Two questions: on the EU and on the ‘free market’

After recently witnessing yet again the devastation caused by neo-classical economic ideologues in the USA and by the European Union, I can’t help wondering:

Why would anyone think that the economic model touted so vigorously by ideologues in the USA and elsewhere is beneficial?

Why would anyone even consider joining the EU? Ukraine is a case in point here, with second class affiliate membership dangled out, alongside the usual threats and vague promises. Already the vicious economic measures the EU’s grey managers like to use are in evidence, but the government is standing firm in its refusal. That makes Ukraine join Belarus in aligning itself with Russia. Anyone who imagines the EU is a good deal is deluded.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Two questions: on the EU and on the ‘free market’

  1. Why join the EU? Nationalism!

    Not so sure Putinism is less of a zombie-ideology than the deadly mix of postmodernism and neo-classical thought spouted by the EU. But at least it brings the Ukranians cheap gas and other essentials. We have little to give them, except to take them in as another reserve army of labour to exploit.

  2. While certainly not being a main reason for siding with the EU, one should not underestimate the hegemonial aspect. Conflicts between Russia-China-Iran on the one side and USA-EU-Israel on the other side are becoming more obvious. So one wants to choose sides carefully (i.e. choose the winning side). This is of course not the defining economic explanation, but most certainly a side contradiction.

    1. My friends in the Ukraine say that the pro-EU bunch are proclaiming that the economy doesn’t matter. It’s as much about the continuing political struggles in Ukraine between Ukrainian and Russian groups.

  3. are you serious? consider the case of Turkey. Supporters of EU entry is generally secular liberal/social democratic left + some socialist intellectuals and groups. Sure, most of the tradtional Turkish left wing groups oppose it under the name of imperialism (but they agree most of the demanded Eu reforms under the name of democratisation!!) However, the case is not always so clear-cut. I recommend Perry Anderson’s New Old World. Economic as well as ideological/historical reasons hugely varies between candidate countries. Plus, one can also try to transform EU within (think Tom Nairn on British entry to the EC) and build a ‘social Europe’ (social democratic version) or a people’s/socialist Europe (European Left Party group)

    1. Transform EU from within? Hardly. Ask Greeks and Spaniards, or perhaps Romanians and Spaniards. The grey managerialism of the EU is what happens when you put into practice habermas’s flawed ideas of the public sphere and so on.

  4. Join the EU? The Ukrainian economic elite can then salivate at the gains to be had from creating supply chains for German industry using Ukraine’s reserve army of labour.

    Align with Russia? Not clear what the Ukrainian economic elite will gain….

    1. So far, all they are being offered is affiliate status, a reminder of how they are regarded in western parts. Putin’s Customs Union and common defence system seems to have some attraction even for the elite. And there’s slavic chauvinism that kicks in at some point. Can Ukraine manage both?

      1. The EU (effectively, multinationals plus Brussels bureaucrats) or Putin? Go for the option that is less likely to involve subalternity– Putin, despite some drawbacks?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.