Syndicate: Eu-Conference in Vienna 1998

[MAILER-DAEMON@aec.at (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (by way of geert@xs4all.nl (Geert Lovink))]

From: konfront@xs4all.nl
Konfr. extra  / 5 nov '97   konfront@xs4all.nl   http://www.xs4all.nl/~konfront

----------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Eu-Conference in Vienna 1998
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 97 20:24:59 +0100
From: Anarchistische Buchhandlung <rbh@inode.at>

About Austria's EU-presidency (July '98 - December '98)

HI!

There is a group in Vienna which has formed in September '97 to
prepare for Austria's EU-presidency '98. At the moment, the group
consists of people from "autonomous" and anarchist groups
(meaning the so-called independent, undogmatic, leftwing spectrum).
We want to take advantage of the (long) time which is left until July
'98, to discuss extensively and with as many people as possible
about various topics connected with the European Union. We also want
to start this discussion because we had the impression that there was
little debate or analysis within the radical leftwing opposition
before and during the EU-summit in Amsterdam (in July '97).

With this discussion, we want to define our viewpoint as opposed to
reformist leftwing groups and concepts. But nevertheless, we will
take part at meetings of "Euromarch" - groups (the Viennese group
is called "Initiative for a social, ecological Europe of equal
rights" now) and try to contribute to it from a critical distance
of solidarity.

We want to try to discuss and establish contacts in all parts of
Austria and internationally from the very beginning for 3 reasons:
First, we don't want to stew in our own juice. Second, more brains
have more ideas. And third, we are not capable of dealing with every
topic in detail. Ideally, a discussion should develop and go on
continuously within the EU and especially with groups outside
EU-borders. We are looking for all kinds of groups and persons
interested. If you are in contact with people from the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, etc. please send them our
texts and/or let us have their adresses.

For the time being, we send you 2 texts. The first one is written by
a few people from the group mentioned earlier. We broach some points
which are important to us ("Some ideas about Austria's
EU-presidency '98"). The second one, a critique of the first one,
is written by the RevolutionsbrÅ uhof - RBH,  ("EU-presidency:
Work/labour and money"). We will publish these texts in local
media. Whatever you can and want to make of it... we would ask you
for criticism.

Of course we already consider actions, campaigns, projects to fit the
occasion. But these ideas are not fully developed yet.

There will be (an) action against the summit in Luxemburg (21st/22nd
nov.) in Vienna. Details and leaflets will be sent to you soon.

We are planning an Austrian-wide meeting at the end of '97 and an
international meeting at the beginning of '98. You will be given
notice of the exact dates.

Until then, good luck and sorry for translation mistakes
Vienna, 22nd oct. 1997

Our adress:
Infoladen 10, Ernst-Kirchweger-Haus
"Gegen den EU-Gipfel B998"
PF 173
Wielandgasse 2-4
A-1100 Wien

e-mail: rbh@inode.at


Some ideas about Austrias EU-presidency '98

The following text is an attempt to start a discussion about Austrias
EU-presidency (starting in July '98) and to point out some
priorities. The text should be taken as an approach to all the
complex topics connected with the European Union, capitalism, racism,
etc.

To us, the discussion about different conceptions of "work" or
"labour" seems to be a crucial point. It was obvious even at the
demonstration against the EU-summit in Amsterdam that there are
strong differences within the leftwing EU-opposition: propagating
paid work on the one hand or objecting to it on the other were the
two positions.

Many people see no alternative to paid work. They fell it is not a
matter of force, but a matter of course (Although everyone is
complaining about bad working conditions and low wages). In former
times, before the "benefits" of a human bourgeois society, people
were also forced to work, but the structure of exploitation was
different from the means of discipline used in a "free"
enterprise economy. "Working morale" and the compulsion to work
had to be brutally enforced upon the proletariat. In course of time
it was achieved that the exploitation of industrial workers was
guaranteed not primarily by external overseeres, but by a high degree
of self-control. On the one hand, this compulsion is due to
existential necessities - in this case it also applies to work which
is not paid (like subsistence economy or housework). On the other
hand it is due to social pressure and the internalisation of a
working morale.

