European Union State

[thecoffeecake1]

In my opinion, the European Union in its current state does much more harm than good and to imagine it being a country sickens me. Its much too late at night for me to outline all the problems I have with it, but I have a Marxist friend who is all for it. I wanted to know how others felt on this topic

[StoneFrog]

Its a body of the bourgeoisie to standing together to protect their interests. An organ of oppression onto the workers, it shouldn't be condoned by any Marxist. I would actually like to hear from a Marxists who thinks its a good idea, it baffles me why they'd support it.

[AK]

Your friend is certainly not a Marxist.

[NGNM85]

I won't speculate what the proper Marxist position is, but I'll give my two cents; The European Union is by no means perfect, but it represents a step in the right direction. Nationalism is one of the greatest obstacles that must be overcome, it's one of the three primary sources of all the misery and suffering in the world. It is, as Einstein characterized it, an infantile mental disorder, and it's history is soaked in blood. It has inspired two world wars, and many smaller ones. It has nearly led to the annihilation of the human race on one occasion. At this point integration is a survival imperative. Problems like nuclear proliferation, and climate change can't be confronted by individual states, these aren't American problems, or Iranian problems, or French problems, they are human problems, that we need to tackle, together. The answer is integration, blurring the lines until they no longer exist. Regional integration is a step towards global integration, and that, in principle, is a very good thing.

[Widerstand]

The Europian Union is a primarily economic, and increasingly military (CDSP), union. It has next to no political merit, neither for it's member states nor as a global player. The latter is a fact that has been noted and criticized by a lot of people, including a large variety pro-establishment writers, analytics, scientists, etc.

It's not a step away from nationalism, it's a step towards supranational economic monopolies, freer capital movement and more military superforces.

[bailey_187]

In my opinion, the European Union in its current state does much more harm than good and to imagine it being a country sickens me.

Much of the harm it causes is due to it not being a proper country though.

[M-26-7]

A lot of the problem is the lack of accountability, since so much EU business is done on an intergovernmental basis. It would become much more democratic if it moved in a federalist direction, strengthening the institutions that are accountable to direct election by the citizens of the EU (like the European Parliament).

But that would just be another form of parliamentary illusions trying to trick the working class, so I don't really see anything positive about the EU. Nationalism and war can never be overcome on a capitalist basis. The world economy was actually quite interconnected prior to WWI, and that obviously didn't stop the war from happening.

I see the EU as mainly existing because a large free trade area is suitable to the scale of the large corporations that dominate the economy of modern Europe. Corporations so large require a larger market; they also want to get their factors of production from other countries more cheaply (without tariffs), and to exploit cheap immigrant labor from the more recently admitted Eastern European states. The EU will continue to exist, and to become stronger, only for as long as it suits the ruling classes of the countries involved.

[Obs]

I won't speculate what the proper Marxist position is, but I'll give my two cents; The European Union is by no means perfect, but it represents a step in the right direction. Nationalism is one of the greatest obstacles that must be overcome, it's one of the three primary sources of all the misery and suffering in the world. It is, as Einstein characterized it, an infantile mental disorder, and it's history is soaked in blood. It has inspired two world wars, and many smaller ones. It has nearly led to the annihilation of the human race on one occasion. At this point integration is a survival imperative. Problems like nuclear proliferation, and climate change can't be confronted by individual states, these aren't American problems, or Iranian problems, or French problems, they are human problems, that we need to tackle, together. The answer is integration, blurring the lines until they no longer exist. Regional integration is a step towards global integration, and that, in principle, is a very good thing.
As always, NGNM85 is ready with an extensive materialist analysis.

[Q]

For those calling it "unMarxist" to hold a view of uniting Europe, I would like to point to an article by James Turley in which he talks about the matter (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/newvision.php):


This is the context in which debates on the left around the EU have to be placed. Marxists, as a rule of thumb, prefer the greatest possible unity between nations. Our cause is global - it transcends the artificial borders and barriers erected before us, which serve only capital. When Marx and Engels started their political careers, Germany was a nation but not a state - it was divided into squabbling princedoms, some tiny and some relatively powerful. They argued consistently for the ‘one and indivisible republic’, to unite the German states and with them the German masses. This was not out of any romantic, Volk nationalism, but in the interests ultimately of the unity of the workers across Europe.

