yes!” to free trade took a relatively progressive stance, their “progressivism” was not going beyond approving a bourgeois alternative and offering support to capitalist trend. The only aspect of the question that is of particular concern to the working class was the foundations laid by capitalist development for the future. For such foundations were indicating the developments that were accelerating the social revolution of the proletariat. In his speech delivered before the Democratic Association of Brussels on 9 January 1848, Marx was saying “Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of commerce we have the least intention of defending Protection.”[3] Marx pointed out that the system of free trade was generally destructive to the old equilibrium whereas the system of protectionism in operation was conservative. The system of free trade was going to break up old nations and push the antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme. To sum up in one sentence, the system of free trade was going to be the catalyst of the social revolution. And this was the only aspect of this debate that could be associated with the revolutionary interests of the proletariat. It was for this reason that Marx ended his speech with the following words: “It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favour of free trade.”[4] Marx’s approach should set an example for us. For revolutionary Marxists, wearing oneself out for “No!” like nationalist bourgeois or petty-bourgeois leftists who try to roll back the wheel of history can by no means be seen as the correct attitude towards debates on EU that take place in Turkey, Cyprus, and elsewhere. But neither is it a right attitude to hail the “Yes!” camp of bourgeois elements that side with imperialism. The mindset that can be outlined as, “Imperialism is the modern capitalism. The development of capitalism is inevitable and progressive. This means imperialism is progressive too. Therefore, one must kneel down before it and praise it,” befits to modern Cunows, which Lenin illustrated when he exposed Cunow who supported German Imperialism. The progress of capitalism, as Marx pointed out, concerns us only to the extent that it paves the way for the workers’ revolution that will overthrow this system, thus for the socialist future. The debates and confrontations over EU accession that take place in Turkey and elsewhere are basically internal questions of the bourgeoisie. We are not obliged to take sides, to say “yes” or “no”, in this debate. We must keep in mind that, regardless of the question, a correct attitude that is based on a Marxist point of view, reflecting the interests of the working class, can never be constrained within the framework of capitalism. The solution does not lie in capitalism either with or without EU. The road to liberation of the working class and toiling masses from the conditions of oppression and exploitation lies in the social revolution that will overthrow capitalist order. Let us also note that if the bourgeois are to form alliances such as the EU due to the necessities imposed by capitalist system and in order to overcome the obstacles posed by national borders in accordance with its self-interests, so be it! We are sure that all the steps to be taken in this direction (apart from the fact that it is uncertain whether they will take these steps or not or whether the EU will disintegrate or not) will serve, in the final analysis, as catalysts for the social revolution of the working class. In other words, no matter what all the bourgeois of the world do, they will not be able to free themselves from the laws of history!

Bourgeois alternatives cannot be the solution!

The interests of the working class do not require favouring one of the bourgeois alternatives against the other. But unfortunately, as seen in the cases of Turkey and Cyprus, whilst they are not yet convinced of the necessity of the revolutionary solution, the masses are confined within a double-sided bourgeois framework where one side is occupied by liberals and the other by nationalists. Unless this bourgeois framework is abandoned, the liberal attitude stands out as a more reasonable alternative than the nationalistic one which represents isolation from the world for the sake of so-called “national interests” and intensification of domestic oppression and exploitation. Those bourgeois alternatives that promise some reforms always sound appealing to the masses who suffer from oppressive and reactionary bourgeois alternatives. As long as they do not adopt revolutionary solutions, the working masses are doomed to be gripped by illusions in every major question. One must sense the mood of the masses under such illusions. However, sensing their mood does not mean to abandon the effort to show them these illusions. Marxist attitude has never had, and must never have, anything in common with tendencies that support the illusions of the masses for the sake of standing by them and that regard tail-ending them as virtue. There is an old saying, “All roads lead to Baghdad.” In today’s world, the solutions of all major social problems lie in the social revolution. If the masses do not find this convincing enough due to the incapacity of the forces and preparations of the revolution, then twisting the facts for the sake of impressing them will not help. The question regarding debates on the EU is very clear for revolutionary Marxists: capitalism with or without EU cannot bring any solution to problems of the working class. It is the shortest way to self-deception to expect a solution from “the lesser of two evils”, whilst remaining within the capitalist system in its period of decay. As seen in the cases of Turkish, Kurdish, Cypriot, Palestinian or Iraqi peoples, “the solution plans” of imperialist alliances such as the EU or the UN, to which the working masses cling as a hope of getting rid of existing conditions, are nothing but trickeries. Such plans are nothing but roadblocks put in the way of revolutionary solution which is, for today, considered impossible by workers and toilers. Therefore, unless the working class and toiling masses organise and mobilise themselves in order to implement a revolutionary plan that will represent their own interests, they will not be able to liberate themselves from being stuck in bourgeois alternatives and losing time. As long as they deceive themselves supporting bourgeois plans that are expected to change the poor conditions they live in, they will waste both today and the future in conflicts of interest between imperialist powers. The truth is that simple. But, it would be naive to expect masses to discover this in a trice. The task that lies ahead of revolutionary internationalist forces of the proletariat is to keep up the struggle tirelessly until the real solution is realised by the masses.

