Lenin on European Unity

[p048] LENIN ON EUROPEAN UNITY The fight for a Socialist United States of Europe is basic to the revolutionary movement. From the earliest times the Bolsheviks and Lenin cam- paigned against any ‘unity’ of Europe on a capitalist basis and condemned any involve- ment in such a move by the socialist forces as class-colla- boration. Writing in 1915 Lenin des- cribed the idea of a United States of Europe under capi- talism as ‘impossible or re- actionary’. What he meant was that the antagonisms within the capitalist system—now at its highest stage, imperialism—. prevented any planned, ra- tional development of the economy of Europe as a whole. Any ‘unity’ proposed by the capitalist governments would be a fraud, a desperate act by the weaker capitalist systems of Europe to protect them- selves from the rigours of American competition and an alliance by the big monopolies against the working class. Such a ‘unity’ came to pass with the Third Reich. Now the capitalist nations of Europe are embarked on yet another attempt to find a concorde. The’ British Communist Party’s opposition to this latest attempt has nothing whatever to do with the Leninist position. The CP Stalinists are pri- marily concerned over the loss of ‘what they call our sover- eignty, heritage, etc. This is the foulest kind of petty-bour- geois nationalism, profoundly reactionary in character. Pre- sumably if the Common Mar- ket did not challenge the insti- 44 tutions and ethics of British capitalism, the Stalinists would be pleased to join! In this important article by Lenin published in August 1915, the Marxist approach is clearly outlined. It begins from the contra- diction within imperialism and proceeds to view any alliance of European states as essen- tially connected with the war- like trade relations that pre- vail under imperialism. The article can be found in Volume 18 of Lenin’s ‘Collected Works’, Martin Lawrence 1930. On Monday we _ publish Trotsky’s own brilliant an- alysis of the development of Europe. Manifesto Number 40 of the ‘Sotsial- Demokrat’ carried the infor- mation that the conference of the sections of our party situ- ated abroad had decided to postpone the question of the ‘United States of Europe’ slogan pending a press dis- cussion of the economic side of the question. The debate on this question at our conference assumed a one-sided political character. This was partly due to the fact that the manifesto of the Central Committee directly formulated this slogan as a political one (‘the nearest poli- tical slogan,’ etc.). The docu- ment emphasized not only a republican United States of Europe, but it especially men- tioned that ‘without a revolu- tionary overthrow of the Germa., Austrian, and Rus- sian monarchies’ this slogan is senseless and false. To argue against such an approach to the question while remaining entirely in the field of political analysis, for in- stance, to argue that this slogan obstructs or weakens the slogan of a socialist revo- lution, is entirely erroneous. Political changes of a truly democratic nature, especially political revolutions, can in no case and under no circum- stances either obstruct or weaken the slogan of a social- ist revolution. -On. the contrary, they always make it nearer, they widen the basis for it, they draw into the socialist struggle ever new strata of the petty bourgeoisie and the semi- proletarian masses. On the other hand, political revolu- tions are inevitable in the course of a socialist revolu- tion, which must not be looked upon as one single act, but must be considered as an epoch, a number of stormy political and economic up- heavals, a most sharpened class struggle, civil war, re- volutions and counter-revolu- tions. . But if the United States of of Europe slogan, conceived in connection with a revolu- tionary overthrow of the three most reactionary monarchies of Europe, headed by Russia, is entirely impregnable as a political slogan, there still re- mains the most important question of its economic con- tent and meaning. From the point of view of the economic conditions of imperialism, i.e., capital export and division of the world between the ‘pro- gressive’ and ‘civilized’ colo- Fourth international Spring 1973