Work/Labour, as we find it today, has little to do with joy. The
constant repetition of the same capitalist work is a prison for our
abilities, it steals precious time. It leaves us only with "spare
time", which is there to absorb our inactivity. And even this is
strongly commercialised - for the profits of a so-called "leisure
industry".

We are not making demands like "Full employment is the most
important goal!". Our aim is a fundamental criticism of what
"work", in a capitalist sense, is all about anyway. What's the
use of work? Who gains what? Our conception of "work" includes
more than just paid work, it includes reproduction and housework as
well. We are oriented not by the demands of capitalism, but by the
demand of developing an emancipatory social climate.

We want to "liberate work": Unlike common judgements, it isn't
the case that people who are "out of work" don't want to get
involved in any activity (in addition to the invisible reproduction
field which is necessary anyway). Life and society (re)produce
"living work" even without the silent compulsion to earn money.
This isn't possible within the system, but only if you go beyond
the inner and outer limits of the system. This means individual, but
especially collective rejection of work (as far as possible) and the
attempt to (self-)organise opposition.

We criticise the demand for full employment - but are there other
demands which can rather help us overcome the system? The demand for a
basic salary for everyone is more likeable, because thus, there
would be no more compulsion to earn money. But in the current
situation of capitalism a basic salary also means to support
capitalists indirectly, because they would have to pay lower wages.
Anyway, the discussion is only beginning...

Another topic is the discussion about referring to national concerns
in the countries of the EU. Nationalism (be it on a nation state
level or EU-level) is nothing we can refer to. On a nation state
level, nationalism means discrimination of migrants, emphasising
"one's own culture and tradition", chauvinist behaviour towards
other "cultures". On a European level nationalism means
surveillance of all outer EU-borders in order to make them
"leakproof" (as it happens in Austria now), it means a
Europe-wide standardisation of police methods in order to fight
so-called illegal immigration, "organised" crime, drug
traffic,etc. (All of this is laid down in the Schengen treaty which
should come into effct in Austria on 1st of April '98.)

The ideological pseudo-struggle about the "EURO" also plays an
important role: it isn't pure coincidence that the richest
countries produce the strongest opposition against the EURO. People
are supposed to fear the poor, who could benefit from a weak EURO.
For leftwing people, the question EURO - yes or no - should be
secondary. There are no own values clung to "money", but only
those values that produce social conflicts everyday. This means that
the values that are clung to "money" can be changed. "EURO"
is only an expression of an abstract value which dictates human
relationships. "Money" is still "money", whether it is called
EURO or "Schilling".

Even if a great ammount of trade still happens within the EU, the
development of capitalism already goes beyond European borders. A
struggle against the EURO involves two dangers: On the one hand,
there is the danger of supporting national concepts and institutions,
on the other hand the danger of a fixation: European institutions as
a new limited and limiting field of activity. The Unions, as well as
political and social movements were always restricted to nation state
contexts - despite all internationalistic rhetoric. For both
EURO-opponents and supporters there is the danger of remaining within
a European level. Our aim is to make it clear from the very
beginning, that we have nothing to do with national concepts - be it
a nation state or the EU.

A social union (as demanded by reformists) is nothing else than a
conventional social democratic keynesianistic project on a European
level: a transfer of nation state concepts. Projects like this can
only work when other parts of the world are excluded. This is already
superseded by the development of capitalism, but it is also a step
towards a new kind of nationalism/racism (like in the concept of
"struggle of cultures").

Pro-European supporters of a social union ("competitive Europe")
find themselves shoulder to shoulder with opponents, who want to
organise work/labour on a nation state level ("Austria first").