In the EU, we are faced with a contradictory unity of disparate states - some (like Germany and Britain) relatively powerful, others weak. European unity is, on one level, being forced upon national populations who are often unsympathetic to it. On another level, however, the ruling class is pussyfooting. Unity can go only as far as it serves the interests of capital. Trade barriers can be scrapped, but individual member-states retain many powers of taxation, law-making and, of course, over their military machines. The interests of capital in general and the US in particular hold unity in Europe back.
I agree the central matter has to be about democracy (what M-26-7 calls "accountability"). The fight of our class is to reach the for the most complete democracy, which is equal to seizing political power. An anti-EU position does not help in this, instead we have to overcome the undemocratic EU and call for concrete democratic measures in the here and now.

[Q]

Also, I point to this thread I opened earlier on: Despite the crisis: further EU integration (http://www.revleft.com/vb/despite-crisis-further-t141677/index.html)

[Wanted Man]

It's funny how, on the revolutionary left, you still get a kind of divide between "Europhiles" who are sympathetic to the EU, and "Eurosceptics" who are opposed to it, just like in mainstream politics.

The mistake of the Europhiles is that they see some kind of continuity between the idea of a united socialist Europe and the current EU, that they think there is something progressive about the EU. The mistake of the Eurosceptics is a kind of nationalism, with concerns about a "European superstate", "Brussels dictates", etc., as if we all live in countries that are oppressed by "Brussels". The thing about this is that "Brussels" and the "superstate" is actually a collection of all our own capitalists who have banded together. It's a collection of bosses, but that includes "our" bosses on the national level. Therefore, nationalist rhetoric about the EU won't do, and it can only lead to some short-term electoral success that will eventually fade (like with the Dutch SP).

All of this leads us directly to the need to struggle on a European level, but without developing a sympathy for the structures of the EU in any way. Of course, one of the problems of Eurocommunists, the European Left, reformist parties, etc. is that they are less about class struggle on the European level. They're just delighted about getting the chance to play Euro-politics with the rest of the EU Parliament, in a more "Eurosceptic" role, but implicitly recognising its structures.

[Lyev]

For those calling it "unMarxist" to hold a view of uniting Europe, I would like to point to an article by James Turley in which he talks about the matter (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/newvision.php):


I agree the central matter has to be about democracy (what M-26-7 calls "accountability"). The fight of our class is to reach the for the most complete democracy, which is equal to seizing political power. An anti-EU position does not help in this, instead we have to overcome the undemocratic EU and call for concrete democratic measures in the here and now.However, in doing so, I think we have to very conscience not to slip over into vulgar, conservative "euroskepticism", which tries to tackle the issue from a completely bourgeois perspective. Nigel Farrage (UKIP's ex-leader) once was ranting in the European parliament about how radical Maoists had infiltrated the European Council or some nonsense like that.

[Lyev]

It's funny how, on the revolutionary left, you still get a kind of divide between "Europhiles" who are sympathetic to the EU, and "Eurosceptics" who are opposed to it, just like in mainstream politics.

The mistake of the Europhiles is that they see some kind of continuity between the idea of a united socialist Europe and the current EU, that they think there is something progressive about the EU. The mistake of the Eurosceptics is a kind of nationalism, with concerns about a "European superstate", "Brussels dictates", etc., as if we all live in countries that are oppressed by "Brussels". The thing about this is that "Brussels" and the "superstate" is actually a collection of all our own capitalists who have banded together. It's a collection of bosses, but that includes "our" bosses on the national level. Therefore, nationalist rhetoric about the EU won't do, and it can only lead to some short-term electoral success that will eventually fade (like with the Dutch SP).

