The EU's soft power relies to some extent on the threat of the USA's hard power. And the EU can't see itself existing in isolation without allies.
The truth of this should not be underestimated. In all honesty, I think that in terms of economic gains, Europe is a greater beneficiary of American hard power and the ability to enforce open markets than the United States itself. Which is at a source of American discontent with Europe. Because we're left paying the price (in both and economic and human sense) for creating world order, and Europe is benefiting.
In particular, I recommend former Swiss MP Jean Ziegler's book "Switzerland, the awful truth" for detail of the ways in which European states have been benficiaries of American power.
There is another world to be had, a fairer world. That must come through conscious construction though, and not from rejection of the current international regime without thought to what will replace it. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it. And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
On the surface it relies on a unique narrative and a unique form of accounting, but in fact it's a very old-fashioned kind of empire acting in very old-fashioned ways.
The practical difference is based on clever technology, and there are also some hesitant and very limited steps towards humanitarianism - although they're very local and contingent, and the current US administration is working hard to eliminate them.
Aside from that, ideologically it might as well be Rome.
Rome imploded under the weight of its own corruption. It couldn't afford to keep or train an effective military, and it was eaten alive by neighbouring tribes.
I think we can nearly take a US implosion as a given now. So the question isn't so much whether the EU can split successfully, as whether or not it's juicy enough a prize to be worth picking up afterwards.
I don't think it is. Russia and China have enough people and enough resources not to need more. Don't forget Europe is almost entirely reliant on external energy supplies. That on its own makes it strategically vulnerable.
If times become hard Russia and China may feel like starting a war for political reasons. But I'm not sure it's worth anyone's while to annexe Europe when natural resources here are so limited, and the population would need so much 're-education' to become useful.
So as things are now, divorce is the wrong question. The divorce will happen anyway when the dominant party expires.
After that, Europe's long term survival prospects as a bloc are not good. If the US collapses, Europe is likely to be left to rot because its only real wealth is cultural and historical - and that counts for very little when resources are limited.
Which means that the smart thing to do now is to start planning for a post-US world where trade and economics are very much less important than they are today, and basic farming and energy self-sufficiency are very much more so.
I'm not expecting anyone to actually do this, even though it makes sense whatever happens next - and it may be the only way to salvage anything at all here after a crash.
Before the dawn
Well, maybe not always! Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
Capital is just another tribal domination game. On the surface it relies on a unique narrative and a unique form of accounting, but in fact it's a very old-fashioned kind of empire acting in very old-fashioned ways.
I've been reading for classes, and one of the more interesting ideas that I've encountered recently is the idea that the current international system in some sense represents the global diffusion of the utlitarian value system across the globe.
Now if you are a good utilitarian, you have an indivualist ontology. Which is to say that the value that you place on items is entirely your own, value is no affected by social interaction. Let's call this the income narrative. In this instance, the amount of income that others posses is of no concern to you. So long as the amount of income that you receive increases, the distribution of income is not important.
This defies common sense. Anyone who's been a teenager knows that consumption is largely socially driven. That is to say that value is not internally determined, but instead the origin of preferences lies in socialization into one's peer group. And value isn't indivualized, it's socialized. Wealth becomes a zero-sum game, because the relative distribution of wealth rather than the absolute quantity present in a society is what matters. And individuals will willingly destroy societal wealth (including the portion they own) in order to create a more even distribution of wealth in society. Wealth derives its importance not from the individual utility, but from the social status it grants.
Consider now what this means for the global distribution of wealth, and the prospects for conflict as that changes.......... And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg
That is to say, "if you are a typical, debased utilitarian (simplistic, and blind even to your own values)..." -------------
I prefer to attack bad ideas on their own terms when possible: This bypasses a layer of intellectual armor and concentrates fire on a soft spot. For example:
Genuine "utility" corresponds to what people actually value, which includes a more than just money and what it can buy. Confused utilitarians, out to maximize wealth instead of utility, are simply wrong by their own standards. What people actually value includes their relationships, the well-being of others, and a lot more.
So, no need to attack utilitarianism or self-interest here; we can save that effort for another war. (Hmmm... If people understood the reality of the hedonic treadmill, then what?)
</ favorite-topic> Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.
It's a key element in this Economic Madness that all utility must be measured in monetary terms to the maximum extent possible, and all relationships must be commodified.
Of course this is nuts, and it's at the core of our pathology.
But while that minor detail is sorting itself out in a collision with the real world, we're left with the fact that it's a rare neoliberal who can accept that monetary utility isn't the ultimate measure of everything that matters, and that the magic of the markets creates more utility for everyone.
(Or at least, for everyone who matters.)
The EU's soft power relies to some extent on the threat of the USA's hard power. And the EU can't see itself existing in isolation without allies. The truth of this should not be underestimated. In all honesty, I think that in terms of economic gains, Europe is a greater beneficiary of American hard power and the ability to enforce open markets than the United States itself.
The truth of this should not be underestimated. In all honesty, I think that in terms of economic gains, Europe is a greater beneficiary of American hard power and the ability to enforce open markets than the United States itself.
Perhaps in the universe that we are expected to believe in, it is true. It makes complete sense.
Did the EU experiment start better because of NATO sitting off its shores, or would it have gone even smoother without the US influence over England, for example.
Does China or Thailand or Japan or the Middle East trade more with the EU due to the largesse of NATO?
Could it be said that the EU would have had to confront and come to terms with a united foreign policy with a united military, and hone a force vector harmonious with its soft power should NATO not have been here?
And as far as getting what we wish for, what is the consequence of the US pulling out of the land it occupies here...outside of the benefit that it might help them get their financial house in order sooner.
I think that it could be said that a working EU without the NATO factor would serve a good example in contrast to the US example.
I'm not trying to be snarky; I can think of some disruptions, but none with more impact than the benefits. Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.
Frank Delaney ~ Ireland
I do see the elites staffed by dedicated Atlanticists who are unwilling to consider making a clean break. And individual states still mired in nationalisms - often sponsored by US influence - which make a clean break even less likely.
Very few leaders in the EU seem to be considering a federal vision that isn't, at the very least, a partnership with Washington. Very few appreciate the extent to which the constant propaganda for reform and 'liberalisation' undermines national autonomy and federalisation while appearing to support both.
This is very useful for EU pols, because it provides deniability. When terror flights land in EU countries, EU politicians can cluck unsympathetically in public - which is always useful for a few poll points - while offering support in private.
And that's where we are. Rather too much of the EU leadership is like a French- and German-speaking wing of the Democratic party - outraged and disapproving in public, spineless or even actively supportive and complicit in private.
I don't see any evidence of genuine disdain for Washington among the pols. Bush is considered an aberration rather than a symptom, and the Atlanticists are convinced that AngloSaxonia is still basically sound and entirely friendly.
Populations may be suspicious, but they hardly count. And it's easy for the US-sponsored financial and nationalist media outlets to bring them to heel by promising a few gaudy nationalisms which will teach Brussels a lesson and put the Eurocrats in their place.
What's tragic is that hardly anyone in Brussels seems to see the reality of the situation. The EU is so completely a vassal state that true independence of thought and action has become unthinkable. The best we're going to get is a few slaps for Microsoft and maybe a banana war. But there isn't going to be a serious questioning of the Atlanticist view - which means the neoliberal Washington consensus - any time soon.
When even the Greens support the Iraq war, you know that dissent has pretty much been sidelined into electoral insignificance. (No matter how big it is numerically.)
There is another world to be had, a fairer world. That must come through conscious construction though, and not from rejection of the current international regime without thought to what will replace it. Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
