Intervention of the Communist Refounding, Italy
International Meeting, Athens 1999
First of all, warm thanks to the Communist Party of Greece
for your hospitality.
In our opinion, globalisation is the new phase of
capitalism. Many innovations have appeared during the past
20 years, but time constraints do not permit us to talk
extensively about this subject here. I will confine myself
to citing just those that seem to be the most important in
absolute terms.
First, we have today a dimension of financial capital that
was completely inconceivable just a few years ago. And
within this enormous mass of financial capital, the
tendency to speculation has increased enormously. We must
also say that the nation states, even the most powerful,
such as the USA, no longer have the ability to control the
speculative actions and movement of this capital.
Secondly, there is a process of concentration taking place
among the transnational corporations and they are spreading
greatly.
We only have to consider that whereas years ago, there were
600 such corporations, today there are more than 40,000 and
that the 200 major ones control a large part of global
production and the corresponding trade in the commodities
produced. But the question of the transnational
corporations is linked with a natural change in the
organisation of production. Today a commodity which has the
tendency to circulate freely on the world market may in
turn have been produced anywhere on the planet, to be
consumed by a minority of humanity which is mainly
concentrated in the north.
Thirdly, there is something which for us communists is a
very important point: it is the excluding nature of the new
model of capitalist development. There are countries in the
south which, despite large-scale investments of foreign
capital and despite the significant increase in their Gross
Domestic Product, have not seen their internal market grow
or their population's incomes improve, but instead have
witnessed a widening difference between rich and poor and a
higher poverty level for the majority of the population.
Proportionally, even in the wealthy countries,
unemployment, poverty and social exclusion are on the
increase.
All these things that I have described very briefly can be
found anywhere in the world. This means that we can
certainly claim that we have the same problems everywhere,
even though their dimensions and gravity may differ from
one place to another.
Thus we have, and this too is an innovation, a
contradiction that supersedes the classic north-south one.
This is the centre-periphery conflict which has been
created on a global level as well as on a regional,
national and local one.
Then there is what is recognised world-wide as the �crisis
of the nation-state�. The nation-state is effectively
experiencing a dual crisis. Sovereignty is being disputed
by the grass roots, when many regions and areas are
fighting to secede in order to be better and more rapidly
integrated into globalisation, mainly to meet to the
demands of competition. At the same time, there is a
growing trend to transfer sovereignty to supra-national
institutions, as in Europe.
We can say that there has been a change in the nature of
the state. At least the state we have known this century.
It has gone from political direction and redistribution,
and because of this, from the special place of the class
struggle, to implementing the neoliberal policies that are
decided by the International Monetary Fund and are imposed
by the world market.
For this reason, we look to Europe as a necessary dimension
to build an alternative to neoliberal policies.
I'd like on this occasion to clarify one point that has to
do with relations between the US and Europe. I don't
believe in what some people here have called
intra-imperialist contradictions. I have already spoken
about globalisation and about the transnationals. I'd like
to add that 40% of the trade between the USA and the
European Union is conducted within the transnational
corporations. I mean that there is no longer a trend to
have one European capitalism and another US capitalism. I
don't see the economic and material foundations for a clash
between the two adversary imperialist powers. Of course,
there are conflicts, but they are resolved within the
context of the global system which is not disputed by
anyone. Certainly the Europe we want a Europe democratic
and social, capable of defending the gains the labour
movement has made this century by building an economic and
social political alternative to neoliberalism has been
hard hit by the NATO war.
This war, among other things, had clear-cut objectives most
of which were achieved: to transform the UN into a notary
public's office whose task was to ratify what NATO and G7
had already decided and done, assigning to the latter the
task of proclaiming themselves in practice a world
government. In Washington, NATO declared openly that it
can intervene whenever and however it wants, even without
UN coverage.
I don't believe, in contrast to others, that this was
solely a US war which European governments merely
tolerated. I am well aware that the majority of European
governments are under social-democratic leadership. But it
is as though European social-democracy had said at one
particular point: there is no alternative to globalisation
and to neoliberal economic policies, and for this reason,
it is better for us to participate as protagonists, in
building the world government which is represented by NATO
and the G7 group.
European governments bear an enormous responsibility for
this war. And this will have adverse effects on a social
and cultural level. Nor should we fail to be aware of the
ideological dimension of this war. I'm not talking about
the propaganda and the misinformation, but about an
ideology which can be seen clearly in the concepts of
�humanitarian war� and �just war� and which is used to
justify war in defence of the global capitalist system and
of the �civilisation� of the wealthy countries in the
world.
We must be aware that for the labour movement, and for
anyone who is willing to fight modern capitalism, the
conditions are much more difficult. The social and popular
groups that oppose or could oppose capitalist globalisation
are increasingly divided, scattered and even at
loggerheads. We have for a long time been aware that
socialism will not come about as a simple product of
history. The concept �socialism or barbarism� unfortunately
is valid. There could also be �the total destruction of the
two adversary classes�.
A century ago, capitalism was closed within national
frontiers and the labour movement was international. After
a century of struggles, the situation has been reversed.
It is necessary for communists to look deeply inside
themselves and learn to acknowledge all those who are
opposed to globalisation as interlocutors with whom they
can discuss and act jointly.
It is a mistake to think of the organised building of
communist parties internationally, of new centres and fresh
discussions of an abstract ideological type. On the
contrary, it is necessary to build common struggles and
experiences of international dimensions. Struggles capable
of achieving gains for tens of millions of working people
and not for closed intellectual vanguards.
Dear comrades, we are indeed very pleased to be here with
all of you and to exchange ideas and information.