The solution lies in the revolutionary struggle of the working class

The imperialist stage of capitalism boosts concentration and centralisation of capital as well as monopolist mergers. This deepens the contradiction between two tendencies, economic centralisation and a fragmented political system composed of nation-states. Globalised capitalism imposes a globalisation in politics, that is, a central structure under control of hegemonic powers in the world arena. As distinct from the nationalist petty-bourgeois leftism, Marxism does not oppose a globalising, economically integrating world. Fragmentation of the world into small nation-states is also at variance with broader interests of the working class. However, what accompanies this political centralisation under capitalism is not the expansion of democracy, but rather the rise of militarism and oppressive policies. Having created a world system, capitalist mode of production makes it inevitable that there will be multifaceted relations and alliances at different levels rather than national isolation. Yet, what this inevitability really indicates is not to consent to the presence of the capitalist system as if it is an unchangeable reality, to comply with or even advocate its rules, but to transcend this rotten and degenerated capitalist order. In order to be able to offer solutions to today’s burning problems in favour of the working masses, it is indispensable to build a revolutionary alternative that goes beyond the existing order. And the alternative that must be advocated in today’s world can be nothing else than a workers’ power matching a globalised world. When it comes to the unity of Europe, the solution is clear. At the current level of productive forces, the interests of all humanity entail integration on the basis of a classless and non-exploitative order. Only a union under workers’ power can prevent the fragmentation of Europe due to confrontations between imperialist powers and national conflicts they provoke. Therefore, against “the European Union” of capitalists, internationalist communists support the programme of unity of the working class and raise the slogan “United Workers’ Soviets of Europe”. It is clear that, as the age of revolutionary upheavals gradually engulfs the world, revolutionary solutions proposed by the working class will find increasing echo in the hearts of the masses. Whenever it was shaken by imperialist wars and dragged into chaos, the world always was on the verge of revolutions. Today, this objective reality is as valid as, or even more valid than, it was yesterday. However, the objective reality will not change the world by itself, as long as the question of subjective factor, which is indispensible in mobilising the millions of working women and men of the world in a conscious and organised way, that is, the question of revolutionary leadership, remains unsolved. But, we can never deny the influence of objective realities on the revolutionary struggle. During the decades of growth of the capitalist economy, the revolutionary potential of the working class remained latent like the potential energy of a sleeping giant. Now the giant is waking up as the ground begins to be shaken by footsteps of workers in many countries of the world. Revolutionary forces of the proletariat have now left behind the dark period of swimming against the current. Consequently, the need for revolutionary internationalist organisation of the proletariat in every corner of the world has gained a much more decisive importance now. Let us remember that even in a very difficult period of history, during the days when the first imperialist war broke out and the Second International collapsed, Lenin did not abandon the historical optimism of Marxism. As Krupskaya recalled in her memoirs, he was saying, “It does not matter that we now number only a few individuals, millions will be with us!” The Great October Revolution proved Lenin right. As new generations of workers and toilers begin to mobilise all over the world today, we no longer “number only a few individuals”!

---