‘The EU is an
empire’
Wolfgang Streeck on why the EU is a
deplorable institution that we must leave.
29th March 2019
Two years have passed since the government triggered the
Article 50 process. By now, Britain should be out of the EU.
But beyond the prime minister’s capitulation to Brussels in the exit
negotiations, and parliament’s disdain for the referendum result, are their
deeper, structural reasons why leaving the EU has proven so difficult?
For economic sociologist Professor Wolfgang Streeck, the EU is a ‘liberal empire’. Streeck is emeritus
director of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in
Germany. spiked caught up with him for a chat.
spiked: How has the role and focus of the EU evolved over the past few
decades?
Wolfgang Streeck: Originally, the EU was an organisation for joint
economic planning among six adjacent countries. The planning was sectorally
specific, limited to coalmining and the steel industry, later also nuclear
power, in the context of the state-managed capitalism of the postwar era. Then
it grew into a free-trade zone, increasingly devoted to spreading neoliberal
internationalism, in particular the free movement of goods, services, capital and
labour, under the rubric of the Internal Market.
As the number and heterogeneity of member
states continuously increased, ‘positive integration’ became ever-more
difficult. Instead, there was ‘negative’ integration: the removal of
substantive regulations that impeded free trade within the bloc. After the end
of Communism in 1989, the EU became a geostrategic project, closely intertwined
with the US’s geostrategy in relation to Russia.
From the original six
countries cooperating in the management of a few key sectors of their
economies, the EU became a neoliberal empire of 28 highly heterogeneous states.
The idea was and is to govern those states centrally by obliging them to
refrain from state intervention in their economies.
spiked: Is the EU reformable?
Streeck: The EU’s de facto constitution consists of the
Treaty of European Union, which is practically impossible to revise, and the
rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, which only the court
itself can revise. The neoliberal core of the EU as an institution and the
results of European integration were intended by its framers to be eternal and
irreversible. This is shown by the hard opposition in Brussels to a British
exit, and in the intention to make that exit as unpleasant as possible.
It is also, and perhaps more importantly,
visible in the inability of EU institutions to respond constructively to claims
for more national autonomy, as expressed by various ‘populist’
countermovements. These movements are now blocking the process of European integration
and there is a large risk that the insistence of Berlin, Paris and Brussels on
prolonging and extending the established European institutions will lead to
serious conflict between European nations, such as we have not seen since 1945.
spiked: Why is opposition to the EU seen as immoral?
Streeck: Very simply, I think that the neoliberal and
geostrategic nature of the post-1990 EU would not be capable of generating
anything like the legitimacy needed for a political regime to be viable. All
sorts of sentimental narratives had to be invented to make people forget the
disempowerment of national democratic politics that is at the core of the EU
construction.
Today, the left-liberal ideal of
internationalism has been hijacked by neoliberal anti-statism, and
international solidarity is identified with free markets. This is purely
ideological, and it doesn’t speak well for the political acuity of the left
middle-class that it bought the ‘Third Way’ version of international peace and
friendship. Nowhere in the history of socialism, for example, can we find the
idea that workers are morally obliged to let themselves be competed out of
their jobs by workers in a country where wages are lower. Rather, solidarity
always meant that workers cooperate, in the sense of organising together, to
protect themselves against being played against one another by employers.
Then there is the European Monetary Union,
which acts like an international gold-standard regime. The gold standard has
been known since the 1930s to be incompatible with democracy and international
peace. It puts governments against people and peoples against each other in
competition for international markets. EU propaganda enlists people’s desire
for peace and friendship to rob them of their most important institutional
heritage: the nation state. The nation state is the only site of a politics
amenable to anything like a redistributive state or an egalitarian democracy.
spiked: Why has the left become so attached to the EU?
Streeck: I wish I knew. Maybe because they confuse the EU
with Europe? The EU is a deplorably undemocratic institutional construct that
is so complex that you cannot understand how it works without extensive
investigation – and even then you may not quite grasp what it is about. This
means that you can read almost anything into it. You can identify it with
personal dreams of a world that is free from historical burdens.
Or you can see it as the embodiment of a pleasant
consumerist lifestyle: rights without obligations, free travel, no taxes,
immigrant labour, an international labour market for English-speaking
university graduates. ‘Europe’ is your oyster: a playground for the new
middle-class, the bobos, as the French call them: the bourgeois
bohemians, the self-appointed cosmopolitans who believe that by importing cheap
labour for their households they are doing something for the progress of
mankind.
Many people today want to leave their national
historical baggage behind. To many British citizens, the UK means colonialism.
They seem to believe that ‘Europe’ never had colonies, so they want to be
‘Europeans’ rather than ‘little Englanders’.
This is even worse in Germany, for
understandable reasons. If you are abroad, anywhere in the world, and you meet
someone who says they are ‘from Europe’, you can be sure they are from Germany.
spiked: To what extent does the EU resemble an empire?
Streeck: The EU has a centre and a periphery, with a steep
gradient of power between the former and the latter.
The centre imposes and enforces its political and
economic order on the periphery, in the form of the common currency, the ‘four
freedoms’ of the common market, and a general requirement of adherence to ‘European
values’.