All of this leads us directly to the need to struggle on a European level, but without developing a sympathy for the structures of the EU in any way. Of course, one of the problems of Eurocommunists, the European Left, reformist parties, etc. is that they are less about class struggle on the European level. They're just delighted about getting the chance to play Euro-politics with the rest of the EU Parliament, in a more "Eurosceptic" role, but implicitly recognising its structures.But what these perceived "Europhiles" are actually saying is that they're not opposed to a united (socialist) Europe quite simply in itself; but opposed to the capitalist European Union it it's current form, because it serves only for freer movement of capital and a labour-force, thus furthering and perpetuating bourgeois interests.

EDIT: I'll also add, if someone asks "are you for or against the EU?" and we reply "no - it's undemocratic", the asker gets the immediate impression that the answer must mean this conservative kind of "euro-skepticism", as opposed to the Marxist position of wanting borders - nationalism - to become increasingly insignificant. Do you know what I mean?

[Widerstand]

It's funny how, on the revolutionary left, you still get a kind of divide between "Europhiles" who are sympathetic to the EU, and "Eurosceptics" who are opposed to it, just like in mainstream politics.

Yeah ... so? :confused:



The mistake of the Europhiles is that they see some kind of continuity between the idea of a united socialist Europe and the current EU, that they think there is something progressive about the EU. The mistake of the Eurosceptics is a kind of nationalism, with concerns about a "European superstate", "Brussels dictates", etc., as if we all live in countries that are oppressed by "Brussels". The thing about this is that "Brussels" and the "superstate" is actually a collection of all our own capitalists who have banded together. It's a collection of bosses, but that includes "our" bosses on the national level. Therefore, nationalist rhetoric about the EU won't do, and it can only lead to some short-term electoral success that will eventually fade (like with the Dutch SP).

All of this leads us directly to the need to struggle on a European level, but without developing a sympathy for the structures of the EU in any way. Of course, one of the problems of Eurocommunists, the European Left, reformist parties, etc. is that they are less about class struggle on the European level. They're just delighted about getting the chance to play Euro-politics with the rest of the EU Parliament, in a more "Eurosceptic" role, but implicitly recognising its structures.

I consider myself a EU-sceptic, even though I would say I'm an internationalist. Why? No, it's not because I'm a nationalist. That's a dumb assertion. As I said earlier, the EU does very little to unite the European proletariat, aside from what is necessary to further it's primary agenda: Support capital movement and monopolization, as well as supply European capital with an increased military force. What we are witnessing is not some socialist dream of European unity coming true, although the EU likes to displays itself as such. No, we are witnessing the birth of an imperialist superforce rivaling the USA. I dare say that opposition to such is justified.

[Reznov]

is a step towards global integration, and that, in principle, is a very good thing.

Global Capitalism, I can only imagine! :(

[Red Commissar]

On the surface to most progressive observers the EU seems positive in that it is supposed to transcend nationalism, ethnic disputes, and provide a standard of human rights and social standards.

However the above is not the EU's primary concern. It is first and foremost an economic agreement, the creation of a common market, so that the capitalists can have more mobility and flexibility for their capital and a more effective way to exploit labor.

Unfortunately the euro-skepticism movement is mostly furthered by right-wing populist/nationalist types. This is not to say that there are leftists against the EU- indeed most genuine socialist groups should be and are against it. However left groups are not the most influential drive against it, as the right populist groups' appeal to nationalism seems to be more appealing to the mood against the EU rather than the left group's appeal to worker solidarity and internationalism. This is a part of the trouble all left groups have right now, that is the nativist/nationalist bantering that a lot of groups have exploited.

Important thing is to find a way to take away the nationalist angle from anti-EU bantering that has benefited some groups, and reorient it to a different mindset- for a union that benefits workers, not the industrial and banking interests. Much more easier said than done though.

[Obs]

Of course, these "Europhiles" tend not to come from any of the lesser EU states, but either outside Europe or one of the more powerful states that profit from their membership in the EU, such as France, Germany, or the UK.