(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
In the 1990 century, I joined a network of philosophers from France, Italy, Spain and Germany called Immaginare l'Europe. In Norwegian, we translated the title to "Performing Europe". The aim was to discuss what in psychology is called the information-bearing mental content of the thoughts, knowledge, memories and fantasies that guide our understanding of various phenomena. For us, this was the case for Europe, and the historical basis for the European Union (EU).
The EU is a process. The network was established by Giorgio Baratta, professor of philosophy at the University of Urbino and head of the International Gramsci Society. For Baratta, the European integration project was a process where, as Antonio Gramsci would have said, it is meaningless to talk about "before" and "after" scandalous events, such as a revolution. As pointless as it is to talk about a Europe "before" and "after" the fall of the Berlin Wall – or now "before" and "after" a British announcement from the EU.
This process thinking about European integration from a bunch of intellectuals on the political left, fascinated because it was so far removed from how the Norwegian left looked at the EU. During the fight for Norwegian membership in the EU in 1994, large parts of the left were completely locked in the belief in the nation-state as the only legitimate and final framework for all politics. Not unlike the Norwegian left-hand side today – and so we saw that the most nationalist British right-hand side was during the Brexit campaign recently.
The current refugee situation, Russia's aggression policy and rising unemployment in Norway and Europe, also face the Norwegian left – from the center of the Labor Party via the Center Party and the SV to the Red – with national-state policy and EU-hostile rhetoric. As the parties to the right of the Right do in the rest of Europe, and the Progress Party in Norway.
Failed class alliances? The difference between the Norwegian and the left-wing south of Europe is striking. At least to the Euro-Communist parties, who retreat to Gramsci and the belief in a total change of society through the progressive takeover of the working class by parliamentary institutions and the development of civil political rights.
The problem for Gramsci was that the way European nation states evolved during the 1920 century led to class alliances internally in those states hindering social development in the direction he desired. For us in "Imagination Europe" we saw class alliances as they work today when nationalist-oriented parties to the right of the Right meet their political opponents on the left in a common national-state front against the EU and EU institutions.
Left Nationalism. The Brexites slogan was "We Want Our Country Back". It was like hearing Attac, No to the EU, the Center Party, SV and Red as they embark on the eighth march against the EEA agreement, protesting the negotiations on the EU-US transatlantic trade and investment agreement, or the EU, US and globalization in general. The Norwegian left has long been barricaded behind the borders of the nation state. But what are their good answers to the challenges of the future?
When former Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland in 2008 left Norwegian politics, he said that "The left side in Norway has become incredibly introverted and quite nationalistic. They compensate with high-voiced rhetoric about solidarity and with a lot of money. But you don't buy yourself out of poverty, you distribute and organize yourself out of it. " And referring to the Left's attitude to the EU, he felt that they "speak loudly and warmly about international solidarity, but do not seek influence in the power forums where words can be put into action" (Aftenposten 1.10.08).
Gramsci believed in a total change in society through the gradual takeover of the parliamentary institutions by the working class and the development of civil political rights.
Global hegemony. If the EU and the US succeed in negotiating a transatlantic trade and investment agreement (TTIP), today's liberal customs and tax policy between the two trade blocs will have closer cooperation on regulations and rules for trade in goods and services across the Atlantic.
The opposition is great among those who believe this will lead to lower standards for health, safety and the environment, and greater power for transnational corporations and disputes courts with independent judges. That will also counteract political regulations and the national democratic institutions, and ultimately create greater inequality between rich and poor. But it is not wealth that is the problem in the world. It is poverty.
This is not what the left has understood, and this is where the fight against the EU, the EEA and TTIP is wrong. With regard to TTIP, it is a clear stated goal that the EU and the US, through this agreement, want to take back the global hegemony in the development of international trade and investment agreements. But negatively from a Gramscian point of view, could such a hegemony be better for the working class and "most people" than potential alternatives – even if it is based on a strong Eurocentrism and a need for common European solutions to global challenges?
Politics at European level. Inspired by Gramsci, in "Imagination Europe" we were concerned with how institutional frameworks must be developed in a global and postcolonial world, where elected politicians have a responsibility to provide the working class and "most people" with the socio-cultural and economic security that can give them control. over their own lives. As Jagland says: “The most important thing is school and education. If you want to distribute, there is hardly anything more important. I come from a poor working-class family myself. If we had been referred to the poverty fund, I would have been zero and nothing today. ”
The question we must ask ourselves when, in the years to come, we will probably see a significant increase in the number of people who want to settle and live in Europe, is what "Imagination Europe" our politicians face. A nation of Europe, as the right and left wing parties, or a Europe of Renaissance and Enlightenment? That is, a Europe with faith in reason, the individual's right to a decent life and personal integrity across cultural and national dividing lines.
Grindheim is a political scientist in Civita and leader of the European movement.
janerik@orgkontakt.no