Moreover, compliance is rewarded by fiscal
transfers, in particular, the structural and social funds. The centre – it is
still an open question as to whether this is Germany alone or Germany and
France – offers military protection to countries on the periphery in return for
imperial loyalty. (See Poland and the Baltic states, in particular.)
Peripheral countries that do not follow the
rules, such as Greece under the SYRIZA government, are punished by central
institutions like the European Central Bank, while central countries like
France are exempt from punishment. Sometimes wayward governments in peripheral
member states are replaced by the centre with imperial governors, as happened
with the replacement of Silvio Berlusconi by Mario Monti in Italy, or of George
Papandreou by Lucas Papademos in Greece.
And exit from the empire is, while possible,
made as difficult as possible, in order to prevent peripheral countries
negotiating terms of membership more suited to their particular situation.
spiked: If Britain ever leaves the EU, could it ever make a success of
Brexit?
Streeck: That depends what you mean by success. Let me focus
on the British left, which seems overwhelmingly to be in favour of Remain. To
me, there is no left in Europe and the United States that is more demoralised
and defeatist than the pro-EU left in the UK.
The main reason why they find EU membership indispensable
is that they are afraid that without it, the Conservatives will take over the
country forever and remove even the minimal – absolutely minimal – protections
for workers that they have to uphold under the Maastricht Treaty. In other
words, they believe they will be unable to defend even the puny minimum
standards granted to them by Brussels.
The same is true for regional policy, which
in Britain is largely funded by EU handouts. Although regional disparities in
Britain remain dramatic – worse than in most European countries, except for
Italy – the pro-EU left is urging people to be grateful for the blessings
dispersed from the European structural funds.
The assumption appears to be that if European
pacifiers of this sort are removed, the left and those it is supposed to
represent will do nothing, remain seated, safety belts fastened, and suffer in
silence. I do not share that view.
The British pro-EU left has, for fear of
Thatcher and her current and future acolytes, sold its anti-capitalist
birthright for the thin gruel of a European minimum entitlement to a few days
of parental leave. People can ask for more, as they have successfully done in
all other rich European countries. But the right tells them that these measures
would mean less employment – and they seem to believe it! Britain is one of the
richest countries in the world.
But the left has been persuaded that it
requires European tax money to have a regional policy, even though this has
made no difference at all to regional inequality.
With the European anaesthetics withdrawn,
workers and voters might remember the British tradition of powerful trade
unions and a universal welfare state, get together again, strike for better
employment conditions, and elect a Labour government worthy of that name. If
this could be the result of Brexit, would it not be worth at least trying to
‘take back control’?
Wolfgang Streeck was talking to Fraser Myers.
Link originale: https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/03/29/the-eu-is-an-empire/
_________________________________________________________________________________
A proposito di Wolfgang Streeck:
Wolfgang
Streeck
Werdegang
Streeck widmet sich in seinen Arbeiten vor
allem Fragestellungen aus den Bereichen Wirtschaft und Politik und deren
Wechselbeziehungen. Dabei bedient er sich eines historisch-vergleichenden
institutionellen Ansatzes.
Frankfurter Adorno-Vorlesungen 2012
Streeck meint, dass der sogenannte Spätkapitalismus, wie
in Krisentheorien der 1960/70er Jahre beschrieben, in Wahrheit der Anfang einer
damals unvorstellbaren Expansion kapitalistischer Produktions- und
Konsumtionsverhältnisse war. Dabei war diese Expansion von einer fast 40 Jahre
dauernden Steigerung von Inflation, von Staats- und Privatverschuldung[3] begleitet, die in der heutigen
internationalen Banken- und Fiskalkrise ihren vorläufigen Höhepunkt gefunden
hat. Die Fiskalkrise hat sich jetzt zu einer fundamentalen Krise im Verhältnis
von Demokratie und Kapitalismus ausgewachsen; sie berührt damit das
Staatensystem der entwickelten Industriegesellschaften insgesamt.
