On Mon, 17 Nov 1997, Richard K. Moore wrote:
>
> The whole notion of a strong united Europe -- a power on an economic par
> with the US and Japan -- is in fact antiquated in this era of "offshore"
> production, budget-constrained First World nations, and globalized
> corporations. It harks back nostalgically to the pre-1980 nationalist
> paradigm, but in current reality it is a sham vision, and this cannot be
> unknown to the likes of Kohl and other G7 VIP's.
But the constraints on those budgets are political, not fundamentally
economic ones, in the EU. These countries are running big trade surpluses,
they have the leading industries and technologies of the world-system, and
they could, if they really wanted to, finance a new kind of global
Keynesianism. Of course, their rentiers and financiers don't want this,
which is why the people of Europe are going to have to organize
politically to make this happen. The signs of this are everywhere:
neoliberalism is deeply unpopular in Europe, Rightwing governments are
being trounced every which way, Left coalitions kicked out monetarist
goons in France and Italy, etc. Heck, if even hidebound, parafeudal,
newly deindustrializing Britain could throw the Conservatives into the
sewer of history, anything is possible. And now, of course, the Kohl
regime is submerged in the nether gulfs of the German electoral polls.
What interests me about the EU is not what it has achieved so far
-- which is not much at all -- but the potential it has as a model for
transnational regulation, laws, citizenship, culture and democracy. Sure,
the EU may end up as another corrupted, capitalist Empire; but its reign
and politics will undoubtedly be as different from the Pax Americana as
the latter was from the British Empire. Only transnational socialism can
fight the rule of the multinational corporations; as to what Trans-Soc
would look like, I haven't the slightest idea. Still, these are the
questions world-systems theory needs to be asking.
-- Dennis