November
1998, No, 131; "COMPASS";
COMMUNIST
LEAGUE
THE
SOVIET CAMPAIGN AGAINST COSMOPOLITANISM: 1947-1952
A
paper presented to the Stalin Society, London, on 1 November 1998
by
Bill Bland:Published on the web February 2000
Introduction
IN
1946-1952 THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION CARRIED ON AN INTENSIVE
CAMPAIGN AGAINST COSMOPOLITANISM.
"The
word 'cosmopolitan' is derived from two Greek words, 'kosmos' meaning
'world' and 'polites' meaning 'citizen'.
(Eric
Partridge: 'Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English';
London; 1958; p. 122, 508).
In
its etymology, therefore, a cosmopolitan is a 'citizen of the world', rather
than a citizen of a particular country.
Now,
in ordinary usage the word 'cosmopolitan' carries positive connotations,
connotations of sophistication. One's first reaction to the Soviet campaign
against cosmopolitanism, therefore, may well be to wonder why on earth
the Communist Party should want the Soviet working people to be boorish.
The
explanation lies in the fact that Marxism-Leninism is a science, the science
of politics, and to Marxist-Leninists the term 'cosmopolitan' has a more
specific, more negative, connotation than in everyday language.
The
Treatment of the Anti-Cosmopolitan Campaign in the Western Media
The
most common 'explanation' of the anti-cosmopolitan campaign put forth in
the Western media was that anti-cosmopolitanism was a euphemism for
anti-semitism.
Critics
speak of:
Firstly,
we know that Stalin strongly condemned anti-Semitism:
"Anti-Semitism,
as an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige
of cannibalism. . . Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists,
cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-semitism. . . .Under
USSR law active anti-semites are liable to the death penalty",
(Josef
V, Stalin: 'Anti-semitism', in: 'Works', Volume 13; Moscow; 1955; p. 30).
Secondly,
even Jewish writers like Benjamin Pinkus, Professor of Jewish
History at the Ben-Gurion University in Israel, admit that:
"....It
is important . to emphasise that in these attacks (the anti-cosmopolitanism
campaign Ed.) there was no anti-Jewish tone, either explicitly or implicitly".
(Benjamin
Pinkus: 'The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National
Minority' (hereafter listed as 'Benjamin Pinkus (1989)'; Cambridge; 1989;
p 152).
Thirdly,
the artists most strongly criticised in the anti-cosmopolitanism campaign,
the poetess Anna Akhmatova and the satirist Mikhail Zoshchenko
were not Jewish:
"The
chief victims . . . were two non-Jews - the satirist M. Zoshchenko and
the poetess A. Ahianatova".
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): ibid.; p. 151).
Fourthly,
Jews:
"Took
an active part in the anti-cosmopolitanism campaign";
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): ibid.; p. 157)
including:
"The
philosopher and member of the Academy of Sciences Mark Mitin; the journalist
David Zaslavsky, and the orientalist V(ladimir --Ed.) Lutsky".
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): ibid.; p. 157)
Marxism-Leninism
and National Distinctions
To
Marxist-Leninists, a cosmopolitan is one who disparages national
distinctions.
It
is true that Marxist-Leninists envisage that, in the socialist world of
the future, national distinctions of language and culture would eventually
disappear:
"I
have always adhered and continue to adhere to the Leninist view that in
the period of the victory of socialism on a world scale, the national languages
are inevitably bound to merge into one common language, which, of course,
will be neither Great Russian nor German, but something new."
(Josef
V. Stalin: Reply to the Discussion on the Political Report of the Central
Committee to the 16th Congress of the CPSU (B), in: 'Works', Volume 13;
Moscow; 1955; p. 5).
However,
Marxist-Leninists recognise that until that time in the distant future
distinctions of national language and culture will remain. As Stalin
told the 16th Congress of the CPSU in June 1930:
"National
differences cannot disappear in the near future, . . . they are bound to
remain for a long time even after the victory of the proletarian revolution
on a world scale".
(Josef
V. Stalin: ibid.; p. 4-5).
"We
have abolished national privileges and have established national equality
of rights. We have abolished state frontiers in the old sense of the term,
frontier posts and customs barriers between the nationalities of the USSR.
. . . But does this mean that we have thereby abolished national differences,
national languages, culture, manner of life, etc.? Obviously it does not
mean this".
(Josef
V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee to the CPSU (B), in:
'Works', Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 376).
Indeed,
the policy of Marxist-Leninists is to do everything possible to encourage
the fullest flowering of national languages and cultures.
As Stalin told the students of the University of the Peoples of the East
in May 1925, the tasks of the Communist Party are:
"To
develop national culture, to set up a wide network of courses and schools
for both general education and vocational-technical training, to be conducted
in the native languages. The slogan of national culture became a proletarian
slogan when the proletariat came to power. .
Proletarian
universal culture does not exclude, but presupposes and fosters the national
culture of the peoples".
(Josef
V. Stalin: 'The Political Tasks of the University of the Peoples of the
East', in: 1Works', Volume 7; Moscow; 1954; p.138, 140, 142).
And
as he said in his political report to the 16th Congress of the Party in
June 1930:
"It
may seem strange that we who stand for the future merging of national cultures
into one common (both in form and content) culture, with one common language,
should at the same time stand for the flowering of national cultures at
the present moment. . . . But there is nothing strange about it. The national
cultures must be allowed to develop and unfold, . . in order to create
the conditions for merging them into one common culture with one common
language in the period of the victory of socialism all over the world.
. . . It is just this that constitutes the dialectics of the Leninist presentation
of the question of national culture."
(Josef
V. Stalin: Political Report of the Central Committee to the 16th Congress
of the CPSU (B), in: 'Works;', Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; p. 380).