[p049] nial powers, the United States of Europe under capitalism is either impossible or _reac- tionary Monopolies Capital has become inter- national and monopolistic. The world has been divided among a handful of great powers, i.e., powers successful in great plunder and in op- pression of nations. The four great powers of Europe, Eng- land, France, Russia, and Ger- many, with a population of 250 million to 300 million, with an area of about 7 million square kilometres, posses colo- nies numbering almost half a billion (494 million to 500 million inhabitants) with an area of 64.6 million square kilometres, i.e. almost half of the globe’s surface (153 million square kilometres, barring the Polar region). Add the three Asiatic states, China, Turkey, and Persia, which are now torn to pieces by the plunderers waging a war for ‘freedom,’ namely, Japan, Russia, England, and France. In those three Asiatic states, which may be called semi-colonial (in reality they are nine-tenths colonies), there are 360 million inhabitants, and their area is 14.5 million square kilometres (almost one and one-half times the area of the whole of Europe). Further, England, France and Germany have _ invested abroad no less than 70,000m ‘roubles. To receive a ‘lawful’ little profit from this pleasant sum, a profit exceed- ing 3,000m_ roubles an- nually, there are in existence the millionaires’ national com- mittees called governments, equipped with armies and navies, ‘placing’ in the colonies and semi-colonies the sons and brothers of ‘Mr. Billion’ in the capacity of viceroys, consuls, ambassadors, all kinds of officers, priests and other leeches. This is how, in the epoch of the highest capitalist de- velopment, the plundering of almost a billion of the earth’s population by a handful of great powers is organized. No other organization is possible under capitalism. To give up colonies, ‘spheres of influence’, export of capital? To think so is to come down to the level of a little minister who Lenin on European security ‘preaches to the rich every Sunday about the greatness of Christianity, advising them to give to the poor, if not several billions, at least several hun- red roubles yearly. A United States of Europe under capitalism means an agreement as to the division of colonies. Under capitalism, however, only force is possible as the basis, the principle of division. A_ billionaire cannot share the ‘national income’ of a capitalist country with any one otherwise than in propor- tion to the capital invested (with an extra bonus in addi- tion, so that the largest capital may receive more than _ its due). Capitalism is private pro- perty in the means of pro- duction, and anarchy of pro- duction. To preach a ‘just’ division of income on such a basis is Proudhonism, is thick- headed philistinism. One can- not divide the income other- wise than in proportion to power; and power changes in the course of economic de- velopment. Germany after 1871, grew in power three or four times faster than England and France; Japan, about ten times faster than Russia. To test the real power of a capitalist state, there is, and there can be, no other way than war. War is no contra- diction to the foundations of private property—-on the con- trary, it is a direct and in- evitable development of those foundations. Under capitalism, equal economic progress of the individual concerns, or indi- vidual states, is impossible. Under capitalism, no _ other means for periodically re- establishing destroyed equili- brium are possible outside of crises in industry or of wat in politics. Of course, temporary agree- ments between capitalists and powers are possible. In this sense the United States of Europe as the result of an agreement between the Euro- pean capitalists is possible but what kind of an agreement would that be? An agreement jointly to suppress socialism in Europe, jointly to guard colonial booty against Japan and America, which feel sligh- ted by the present division of colonies, and which, for the last half century, have grown infinitely faster than backward monarchist Europe, beginning to rot with age. In comparison with the United States of America, Europe as a whole signifies economic stagnation. On the present-day economic basis, i.e, under capitalism, the United States of Europe would mean an organization of re- action for thwarting the more rapid development of America. The days when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated with Europe alone have passed forever. The United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is a state form of national unifi- cation and freedom which we connect with socialism; we think of it as becoming a reality only when the full vic- tory. of communism will have brought about the total dis- appearance of any state, in- cluding its democratic form. As a separate slogan, however, the United States of the World would hardly be a cor- rect one, first because it coin- cides with socialism, second, because it could be erron- eously interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in one country is impossible; it could also create misconcep- tions as to the relations of such a country to others. Unequal economic and poli- tical development is an indis- pensable law of capitalism. It follows that the victory of socialism is, at the beginning, possible in a few capitalist countries, even in one, taken separately. The victorious pro- letariat of that country, hav- ing expropriated the capitalists and organized socialist pro- duction at home, would rise against the rest of the capi- talist world, aitracting the op- pressed classes of other coun- tries, raising among them revolts against the exploiting classes and their states. é Victorious The political form of a society in which the prole- tariat is victorious, in which it has overthrown the bour- geoisie, will be a democratic republic, . centralizing ever more the forces of the pro- letariat of a given nation or nations in the struggle against the states that have not yet gone over to socialism. It is impossible to annihilate classes without a dictatorship of the oppressed class, the proletariat. It is impossible freely to unite the nations in 45

[p050] a socialism without a more or dess prolonged, and stubbern struggle of the socialist repub- lics against the other states. ‘It is due to such considera- tions resulting from repeated debates at the conference of the sections of the Revolu- tionary Social-Democratic La- bour Party situated abroad and after, that the editors of the Central Organ came to the conclusion that the United States of Europe slogan is incorrect. ROTSKY: