The crash came from the United States in 2007-2008 exposed the structural flaws of the single currency regime and its unsustainability: many eurozone countries are grappling with the biggest recession in its history, acute imbalances instead of convergence between the countries; extermination of companies and destruction of productive forces; collapse of investment; Growth of bank insolvencies and parallel paralysis of loans; increase in public and private debt; double-digit unemployment; decline in consumption, growth of social inequality.
From the economic sphere, the crisis is thus passed to the political and institutional.
The jump to the United States of Europe, recondite goal of the new neoliberal financial aristocracy, there will never, we go instead toward a new stage of the European crisis, whose outcome will be the dissolution of the Union. The unionist flood is in fact already withdrawing. The regained hegemonic power of Germany contributes to the collapse of the fragile Eu building bringing back to the underlying national foundations.
What is today the main contradiction?
It consists in the fact that disclosed globalization unfolded —supreme form supreme of capital nomination—, has become a cage for the productive forces of many countries who, if they do not come out, can only sink into an inexorable decline: economic, social and moral. This fate, which once covered only semi-colonial countries with low development of the productive forces, touches now also countries that still formally, but not for long, belong to the imperialist consortium. I speak of my country, Italy, I speak of so-called "peripheral countries" of the European Union ("vulnerable" calls them the ECB).
Inequalities and imbalances that the neoliberal globalization brings with it, the European Union has accentuated them, with the result that the Great reunified Germany, true sovereign nation-State, using different levers, it has now become the hegemonic power-State. The "Germanization" of Europe would not have happened without the abdication to the German command of the ruling classes of the various European countries. These classes, supported by the Unified Brahmin caste of politicians, technocrats and intellectuals, have promoted the despoiling of their countries —this phenomenon reminds us the figure of the compradora bourgeoisie—, delivering to Germany and its bureaucratic agencies decisive portions of national sovereignty. The National parliaments have become mere simulacra and the States, former regional superintendents of the imperial legal space American-led, became terminals of the ECB “autopilot” and local custodians of the German protectorate.
To return to the main contradiction, it has two aspects: the first concerns the relationship between the center and peripheries of the European Union, the other concerns the social and class relations within each single country.
Right-wing social and political forces will to separate these two aspects in oppositional way, relying on first at the expense of the second. We, however, we will have to keep them chained, but knowing that today is the first aspect of the contradiction to prevail.
The productive forces of the "peripheral countries" (and when we speak of productive forces we mean first of all the material and intellectual power of labour as opposed to those of bloodsucker capital) can only decrease, condemning the countries themselves to an inexorable decline. Against this destiny from the bowels of these countries are advancing the resistance forces. It does not come from the high sectors of the bourgeoisie —now integrated as fractions in the financial aristocracy globalist dome and who perceive States as barriers to their raids.
The great mass of the petty bourgeoisie thrown into pauperism,
the industrial working class, the proteiform mass of precarious work, in short, the social strata who are at the bottom and that paid first the economic crisis and the cruel austeritarie therapies, have already largely divorced from the traditional corrupted bipolar political cast, seeking new ways to enforce their demands. Depending on the country these indignant and emerging social power are the fuel for very different political movements.
It is in the logic of things the unification of the two aspects of the contradiction: the revolt against the external domain and the protectorate regime, proceeds together with the fight against the upper sectors of the ruling classes and their elites, since the latter act as transmission belt.
This revolt, just latent today, will tends to manifest itself in virulent forms. When that happens, not only the current ruling elites will be swept away, the same forces that now give voice to the incipient revolt of the popular masses, will be replaced by more radical political movements, those who, at the crucial moment, will have the last word.
This general rising, here is the point, it can only assume (using the grammar of Antonio Gramsci) a National-popular nature and form.
Let us ask ourselves: what is the cause of this revival of national sentiments and demand of state-sovereignty?
Deprived of any tools of self-defense, to the masses of dispossessed just have to rely on the State, to carry out its constitutional role as guardian and protector of citizens' rights and interests of the vast majority of the people. This instance we call "sovereignist" is not reactionary in itself, it is indeed a primordial manifestation of opposition to globalism, to the neo-libaralism, to the absolutist predominance of economics over politics.
Some radical chic, some “left of the left” —the one that exchanges internationalism with imperialist cosmopolitanism— decided to commit suicide by opposing frontally to this instance. We can not make that big mistake. We must, on the contrary, to meet the most vital and humble strata of our peoples.
As antagonistic forces, having to think about the after-Union, even before debating on "plans B" exit from the eurozone —what absolutely necessary of course!— We have to decide to make this strategic move, catch this general trend to the revival of the national feelings, trying to direct it towards a democratic and revolutionary end that, under certain conditions, can provide the bridge to the future escape from capitalism.
It is not the socialist revolution in fact on the agenda today, and socialism is not an inevitable, needed outcome, but only possible. It must be the right action of "creative minorities", of aware avant-garde, so that the "possible" will slides up in the chaotic game of push and counterpush, avoiding the damn trap heterogenesis of goals.
No bread without yeast
This general tendency to gain national sovereignty, is like a river intended to divide into four main directions: the national-neo-liberal, the national-neo-fascist, neo-social-democratic (those who imagine that are possible Keynesian policies without breaking the cage of Eu) and finally what we should represent as democratic-revolutionary or national-popular.
It is highly probable, as has already happened in the last century, that, at the crucial moment, the national-neo-liberal and nationalist-fascists, with the blessing of the financial aristocracy, will converge and will block, what will force us, if we do not want to be torn to pieces in the bud, to make a united front with the neo-Social Democracy and the different movements of democratic resistance born from historical systemic crisis.
Strike together, march separated.
But this is tactical, and on tactic field you should not tie your hands. We, for example, in Italy, not only aim to build a strong broad front of democratic forces for popular and National sovereignty; we openly call for the formation of a new National Liberation Committee, which, on the basis of respect for our Constitution, at the decisive moment, together form an emergency government to handle the breakup of the Union. Hence our "plan B" of a few but decisive measures: emission of the new lira by a public central bank, nationalization of the banking system and of strategic enterprises, control over the movement of capital and goods, a plan for full employment.
Other countries are biting the output by the Union and the euro? We hope so, but no people can ask to slow his march or even stop waiting for others. It would be not only a mistake, but a political crime. When passing the train of history you must get into without hesitation. The development is increasingly unequal, each country has its own specificity and follows its own dynamics, each people its policies and institutional representations. Even if not one but more countries leave the euro cage, it is not at all certain that the forces that will pilot the break, are homogeneous, that have the same geopolitical vision, and embody the same social interests.
A country that comes out from the euro-regime from the left will never create the same supranational community, from will never be a supranational community with another that has flowed out from right, with national-liberal or national-fascist positions. Conditioning the exit of a country to that simultaneous of other seems to us a wrong strategy, daughter of taboo (that goes rather removed) of national sovereignty.
Now, if we do not want to be condemned to insignificance, we must make the strategic move from which everything else depends, aiming to become champions in each country of the sovereignist battle to defeat the main enemy: the block between the financially predatory aristocracy, the European technocratic regime German-led and local comprador capitalist domes.
Only inside the fire of this struggle, if we win leading positions, only then, can we make central the social and class aspects of the contradiction today only secondary, thus by making the democratic popular revolution the bridge to the socialist.
Rome, April 18th, 2016
* Moreno Pasquinelli was one of the founders, in Italy, of the Coordinating left against the euro (now People's Liberation Movement - P101), and one of the organizers of the International Forum held in Assisi (2014) and Athens (2015).