It
is on the basis of these Marxist-Leninist principles that the Soviet Communist
Party opposed cosmopolitanism, which, as we have seen, disparages national
cultures.
The
Soviet Campaign against Cosmopolitanism
Criticism
of cosmopolitanism in Russia did not begin with the socialist revolution.
The 19th century literary critic Vissarion Belinsky wrote:
"The
cosmopolitan is a false, senseless, strange and incomprehensible phenomenon.
. . . He is a corrupt, unfeeling creature, totally unworthy of being called
by the holy name of man".
(Vissarion
Belinsky, in: Benjamin Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 153-54).
Already
during the Second World War, Aleksandr Fadayev, Chairman of the Union of
Soviet Writers, had written:
"The
German invaders were deliberately encouraging rootless cosmopolitanism,
which stems from the so-called idea that everybody is a 'citizen of the
world"'.
(Aleksandr
Fadayev, in: Norah Levin: 'The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917'; London;
1990; p. 464).
Later
it was pointed out that the concept of a cosmopolitan Europe was a continuation
of the Nazi ideology of a "new order in Europe"':
"Yesterday
this reactionary cosmopolitan idea of a world state meant the Hitlerite
'new order in Europe', trampling on the national sovereignty and independence
of the European peoples."
(R.
Miller-Budnitskaya: 'Cosmopolitanism of the Literary Hollywood', in: 'Novy
Mir', no. 6, 1948, in: Benjamin Pinkus; 'The Soviet Government and the
Jews: 1948-1967: A Documentary Study' (hereafter listed as 'Benjamin Pinkus
(1984)'; Cambridge; 1984; p. 183).
Already
in an article in June 1945, the writer N. Baltiisky declared that:
"Communism
has nothing in common with cosmopolitanism, that ideology which is characteristic
of representatives of banking firms and international consortiums, great
stock exchange speculators and international suppliers of weapons and their
agents. Indeed, these circles operate according to the Roman saying ubi
bene, ibi patria (where there is profit, there is one's motherland
-- Ed.)".
(N.
Baltiisky, in: Benjamin Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 151).
It
was in 1946, however, that anti-cosmopolitanism took the form of a systematic,
intensive campaign. In the spring of 1946, for example, at the
11th Plenary Session of the Union of Soviet Writers, the Union's Chairman,
Aleksandr Fadayev, launched a severe criticism:
"Against
Yitzhak Nusinov 's treatment of Pushkin in his book 'Pushkin and World
Literature. . Fadayev denounced the 'denationalisation' of Pushkin by Nusinov."
(Nora
Levin: op. cit.; p. 468).
Fadayev
charged that:
"The
fundamental idea of the book is that Pushkin's genius does not express
the uniqueness of the historical development of the Russian nation, as
a Marxist ought to have shown, but that Pushkin's greatness consistsd in
his being 'European'"
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 152).
The
campaign against cosmopolitanism
"spread
throughout the Soviet mass media - radio, press. literature, cinema, theatre,
scientific and popular lectures, wall-notices at places of work".
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): ibid.; p. 155).
The
campaign was not directed against foreign influences in general.
As the writer Ilya Ehrenburg expressed it:
"It
is impossible to toady to Shakespeare or Rembrandt, because prostration
before them cannot humiliate the worshipper".
(Ilya
Ehrenburg, in: Nora Levin: op. cit.; p. 466).
It
was directed against presenting inferior foreign works of art, even those
with an anti-socialist content, as admirable. A leading article in 'Bolshevik',
the theoretical organ of the CPSU, during 1947 said:
"Traces
of subservience to bourgeois Western culture have found expression . .
in . . . bowing and scraping . . . to bourgeois Western scholarship".
('Bolshevik'
No. 16, 1947, in: Benjamin Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 152).
In
the campaign it was made very clear that opposition to cosmopolitanism
was in no way to be confused with opposition to internationalism.
Speaking to a conference of music workers in 1948, Andrei Zhdanov,
the Central Committee Secretary responsible for cultural affairs, stressed:
"Internationalism
in art does not spring frc~n the depletion and impoverishment of national
art; on the contrary, internationalism grows where national culture flourishes.
To forget this is to . . . become a cosmopolitan without a country. .
It
is impossible to be an internationalist in music or in anything else unless
one loves and respects one's own people. . . . Our internationalism in
music and respect for the creative genius of other nations is therefore
based on the enrichment and development of our national musical culture,
which we can then share with other nations".
(Andrei
A. Thdanov: Concluding Speech at a Conference of Soviet Music Workers,
1948, in: 'On Literature, Music and philosophy'; London; 1950; p. 62-63).
A
milestone in the anti-Cosmoplitanism campaign was the August 1947 report
by Zhdanov, which strongly criticised certain Soviet writers and artists
who were alleged to have sunk into cosmopolitanism:
"Leningrad's
literary journals started giving space to cheap modern bourgeois literature
from the West. Some of our men of letters began looking on themselves as
not the teachers but the pupils of petty-bourgeois writers and began to
adopt an obsequious and awestruck attitude towards foreign literature".
(Andrei
A. Zhdanov: Report on the Journals 'Zvezda' and 'Leningrad,, in: ibid.;
p. 31).
The
campaign against cosmopolitanism, of course, defended not only the national
culture of Russia, but that of:
"All
the nations in the Soviet Union".
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 154).
The
campaign was greatly intensified in the first months of 1949, to become:
"an
attack on an organised group, which had supposedly practised
. . . an attempt to create a kind of literary underground."
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): ibid.; p. 155).
At
this time it was directed particularly at an organised group of revisionist
dramatic critics who were slating good Soviet plays and praising worthless
foreign plays for their 'sophistication':
"An
anti-patriotic group has developed in theatrical criticism. It consists
of followers of bourgeois aestheticism. . . . These critics. . represent
a rootless cosmopolitanism which is deeply repulsive and inimical to Soviet
man.. .The sting of aesthetic-formalist criticism is directed not against
the really harmful and inferior works, but against the progressive and
best ones".