Die drei Vorlesungen im Frankfurter
Institut für Sozialforschung behandeln die Verhinderung
beziehungsweise den zeitweiligen Aufschub der schon in den 1970er Jahren
vorhergesagten „Legitimationskrise“ des Systems durch Inflation, Staats- und
Privatverschuldung, die einander bis zum Zusammenbruch des „Pumpkapitalismus“ (Ralf Dahrendorf) folgten. An die Stelle des
Wachstums der Nachkriegsjahre traten nach 2007 verteilungspolitische
„Pazifizierungsinstrumente“, als ein Mittel, das innergesellschaftliche
Verhältnis von Arm und Reich anders zu bestimmen. Die Vorlesungen beschreiben
die Finanz- und Fiskalkrise des Jahres 2012 als Prozess einer langfristigen
Gewichtsverschiebung im Verhältnis der Faktoren „Demokratie“ und
„Kapitalismus“, sie zeichnen den Wandel vom Steuer- zum Schuldenstaat nach, sie
untersuchen die Folgen für eine demokratische Politik und diskutieren die
jetzige Entwicklung hin zu einem „Konsolidierungs- und Austeritäts-Staat“. Die demokratische
Beteiligung wurde zu bloßer Unterhaltung herabgewürdigt und zudem von
politisch-ökonomischen Entscheidungen abgekoppelt. Was in den letzten Tagen
(Juni 2012) als „Wachstumsprogramme“ politisch verkauft wurde, ist nichts
weiter als eine „Umverpackung der nach wie vor alternativlos verfolgten
Austeritäts- und Deregulierungsstrategie“.[4]
Jürgen Habermas,
der die Buchpublikation der Vorlesungen mit großem Respekt vor der
diagnostischen Analyse des Autors lobt, sie gar mit der Marxschen Schrift Der
achtzehnte Brumaire des Louis Bonaparte vergleicht,
kritisiert indessen Streecks „nostalgische Option“ für den Rückzug in die
europäische Kleinstaaterei.[5]
Kontroversen
Von einigen Seiten wurde ihm vorgeworfen,
er habe Ende der 1990er Jahre über das Bündnis für Arbeit die Agenda 2010 mit vorbereitet.[6] Andere hielten dagegen, das
Bündnis für Arbeit habe keinen direkten Einfluss auf die Agenda 2010 gehabt.[7]
Zitate
Streeck sieht in der aktuellen Krisenpolitik eine Fortsetzung des
langfristigen Trends zur Zunahme der Staatsverschuldung und
damit zur abnehmenden Handlungsfähigkeit des Staates, der von den Banken als
Geisel genommen worden sei:
„Möglich, dass der finanzielle Kraftakt,
den wir derzeit beobachten, der letzte ist, zu dem das westliche Staatensystem
in der Lage ist. Danach wäre der Kapitalismus, wie er immer gewollt hat, sich
selbst überlassen.“
„Es scheint einen Imperativ zu geben: Die
Forderungen des Finanzsektors an die Staaten müssen absoluten Vorrang haben vor
den Forderungen der Bürger an die Staaten.“
In einer Polemik 2012 charakterisierte er
Wirtschafts- und Finanzexperten als Kapitalversteher, „deren
besonderes Know-how darin besteht, den Eigentümern von Produktionsmitteln ihre
Wünsche von den Lippen abzulesen und sie für den öffentlichen Gebrauch in
»Sachzwänge« zu übersetzen.“[10]
Den französischen
Präsidentschaftskandidaten Macron apostrophierte er 2017 als
"Schaufensterpuppe der Finanzwirtschaft".[11]
Ende 2017 diagnostizierte er das Ende der
Ära Merkel:
„Die Ära Merkel geht zu Ende. Zum Glück,
denn sie steht für den sinnentleerten Machterhalt einer Monarchin.“
Schriften (Auswahl)
·
Wie wird der Kapitalismus enden? Teil II.
In: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Heft 4/2015 Online
·
Gekaufte Zeit: Die vertagte Krise des
demokratischen Kapitalismus. Suhrkamp, Berlin 2013, ISBN 978-3-518-58592-4.
·
Re-Forming Capitalism: Institutional Change in
the German Political Economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2009.
·
Governing interests: business associations facing
internationalization. Routledge, 2006, ISBN 0-415-36486-8.
·
mit Kathleen Ann Thelen: Beyond continuity:
institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford
University Press, 2005, ISBN 0-19-928046-0.
·
mit Kôzô Yamamura: The origins of nonliberal capitalism:
Germany and Japan in comparison. Cornell University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-8014-3917-5.
·
Korporatismus in Deutschland: Zwischen
Nationalstaat und europäischer Union. Campus Verlag,
1999, ISBN 3-593-36320-8.
·
Internationale Wirtschaft, nationale
Demokratie: Herausforderungen für die Demokratietheorie. Campus
Verlag, 1998.
·
mit Colin Crouch: Political economy of modern
capitalism: mapping convergence and diversity. SAGE, 1997, ISBN 0-7619-5653-0.
·
Status und Vertrag als Grundkategorien einer
soziologischen Theorie der industriellen Beziehungen: Habil.-Vortrag,
gehalten am 12. November 1986 vor d. FAK. Für Soziologie d. Univ. Bielefeld.
Veröffentlicht von WZB, Forschungsschwerpunkt Arbeitsmarkt u. Beschäftigung,
1988.
Literatur
Weblinks
·
Offizielle Seite am Max-Planck-Institut
für Gesellschaftsforschung (MPIfG) Köln
·
Blog von Wolfgang Streeck
Fußnoten
3. von Streeck als „neoliberale Konterrevolution“ bezeichnet.
Damit ist das Kapital aus dem „Gefängnis“ sozialer Regulierungen der
Nachkriegszeit ausgebrochen. Er nennt die Deregulierung „atemberaubend
erfolgreich“
5. Jürgen Habermas: Demokratie oder Kapitalismus. Vom
Elend der nationalstaatlichen Fragmentierung in einer kapitalistisch
integrierten Weltgesellschaft. In: Blätter für deutsche und
internationale Politik. 58. Jg./2013, H. 5, S. 59–70.
7. Cornelia Fraune: Soziale Pakte in Deutschland und
in den Niederlanden. Wiesbaden 2011, S. 217.
-->
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento