EU

[C0YS]

views on EU. Is it compatible with socialism/communism/anarcism.

I think a union to gain a better understanding of country per country even in anarcism is needed and a Union is very good. But is the EU the answer? or are there better ways of doing it

[Black Sheep]

EU meaning european union? Fuck no. It is an imperialist organization, a federation between the capitalists of each country and a competitor to the US economic domination.
It even started as a union of steel manufacturers and then it was transformed (in the name) as the european people's union.

[gilhyle]

I think this is a difficult question. The slogan of a United States of Europe is a valid, even important, political slogan. As something which approximates to that is developed within Europe, it is difficult to oppose it in principle without adapting to nationalist prejudices. On the other hand, the manner in which the EU is developing is as a treaty-based institution within which national governments share sovereignty. The structure of EU wide democracy remains a sham and the reforms - even those envisaged in the putative constitution for the EU rejected in France and Holland would not have transfored that into an EU-wide federative structure which emobdies even basic democratic standards.

I do not see that a slogan to pull down the EU is progressive. Therefore it seems to me that the only way is to seek democratic change. In particular, there should be one person one vote throughout the EU for all residents (irrespective of living location and citizenship), the EU Council should be abolished and there should be an EU Executive eleced from within and accountable to the EU Parliament. The extent of national ceding of authority should be set down in a constitution for the EU. Anything short of this is a rotten bloc of imperialist powers operating in secret behind the backs of their own electorate.

[Pogue]

Under communism there will be no nation and so the 'European Union' will cease to hold much relevancy.

[swirling_vortex]

Under anarchism and communism, no. There would be no need for it. Under socialism, I'd say a United Nations would be useful, but other than that I really see no need for another EU. Plus, as bulk pointed out, their motive is for profit and control.

[Q]

The EU is a project of the bosses and is reactionary in most aspects (although open borders are a nice benefit). Socialists oppose the EU for this reason, but also call for a Federation of European Socialist States as a step towards genuine world unity.

[SocialRealist]

The European Union was formed on the basis as being an economic union between collections of European states. What we have seen as well is that other economic unions are attempting to emulate the success that the European Union has had and is continuing to have. The European Union type idea could be compatible with Socialism due to the facts it is basically just an economic unity between nations but most likely it could not be compatible with the theory and practice of Anarchism due to the fact it is building a national authority through the economic union where as that would need a organized government to even be achievable though, the same goes with a working model of Communism due to the fact a true Communist society is classed as an stateless and classless society and as I explained neither Anarchism or Communism can be able to retain a lasting stable agreement of economics between each other due to the fact that would create a national authority.

[gilhyle]

Under communism there will be no nation and so the 'European Union' will cease to hold much relevancy.


Quite right, but comunism is a long way off even if socialism is around the corner, so that cookbook recipe ceases to hold much relevancy to us today.


The EU is a project of the bosses

Quite right, but so is the nation state and that doesnt stop us seeking to democratise it.


The European Union was formed on the basis as being an economic union between collections of European states.

Quite right, but it has long since ceased to be only that.

[Q]

Quite right, but so is the nation state and that doesnt stop us seeking to democratise it.
You might want to read the rest of my previous post.
Also the EU is not a nation state. True unity will never be achieved under capitalism and in fact the current crisis which is putting a lot of pressure on the Eurozone countries will indeed be a very big threat to the continued survival of the EU.

[gilhyle]

I read your post. But my point is that the EU is gone beyond the point where you can just see it as a reactionary project.....it has State poiwer, independently of the national state politics that make it up. As of yet the level and type of power it has is limited. But all the secular trends to which it is a response show that centralised power increasing.

This is a dialectical process; it is not black and white. But my point is that as the EU has developed, it has increasingly gone past the point where it is possible to 'reject' the EU as a mere reactionary project. Marxists place demands for democratisation on States, irrespective of the class character of States. As the EU becomes a State, it becomes legitimate to seek its democratisation. Thats my point.

To try to characterise it as merely a reactionary project does not acknowledge what the bourgeoisie have actually achieved in the building of the EU over fifty years.