('On
an Anti-Patriotic Group of Theatre Critics', in: 'Pravda', 28 January 1949,
in: Benjamin Pinkus (1984): op. cit. ; p. 183-84).
"This
group, hostile to Soviet culture, set itself the aim of vilifying the outstanding
events of our literature and the best in Soviet dramaturgy.'"
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1989): op. cit.; p. 155).
The
anti-cosmopolitanism campaign:
"lasted
in a subdued form until the second half of 1952".
(Benjamin
Pinkus (1984): op. cit.; p. 164).
The
Domestic and International Background to the Campaign
It
is clear from what has been said that the Soviet campaign against cosmopolitanism
was fully in accord with Marxist-Leninist principles, which stand in our
era for the fullest development of national cultures, not
for their impoverishment.
The
question arises, however: why was it felt necessary to organise an intensive
campaign against cosmopolitanism precisely in 1947-52?
The
reasons are partly domestic, partly international.
In
the Soviet Union, revisionists in the cultural field felt that after four
years of bloody war, moves towards light, escapist culture would have popular
support. The Russian-born American journalist Alexander Werth noted:
"In
Moscow, in particular, there were extraordinary signs of . frivolity and
escapism. The famous chansonnier and diseur Alexander Vertinsky, after
spending more than twenty years as an idol of the Russian emigres in Paris,
New York and Shanghai, turned up in Moscow. His recitals of 'decadent'
songs drew immense crowds. . . . Although he was never reviewed or advertised
in the press, posters announcing Vertinsky recitals were stuck up all over
Moscow. .
Both
songs and films were tending to become escapist, . . . In 1944 the cinemas
were showing American films, among them a particularly inane Deanna Durbin
film. . .
It
was even widely suggested that light reading would be encouraged. Thus,
there was a scheme for starting a library of thrillers and detective stories
in Russian -- mostly translated from English". (Alexander Werth: 'Russia
at War: 1941-1945'; London; 1965; p. 939-41, 942).
In
the international field, we know now from official documents that in May
1945, within weeks of Germany's surrender, Churchill was
already planning
"..a
massive attack against the Red Army leading to the elimination of Russia",
('Guardian',
2 October 1998; p. 7).
to
be:
"supported
by 100,000 defeated German soldiers".
('Guardian',
2 October 1998; p. 7).
However,
the chiefs of staff committee considered the plan unworkable, as:
"beyond
our power";
('Guardian',
2 October 1998; p. 7).
Nevertheless,
in March 1946 Churchill made his famous speech at Fulton,
Missouri, heralding on the one hand
"Special
relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United
States".
('Keesing's
Contemporary Archives', Volume 6; p. 7,771).
and
on the other hand declaring cold war on the Soviet Union:
"A
shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lightened by the Allied victory.
.
An
iron curtain has descended across the Continent".
('Keesing's
Contemporary Archives', Volume 6; p. 7,771).
In
March 1947 US President Harry Truman initiated the 'Truman
Doctrine'
"..to
prevent the further spread of communism",
('Encyclopedia
Americana', Volume 18; New York; 1977; p. 328).
In
June 1947 US Secretary of State George Marshall announced the 'Marshall
Plan', euphemistically titled the 'European Recovery Programme'
(ERP), presented as generous American 'aid' to war-devastated Europe, but
by which:
"..containment
was extended effectively to Western Europe ('Encyclopedia Americana', Volume
27; New York; 1977; p. 176).
In
July 1947, the Soviet government broke off negotiations with the Western
Powers on the 'Marshall Plan':
"...and
announced that the machinery envisaged under the Plan would infringe on
the national sovereignty of the participants".
(Adam
B. Ulam: "Stalin: The Man and his Era"; London; 1989; p. 659).
Indeed,
the Marshall Plan soon became a US intelligence operation.
In June 1948, the US National Security Council
"Approved
a top secret document . . . establishing a covert arm within the existing
CIA. The new covert organisation was soon named the 'Office of Policy Coordination'.
From its creation in 1948 until 1952 when the Marshall Plan was terminated,
the OPC operated as the plan's complement".
(Sallie
Pisani: 'The CIA and the Marshall Plan'; Edinburgh; 1991; p. 70).
It
was:
"Under
State Department control but funded by the CIA".
(John
Ranelagh: 'The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA'; London; 1986;
p. 116).
being
in reality:
"An
American initiative in the cold war with Russia."
(John
Gimbel: 'The Origins of the Marshall Plan'; Stanford (USA): 1970; p. 4).
In
September 1947, the Communist Information Bureau (Cominform)
was founded, and at its inaugural meeting Zhdanov declared:
"That
two blocs had materialised since the end of the war, an imperialist and
anti-democratic bloc led by the USA, and an anti-imperialist and democratic
bloc led by the Soviet Union. . . . The first bloc was planning an aggressive
war against the second".
(Andrei
A. Zhdanov: Speech at Founding Session of Cominform, September 1947, in:
'Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 6; p. 8,920).
The
new international situation was summed up by Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav
Molotov on the 30th anniversary of the October Revolution in November
1947:
"Today
the ruling circles of the USA and Britain are at the head of an international
group which has made it its purpose to . . . establish the dominance of
these countries over other nations." (Vyacheslav Molotov: Speech of November
1947, in: 'Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 6; p. 8,940).
In
March 1948, a military alliance known as:
"the
'Brussels Treaty' was signed by Britain, France, and the 'Benelux' countries
(Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg)".
(Richard
B. Morris & Graham W. Irwin (Eds.): 'An Encylopaedia of the Modern
World: A Concise Reference History from 1760 to the Present Day'; London;
1970; P. 586).