A fixation on this topic increases the pressure (which is already
strong) on those who have a job ("accept lower wages to keep the
job") and it also puts pressure on those who are out of work to
take any job. With the job situation getting worse, the
institutionally organised compulsion to work gets stronger.

One aspect of the discussion about the EURO are the criteria of
stability, which are allegedly necessary to keep the currency stable.
This is all about putting through neoliberal programs, which are
necessary with or without EURO under the pressure of international
capitalism. Alternatively, they have their sights on a redistribution
within the individual states. Yet the (neoliberal) demands of
rightwing populists are very similar to those measures demanded by
government in order to put through the EURO.

As for the social measures allegedly necessary for putting through
the EURO: it has to be made clear that problems are not caused by the
EURO, but by the development of capitalism. Thus, the movement
against the EU-summit should put a main emphasis on the struggle
against social cutbacks in general, with or without EU.

The EURO could founder on a big social opposition in the individual
states of Europe, so that neoliberal measures cannot be put through,
so that the EURO is not "stable" enough according to capitalist
criteria. But the EURO could also founder on other reasons: if the
EURO founders because there are "good" arguments against it which
have developed in the richer nations because people fear the new
currency could be "weak" or if the arguments are based on
sentimentality for the own currency and identity, there will be only
nationalistic (or regional) narrow-mindedness left.

The EU-summit provides us, radical movements, with a dilemma: if we
are focussing on a struggle against EU-institutions, nationalistic
movements (esp. in rich EU-countries) can take advantage of it. If
our main emphasis is "another Europe", we support reformists who
want to create a Europe of different cultures in different nations,
especially if we are dealing with a "critical accompanying" of
the ruling class.
To support struggles against concrete injustice (be it regional or
international) can be a way out of the dilemma. This includes a
struggle against measures of everyday capitalism, like strikes or
demonstrations against the redundancies at Renault Vilvoorde, but it
also includes opposition against all the consequences of European
policy, like racist measures (e.g. restrictive anti-migration laws)
which must be seen in direct connection with the Schengen treaty.

There is still almost one year left for us to prepare for the
EU-presidency, or rather the EU-summit. We won't waste this time,
we will meet and work continuously from now on. Of course next year,
it won't be over from one day to the next - capitalism and ist
European form will still exist then, most probably. Therefore,
international alliances of antiracist, feminist, independent groups,
initiatives of people out of work, action groups etc. have to combine
and exchange forms of opposition - as a long-term project.


EU-presidency: work/labour and money

When Austria takes over the EU-presidency next year, it will be
necessary to protest not only against the latest social cutbacks
caused by EU-policy. Campaigns of such kinds can be expected from the
Unions, the Churches and all kinds of abstruse groups. Various
nationalists will also take the opportunity to spread their
reactionary propaganda.

Radical leftwing criticism must not be restricted to current events,
but we must include the EU in general - as a capitalist project - as
well as Austria as a nation state. We must make it clear that:

On the one hand, Austria as a nation state is not at all willing to
protect "its" proletariat from exploitation by "non-Austrian"
capitalists, but Austrian capitalists will use their state Austria to
gain a competitive advantage from a repression (which is adequate
from their point of view) of the Austrian proletariate.

On the other hand it is exactly in accordance with Austrian
capitalists' wishes to push ahead European integration in order to
assert themselves against competitors with the help of the EU.

Both options require an increased "class war from above" to make
work cheaper and thus to raise profits.

The conception of work/labour is necessarily a central point of a
campaign dealing with Austria's EU-presidency, taking into account
the orientation of the EU and its capitalist policy. The EU simply is
a capitalist project to exploit labour more efficiently. Putting
work/labour in the centre means to propagate a struggle against
work/labour. There is no existence more wretched than that of a
labourer. Capitalist work is always alienated work and you can never
gain from it. It is always an overexertion as a means, it never
satisfies any needs directly. Work/labour means to sell yourself. And
it doesn't help to "expand" the term; find a positive meaning
which includes things that don't fit in capitalism. Reproduction is
(partly!) seperated from the exploitation of labour and therefore it
is not regarded as (social) "work". This is useful for
capitalism, because certain work is supplied more or less for free.
Capitalism uses so-called "superstructural phenomena" like
religion, family, various cultural crap etc. so that this work still
serves its capitalist purpose. And there is almost nothing which
can't be subordinated to this purpose. And the more it seems to be
critical, admonitary or even revolutional, the better its function as
being integrable into the exploitational context. And isn't it
really splendid when the people involved don't know anything about
this function.