In
April 1949, the foreign ministers of twelve states -- Belgium, Britain,
Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal
and the USA -- signed a broader military alliance: the North Atlantic Treaty,
establishing the 'North Atlantic Treaty Organisation' (NATO).
('Statesman's
Year Book: 1998-1999'; London; 1998; p. 37).
NATO:
"was
the logical extension of the 'Brussels Treaty".
(D.
C. Watt, Frank Spencer & Neville Brown: 'A History of the World in
the 20th Century'; London; 1997; p. 650).
It
was therefore clear to the Soviet government that it was faced with a real
threat of aggression from the Western Powers, and that cosmopolitanism
was an ideological weapon in that threat.
The
Soviet campaign against cosmopolitanism of 1947-52 was thus a campaign
of defence for itself and other countries whose independence was threatened
by imperialism.
In
his speech at the inaugural session of the Cominform, Zhdanov asserted:
"One
of the directions of the ideological campaign which accompanies the plans
for enslaving Europe is an attack on the principle of national sovereignty,
an appeal for the renunciation of sovereign rights set off by the idea
of a 'world government'".
(Andrei
A. Zhdanov: Speech at Founding Session of Cominform (September 1947), in:
'Keesing's Contemporary Archives', Volume 6; p. 8,020).
A
typical article in the campaign declared:
"Cosmpolitanism
is the militant ideology of imperialist reaction in our time. By disseminating
the corrupt ideology of cosmopolitanism., the American imperialists are
trying ideologically to disarm freedom-loving people who stand up for their
national independence, to foster in them indifference to their own motherland,
to cultivate national nihilism, and to weaken their vigilance. . .
The
ideologists of American imperialism declare that in our century such concepts
as the nation, national sovereignty, patriotism, etc., are 'out-worn',
and must be thrown overboard. .
The
right-wing socialists, the faithful servants of American imperialism, are
active preachers of cosmopolitanism".
(E.
Dunayeva: 'Cosmopolitanism in the Service of Imperialist Reaction'; in:
'Current Digest of the Soviet Press', Volume 2, No. 16 (3 June 1950); p.
18).
and
some articles went so far as to compare cosmopolitanism with atomic
and bacteriological weapons:
"Cosmopolitanism
occupies a prominent place in the arsenal of contemporary imperialism,
along with the atom bomb and bacteriological warfare".
(E.
A. Korovin: "For a Patriotic Science of Law', in: 'Current Digest of the
Soviet Press', Volume 2, No. 2 (25 February 1950); p. 13).
Globalisation
These
days, some forty years on from the great Soviet campaign against cosmopolitanism,
we hear little mention of the term.
But
that is not because cosmopolitanism has disappeared. On the contrary, it
has merely acquired a new name: globalisation.
Indeed,
globalisation has become a new branch of sociology, known as 'World System
Theory', attributed to the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein.
Sovereignty
is simply:
"authority";
('Oxford
English Dictionary', Volume 16; Oxford; 1989; p. 79).
and
one of the principal attributes of a state's sovereignty is the power to
impose measures of protection.
Protection:
"Can
be defined as any policy measure which discriminates between home and foreign
supplies";
(H.
Peter Gray: 'Free Trade or Protection? A Pragmatic Analysis1;
Basingstoke; 1985; p. 1).
to
the disadvantage of the latter. Protection may be carried out by the imposition
of 'tariffs' or duties, a tariff or duty
being:
"A
tax levied on imported goods . . designed to protect domestic producers
against competition from imports",
('Encyclopedia
Americana', Volume 26; New York; 1977; p. 295).
by
the imposition of quotas, a quota being:
"the
maximum number of . . . imports allowed to enter a country within a set
period".
('Oxford
English Dictionary', Volume 13; Oxford; 1989; p. 52).
or
by the imposition of export subsidies, that is,
"financial
aid furnished by a state or a public corporation";
('Oxford
English Dictionary', Volume 17; Oxford; 1989; p. 60).
to
an exporter.
In
general, technically advanced capitalist countries, imperialist countries,
benefit from and want a maximum of free trade, defined as
a:
"system
by which foreign goods are allowed to enter a country in unlimited quantities
and without payment";
('Longman
Dictionary of Contemporary English'; Harlow; 1987; p. 412).
of
any taxes. This is because in the absence of protection, superior technique
of production gives countries possesssing them an advantage over more technically
backward countries.
On
the other hand, more technically backward countries benefit from and want
the sovereign right to impose protective measures, since without them their
industries cannot compete with cheaper imports from the more technically
advanced countries.
These
are the essential motives behind the drive by imperialist states to build
and extend 'free trade areas', a free trade area being an
area of the world with right to impose protective
measures.
Furthermore, such
a free trade area enables the participating states to pool their resources
for more effective competition with their rivals.
Since the Second World
War, three rival blocs of imperialist powers have developed
in the world: these are, in fact:
"Three growing superstates
and blocs: the EC (European Community -- Ed.) led by Germany; the USA-dominated
North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico; and the Pacific
area headed by Japan".
(John Boyd: "Britain
and European Union: Democracy or Superstate? (After Maastricht)"; Merseyside;
1993; p. 14).
Each of these three
blocs came to sponsor globalisation measures centred upon itself.
European
Sponsored Globalisation
Proposals for a United
States of Europe go back many years. Lenin commented on these proposals:
"Temporary
agreements between capitalists and between the powers are possible. In
this sense the United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between
the European capitalists . . . but what for? Only for the purpose
of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial
booty against Japan and America. . . . Under capitalism,
the United States of Europe would mean the organisation of reaction to
retard the more rapid development of America".
(Vladimir I. Lenin:
'The "United States of Europe" Slogan'. in: 'Selected Works',
Volume 5; London; 1935; p. 140-41).
The proposals for a United
States of Europe made practcal advances only after World War II.
In April 1951,
"Belgium, France,
the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxmbourg and the Netherlands signed
the Treaty of Paris, establishing the European Coal and Steel Community
(ECSC). The treaty provided for pooling of coal and steel production
and was regarded as a first step towards a united Europe".
("Statesman's Yearbook:
1998-1999'; London; 1998; p. 42).
In March 1957,
"The European
Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community
(EAAC or Euratom) were . . . created under separate treaties
signed in Rome. . . . The treaties provided for the establishment by stages
of a common market with a customs union at its core". ("Statesman' s Yearbook:
1998-1999"; London; 1998; p. 42).
According to the preamble
to the Treaty of Rome, its aims were:
"To lay the foundations
of an ever-closer union among the peoples of Europe".
(Preamble: Treaty
of Rome, in: Richard Owen & Michael Dynes: 'The Times Guide to the
Single European Market: A Comprehensive Handbook'; London; 1992; p. 50).
At first, British imperialism
stood aside from the developing EEC, in favour of continuing dependence
on United States imperialism, the so-called 'special relationship':
"Atlanticism remained
the main pillar of British ruling class strategy".
(Dave Packer: 'Wnere
is Europe going?', in: 'Maastricht: The Crisis of European Integration';
London; 1993; p. 9).
Indeed, in November 1959,
the British imperialists:
"Joined Austria,
Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland . . . to form a European
Free Trade Association
EFTA's members undertook
to remove all tariff and quota restrictions on industrial trade among them
in 10 years".
('Encyclopedia Americana',
Volume ; New York; 1977; p. 706).
EFTA came formally into
existence in May 1960.
('Statesman's Yearbook: 1998-1999'; London; 1998; p. 56).
But by this time it
was already clear:
"That EFTA did not
have the size or political clout to make it a credible competitor or alternative
to the EC".
(Thomas Pedersen:
'The Wider Western Europe: EC Policy towards the EFTA Countries'; London;
1988; p. 3).
So in 1961, barely a year
after Britain had been instrumental in setting up EFTA:
"British capitalism
made a belated turn towards Europe".
(Dave Packer: op.
cit.; p. 9).
"To apply for full
membership."
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op. cit.; p. 51).
of the EEC.
In 1963:
"The British application
was vetoed by de Gaulle . on the grounds that Britain's ties were transatlantic
rather than European. It was renewed by Harold Wilson in 1966, and again
vetoed by de Gaulle".
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op. cit.; p. 51).
In April 1965:
"The common institutions
of the three Communities were established by a treaty signed in Brussels".
('Europa World Year
Book: 1998', Volume 1; London; 1998; p. 152).
In July 1968,
"The removal of internal
tariffs was completed . accompanied by the erection of a common external
tariff to protect the new common market".
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op, cit.; p, 50).
In January 1973, Britain,
Denmark and Ireland:
"Finally became EC
members";
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op, cit.; p, 51).
Greece joined the EEC
in January 1981, Portugal and Spain in January 1986, Austria, Finland and
Sweden in January 1985.
('Statesman's Yearbook:
1998-1999'; London; 1998; p. 42).
The heart of the Single
European Act, signed in December 1985:
"Was the commitment
to a single European market by 31 December 1992, and the agreement that
the EC had the right to lay down policy throughout the Community in areas
from taxation to tourism". (Richard Owen & Michael Dynes: op, cit.;
p. 58).
The Madrid summit of June
1989 gave:
"The go-ahead to
develop a three-stage plan for economic and monetary union, with phase
one beginning on 1 July 1990".
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op, cit.; p, 58).
Cooperation between the
EFTA and the EEC culminated in May 1992 in the Treaty of Oporto setting
up the 'European Economic Area' (EEA) between the European
Community (EC) and EFTA. (Therese Blanchet, Risto Piiponen & Maria
Westman-Clement: 'The Agreement on the Economic Economic Area (EEA)'; Oxford;
1994; p. 1);
For the EFTA countries,
membership of EEA, would it was thought:
"Ease the way towards
full menbership of the Union":
(Therese Blanchet,
Risto Puponen & Maria Westman-Clement: ibid.; p.x).
The Treaty of Maastricht,
of December 1991:
"Established a 'European
Union'. . . . The aims of the Union were defined as . . . the creation
of an area without internal frontiers and, . . . a single currency; . .
. the introduction of a citizenship pf the Union."
(Richard Owen &
Michael Dynes: op, cit.; p. 60).
The:
"European central
bank and the currency union are to be established by 1999".
(T. David Mason &
Abdul M. Turay (Eds.): 'Japan, NAFTA and Europe:
Trilateral Cooperation
or Confrontation?'; Basingstoke; 1994; p. 3).
The Maastricht Treaty
marked
"A fundamental change
in the constitutional basis of the British state. Considerable political
power will be shifted from Westminster to the European Commission, which
is not elected nor can it be removed by democratic means".
('Maastricht: The
Crisis of European Integration'; op. cit.; p. 3).
It went:
"Further than any
previous treaty towards a European state. It establishes the concept of
'European citizenship', sets out procedures and timetables for a single
currency as part of an economic and monetary union, establishes a common
policy on judicial affairs, and provides for a common foreign, security
and defence policy. .
Economic power will
be shifted from both the national governments and national banks to a completely
unaccountable European central bank".
(Dave Packer: op.
cit.; p. 6).
Of course:
"Integration will
be on the terms of the richest and most powerful member -- Germany".
(Dave Packer: ibid,;
p. 10).
which forms the heartland
of:
"A German-dominated
Europe".
(Dave Packer: ibid.;
p. 10).
Furthermore, Maastricht
must be seen as:
"a weapon directed
against the working class. .Cutting 'excessive government spending' (Article
104c) has already led to the first anti-Maastricht strikes in Italy and
Greece. In Italy, massive cuts in the welfare state brought hundreds of
thousands on to the streets, protesting at attempts to roll the wheel of
history backward towards the 19th century".