All these battles about EU, EURO and globalisation are nothing more
than a cunning attempt at covering up an enforced class war of
capitalists against workers. So both fractions, defenders of any
national culture and identity as well as propagandists of "tearing
down borders" and of European integration, are parts of the same
strategy: an increased exploitation by (also indirect) cuts in wages,
improvement (Verwohlfeilerung) of capitalist circulation by reducing
"bureaucratic borders", a split of the working classes by of
nationalism and racism to make use of regional differences in the
social structure of society.

All of this is not new: Neither capitalism nor exploitation have
changed much. Of course: capitalist propaganda is efficiently spread:
"The end of history", the fall of the Berlin Wall, victory. And
now there should be nothing else. And what's new about it?
Capitalism controls the world market - that was old hat even in the
days of Lenin. Capitalism affects all areas of life - the basis of
Marx' criticism of capitalism (Kapitalkritik). And this is new: the
totalitarianism of products (Waren) is declared a law of nature,
hidden in the genes or somewhere, and totalitarianism only means to
equate fascism with communism. Any usage of the term "total" (won
back by the revanchist reaction) is rejected - especially within the
Left as well - and therefore the global trap is presented (suited to
the media and talk-show-compatible). And an anti-capitalist policy
can't work like this. A denial of class war by reinterpreting it
implies the impossibility of liberation from exploitation and
suppression.

It isn't nationalistic to be against the formation of a new
"super state" which will have a monopoly on violence/power that
is modernised and extended by the introduction of new instruments of
power (Schengen treaty!). Just as it isn't internationalistic to
guarantee free trade. Cause it is surely not the intention of the EU
to support or obstruct the united boozing of Finnish and Portugese
people. And it isn't the object of the EURO to spare us the
nuisance of exchanging money in our holidays. And there is one thing
that EURO, Schilling and money in general have in common: we have
bread etc. not because of money, but at best in spite of money.

Zitat Karli

As an absolut wareform (Warenform) money expresses the human
existence of a total ware. Here it doesn't matter whether the money
is called EURO or Schilling. But that doesn't mean that it
doesn't matter that capitalists put a new reserve currency on the
world market. Neither Schilling nor Austria can protect you from
exploitation. A struggle against the EURO cannot mean a conservation
of the Schilling, but a struggle against money - as such. The name
doesn't matter, what matters is the economic power/violence which
presents itself in this special manifestation of money as EURO. And
the EURO will be a more efficient means of power than the Schilling
ever was.

About the campaign: We could ask ourselves: who do we want to reach
with our protest? Do we want to celebrate an "autonomous"
festival of opposition? Or do we want to struggle together with those
who are on the receiving end of EU, labour and EURO? If we choose the
latter, we have to destroy some illusions. Which is arduous, no
doubt. We have to convince people, by agitation and propaganda, in
other words: public relations work in every form, but massively. This
means radical political criticism, carried out with strictly legal
methods. Why? Because we can achieve incomparably more, because we
can reach incomparably more people, because we could really change
something politically. This is all about instigating the widest
public debate about the EU. About the fact that the EU isn't simply
an economic alliance, but a new form(ation) of state, a new world
power, which is incomparably more powerful than the old nation states
ever were and which therefore can cause incomparably more damage. We
think that there is every chance of leading a political campaign
against the EU during Austria's presidency.
RevolutionsbrÅ uhof (RBH)