(Dave Packer: ibid;
p. 10).
From November 1993, the
EEC:
"Was formally changed
to the European Community (EC) under the Treaty on European
Union. . . . The new Treaty established a European Union
(EU) which introduced citizenship thereof and aimed to increase inter-governmental
cooperation in economic and monetary affairs, to establish a common foreign
and security policy, and to introduce cooperation in justice and home affairs".
('Europa World Year
Book: 1998', Volume 1; London; 1998; p. 152).
Before Britain joined
the European Communities, the British government's 1971 White Paper pledged:
"There is no question
of any erosion of essential national sovereignty".
(White Paper: 'The
United Kingdom and the European Communities', in:
'Keesing's Contemporary
Archives', Volume 18; p. 24,862).
and promised that:
"Our economy will
be stronger and our industries and people more prosperous if we join the
European Communities than if we remain outside them".
(White Paper: 'The
United Kingdom and the European Communities', in: 'Keesing's Contemporary
Archives', Volume 18; p. 24,864).
In fact, in joining the
EC:
"Britain gave up
sovereign rights over trade, agriculture, steel, shipbuilding, energy,
transport, . . fishing rights and monopoly mergers. Britain also accepted
the burden to subsidise the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and abandoned
former trading partners by foregoing the sovereign right to purchase cheaper
food products from around the world".
(John Boyd: op. cit.;
p. 3).
and:
". . the economic
promise offered by EC membership proved to be a mirage";
(Brian Burkitt, Mark
Baimbridge & Stephen Reed: 'From Rome to Maastricht:
A Reappraisal of Britain's
Membership of the European Community'; London;
1992; p. 3).
Indeed:
"The EC proved to
be a major contributory factor in Britain's relative economic decline",
(Brian Burkitt, Mark
Baimbridge & Stephen Reed: ibid.; p. 6).
After Britain joined the
EC:
"The relative decline
of British manufacturing not only continued but accelerated. .
Before membership,
the UK enjoyed annual surpluses in manufacturing trade with . . . the EC".
(Brian Burkitt, Mark
Baimbridge & Stephen Reed: ibid.; p. 3, 10-11).
But:
"In the 1980s Britain
finally became a substantial net importer of manufactures after being in
. . . surplus since the industrial revolution".
(Brian Burkitt, Mark
Baimbridge & Stephen Reed: ibid.; p. 19).
Thus:
"Largely because
of EC membership Britain and its people have experienced:
an industrial decline
without precedent in world history - over 4 million employees being removed
from manufacturing according to the 1991 census; fewer than one in four
men now works in manufacturing and more than half are employed in the service
sector; 80% of working women are in service industries and only one in
eight in manufacturing; the manufacturing workforce fell by 338,000 in
1991, and by 263,000 in 1992;....the near disappearance of the merchant
fleet and virtual abandonment of the western ports'. ...
the demise of the
fishing fleet and fishing ports with foreign fleets fishing out of British
waters under the Common Fishing Policy of the EC".
(John Boyd: op. cit.;
p. 27-28).
Furthermore, instead of
the benefits promised to British manufacturers by the opening up of the
European market:
"Britain now experiences
huge trade deficits. . . . The 1992 trade deficit with the EC was £5,074
millions and of this £3,000 millions was with Germany".
(John Boyd: ibid.;
p. 28).
American-Sponsored
Globalisation
In January 1988, a:
"Free-trade agreement
between the USA and Canada . . . was signed".
('Europa World Year
Book: 1998', Volume 1; London; 1998; p. 203).
In June 1990, US:
"President George
Bush set forth his vision of free trade from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego".
(Sidney Weintraub:
'NAFTA: What comes next?'; Westport (USA); 1994; p. 80).
and in December 1992 the
Canada-US Free Trade Agreement was extended to include Mexico 1992 by
"The 'North American
Free Trade Agreement' (NAFTA)";
(Sidney Weintraub:
ibid.; p. xxi).
The Canada-US Free Trade
Agreement and NAFTA:
"Impose strict and
binding controls on Canadian governments from which the only escape is
repudiation";
(Preface to: Maude
Barlow & Bruce Campbell: 'Take back the Nation: 2: Meeting the Threat
of NAFTA'; Toronto; 1993; p. vii).
As a result:
"NAFTA has become
the supreme law of Canada with powers to override both federal and provincial
legislation. . . . NAFTA is resigned to transfer power away from democratically-elected
governments and place it in the hands of transnational corporations";
(Maude Barlow &
Bruce Campbell: ibid.; p. 92).
so that:
"Canada faces extinction
as an independent nation".
(Preface to: Maude
Barlow & Bruce Campbell: ibid.; p. vii).
The principal benefits
of NAFTA have accrued to US manufacturers who have transferred some or
all of their production facilities south of the border into northern Mexico,
where:
"The labour costs
were one-tenth the US level",
(Maude Barlow &
Bruce Campbell: ibid.; p. 74).
but:
"Labour productivity
was surprisingly higher than in the US".
(Maude Barlow &
Bruce Campbell: ibid.; p. 74).
The blatant loss of sovereignty
which globalisation has brought on Mexico is well illustrated by the case
of the Mexican gynaecologist, Dr. Alvarez Macham, who in 1990:
Held back by its defeat
and occupation in the Second World War, the most recent imperialist power
to sponsor globalisation has been Japan:
"Barely a generation
ago, Japan accounted for less than 2% of the world economy, while the United
States accounted for about 35%. By 1980 Japan's share of the world economy
had ballooned to about 19%. . . . In the meantime, America's share had
dropped to about 20%".
(Ellen I. Frost: 'For
Richer, for Poorer: The New US-Japan Relationship'; New York; 1987; p.
6).
In other words, in relation
to each other:
"Japan has gotten
richer and the United States has gotten poorer";
(Preface to: Ellen
I Frost: ibid.; p. ix).
In September 1980:
"A non-governmental
international seminar to explore the Pacific Community idea . . . was held
at the Australian National University in Canberra . . . and with it the
Pacific Economic Cooperation
Conference (PECC)
was born. The original participants in the Canberra seminar were the United
States, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the five ASEAN*
countries, South Korea, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Tonga".
(Pekka Korhonen: 'Japan
and the Pacific Free Trade Area'; London; 1994; p. 177).
*ASEAN:
"is a regional intergovernmental
organisation formed by the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,
Singapore and Thailand''.
('Statesman s Year-Book:
1998-1999'; op. cit.; p. 75).
Then, in November 1989:
"The 'Asia-Pacific
Economic Cooperation' (APEC) was founded to devise programmes of
cooperation between member nations. . . . It was institutionalised in June
1992 after a meeting in Bangkok, at which it was agreed to set up a secretariat
in Singapore. APEC is now the primary vehicle for promoting open trade
and practical economic cooperation in the region. . . . Its member economies
had a combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product -- Ed.) of over $13 trillion
in 1995. . It had 19 member countries in Jan. 1998.
Australia, Brunei,
Canada, Chile, China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea (Republuc of),
Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and the USA".
('Statesman's Yearbook:
1998-1999'; ibid.; p. 74).
The second meeting of
APEC economic leaders in 1994 adopted:
"The Declaration
of Common Resolve, whereby it was agreed to achieve the goal of free and
open trade and investment in the region no later than 2010 for the industrialised
economies, 2020 for the developing economies The Osaka Action Agenda, adopted
by leaders in Osaka, Japan, in 1995, draws up a blueprint for implementing
the commitment to this goal".
('Statesman's Yearbook:
1998-1999'; ibid.; p. 74).
and resolved that:
"APEC can be a major
force for global trade liberalisation".
(Asia-Pacific Econonic
Cooperation: 1994; in: Pekka Korhonen: op. cit.; p. 168).
It is clear that any Asian
Pacific regional free trade area would be dominated by Japanese imperialism:
"There is little
doubt about the importance of the role which Japan will play in the Asian
Pacific region. . . . As a dominant trade partner for almost all the countries
in the region, as well as a major source of aid, finance and technology,
its presence is already one of the vital determinants of the region's future".
(Shibusawa Masahide:
'Japan and the Asian Pacific Region: Profile of Change'; London; 1984;
p. 157).
In the June 1993 issue
of 'Atlantic Monthly', an open letter was published from Akio Morita, Chairman
of the 'Sony Corporation', proposing that:
"North America, Europe
and Japan might be able to work together to remove barriers to the free-market
system and make it more open, more inclusive and freer than it is at present.
The proposal I ask
you to consider is that we begin to seek the way and means of lowering
all economic barriers between North America, Europe and Japan --
trade, investment, legal and so forth -- in order to begin creating the
nucleus of a new world economic order that would include a harmonised world
business system with agreed rules and procedures that transcend national
boundaries".
(Akio Morita: Open
Letter to the G7 Leaders, in: 'Atlantic Monthly'. June 1993; p. 88).
The
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)
The 'Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development' (OECD) is:
"The rich nations'
club.. . . 95.4% of the largest transnational corporations in the world
today are headquartered in member countries of the OECD".
(Tony Clarke: 'The
Corporate Rule Treaty: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) seeks
to consolidate Global Corporate Rule', in: 'Revolutionary Democracy' Volume
4. No. 1 (April 1998); p. 4, 5).
In May 1995 the OECD instructed
the organisation to prepare a Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI), the aim of which would be:
"To establish a whole
new set of global rules of investment that will grant transnational corporations
the unrestricted 'right' and 'freedom' to buy, sell and move their operations
whenever and wherever they want around the world, unfettered by government
intervention or regulation."
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 4).
In short, the aim of the
MAI is:
". . to impose tight
restrictions on what national governments can and cannot do in regulating
their economies".
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 4).
In fact, the MAI:
"Amounts to a declaration
of global corporate rule".
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 5).
Under the MAI:
"Foreign-based corporations
or investors are to be accorded special rights and privileges. Not only
will governments be required to provide corporations from other countries
treatment that is 'no less favourable' than that given to companies within
their own countries, but that treatment must include 'equality of competitive
opportunity'".
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 6-7).
The MAI:
"Includes a number
of measures which serve to strengthen the political power of corporations".
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 8).
giving them, for instance:
"The power to directly
sue governments over any breach of MAI provisions which causes
(or is likely to cause) loss or damage to the investor or his investment'".
(Tony Clarke: ibid.;
p. 10).
As we have seen, the concepts
of cosmopolitanism/globalisation form the basis of a new branch of sociology
called 'world system theory' and pioneered by Immanuel Wallerstein:
"As Immanuel Wallerstein
and others have observed, what we are now witnessing is the development
of a 'world system', whose defining characteristic is the transoational
role of capital".
(Joseph A. Camiltari
& Jim Falk: 'The End of Sovereignty: The Politics of a Shrinking and
Fragmenting World'; Aldershot; 1992; p. 77-78).
For Wallenstein:
the 'world economy'
is now universal, in the sense that all national states and national economies
are in varying degrees integrated into its central structure".
(Joseph A. Camilleri
& Jim Falk: ibid.; p. 78).
In many respects, the
view that the world is moving towards a transnational economy is a revival
of Karl Kautsky's theory of ultra-imperialism. In Lenin's
words:
"Kautsky writes that
from the purely economic point of view it is not impossible that capitalism
will yet go through a new phase, that of the extension of the policy of
the cartels to foreign policy, the phase of ultra-imperialism, i.e., of
a super-imperialism, a union of world imperialism and not struggles among
imperialisms; a phase when wars shall cease under capitalism, a phase of
'the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance
capital'. .
Monopoly cannot .
. . eliminate competition in the world market completely and for a long
period of time (and this, by the by, is one of the reasons why the theory
of ultra-imperialism is so absurd. (Vladimir I. Lenin: 'Imperialism, the
Highest Stage of Capitalism', in: 'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935;
p. 86, 91).
Because capitalism develops
unevenly in different enterprises, different regions and different countries,
international agreements to share out markets, dependencies, can be no
more than temporary:
"The only objective,
i.e., real, social meaning Kautsky's 'theory;' can have is that it is a
most reactionary method of consoling the masses with hopes of permanent
peace being possible under capitalism. . Deception of the masses - there
is nothing but this in Kautsky's 'Marxian; theory. .
We will presume that
these imnperialist countries form alliances against one another in order
to protect and extend their possessions, their interests and their spheres
of influence . . . This alliance would be an alliance of 'internationally
united finance capital'. . . . Is it conceivable' . . that such alliances
would be more than temporary?
The question only
requires stating clearly enough to make it impossible for any but a negative
reply to be given; for there can be no other conceivable basis under capitalism
for the sharing out of spheres of influence, of interests, of colonies,
etc., than a calculation of the strength of the participants,
. . . their general, economic financial, military strength, etc. And the
strength of these participants in the share out does not change to an equal
degree, for under capitalism the development of different undertakings,
trusts, branches of industry or countries cannot be even.
. .
Therefore, 'inter-imperialist'
or 'ultra-imperialist' alliances, in the realities of the capitalist system,
. ". . are inevitably nothing more than a 'truce in periods between
wars".
(Vladimir I. Lenin:
'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism', in: 'Selected Works', Volume
5; London; 1935; p. 109-10).
Bibliography
BARLOW, Maude &
CAMPBELL, Bruce: 'Take back the Nation: 2: Meeting the Threat of NAFTA;';
Toronto; 1993.
BLANCHET, Therese,
PIIPOENEN, Risto & WESTMAN-CLEMENT, Maria: 'The Agreement on the European
Economic Area (EEA)'; Oxford; 1994,
BOYD, John: 'Britain
and European Union: Democracy or Superstate (After Maastricht)'; Merseyside;
1992.
BRENNAN, Timothy: 'At
Home in the World: Cosmopolitanism now'; Cambridge (USA); 1997.
BURKITT, Brian, BAIMBRIDGE,
Mark & REED, Staphen: 'From Rome to Maastricht: A Reappraisal of the
European Community'; London; 1992.
CAMILLARI, Joseph A.
& FALK, Jim: 'The End of Sovereignty?: The Politics of a Shrinking
World'; Aldershot; 1992.
FROST, Ellen J.: 'For
Richer, for Poorer: The New US-Japan Relationship'; New York 1987.
GIMBEL, John: 'The
Origins of the Marshall Plan'; Stanford (USA); 1970. GRAY, H. Peter: 'Free
Trade or Protection? A Pragmatic Analysis'; Basingstoke; 1985.
KORHONEN,Pekka: 'Japan
and the Pacific Free Trade Area'; London; 1994.
LENIN; Vladimir I.:
'Selected Works', Volume 5; London; 1935.
LEVIN, Norah: 'The
Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917'; London; 1990.
MASAHIDE, Shibusawa:
'Japan and the Asian Pacific Region: Profile of Change'; London; 1984.
MASON, T. David &
TURAY, Abdul M. (Eds.): 'Japan, NAFTA and Europe: Trilateral Cooperation
or Confrontation?' Basingstoke; 1994.
MORRIS, Richard B.
& IRWIN, Graham W. (Eds.): 'An Encyclopaedia of the Modern
World: A Concise Reference
History from 1760 to the Present Day'; London; 1970.
OWEN, Richard &
DYNES, Michael: 'The Times Guide to the Single European
Market: A Comprehensive
Handbook'; London; 1992.
PARTRIDGE, Eric: 'Origins:
A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English'; London; 1958.
PEDERSEN, Thomas: 'The
Wider Western Europe: EC Policy towards the EFTA Countries'; London; 1988.
PINKUS, Benjamin; 'The
Soviet Government and the Jews: 1948-1967; A Documentary Study'; Cambridge;
1984.
'The Jews of the Soviet
Union: The History of a National Minority'; Cambridge; 1989.
PISANI, Sallie: 'The
CIA and the Marshall Plan'; Edinburgh; 1991.
RANELAGH, John: 'The
Agency: TheRise and Decline of the CIA'; London; 1986.
STALIN, JOSEF: 'Works',
Voume 7; Moscow; 1954; Volume 12; Moscow; 1955; Volume 13; Moscow; 1955;
ULAM, Adam B.: 'Stalin:
The Man and his Era'; London; 1989.
WATT, D. C., SPENCER,
Frank & BROWN, Neville: 'A History of the World in the 20th Century';
London; 1987.
WEINTRAUB, Sidney:
'NAFTA: What comes next?'; Westport (USA); 1994.
WERTH, Alexander: 'Russia
at War: 1941-1945'; London; 1965.
ZHDANOV, Andrei A.:
'On Literature, Music and Philosophy'; London; 1950.
'CURRENT DIGEST OF
THE SOVIET PRESS'. 'ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA', 'EUROPA WORLD YEAR BOOK: 1998'.
'GUARDIAN'.
'KEESING'S CONTEMPORARY
ARCHIVES'.
'NEW YORK TIMES'.
'OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY'.
'REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRACY'. 'STATESMAN'S YEAR BOOK: 1998-1999'.
'Longman Dictionary
of Contemporary English'; Harlow; 1987.
'Maastricht: The Crisis of European Integration'; London; 1993.