Here’s my reasoning: Capitalism is global, capitalism is imperialist, the national or transnational character of capitalism is geographically dependent. The EU as an entity does not carry out imperialist activity outside of the national/transnational framing. It engages in trade, legal definition/refinement, regulation. It empowers capitalists within the EU to conduct business on a global stage. The EU does not have a military, it does not operate a military that functions imperialistically. It can serve as an organizing force that unites national capital to coordinate national militaries with the aims of empowering national capital to conduct business globally.
Honestly the more I think through this the harder it is to parse out differences. Most, if not all, EU members are imperialist, but the imperialist part of them is national, not transnational. Honestly I can’t really fault your perspective, and I’d like to develop it more than a “I’m right, you’re wrong” type debate would really allow. I’d be interested in resources that support your position.
I think this depends on whether by EU you mean the actual political leadership body, or the member countries as a general Western-European power/cultural/economic projection project.
The EU itself cannot compel military action by member countries, for instance, so you could argue it is never imperialist. But if all the major EU countries are also in NATO and sign up to help the US invade Iraq and Afghanistan, is it really unfair to criticize the EU as a shared Western-European bloc?
I mean, yeah, after writing my way through it, I can appreciate the perspective. I generally like to be precise, concrete with definitions.
But the more I thought about it, the more I worked through it, I found it interesting that, based on strict definition of the EU, as an entity unto itself with particular functions, it is like you say, it is never imperialist.
But when searching for the contours of it, where an imperialist or historically colonial member nation ends, and where global imperialism picks up, those lines are not clear at all. I’m sure they are defined legally somewhere, and I would be interested in those legal definitions, but when defined by its relation to power, it is conspicuously “never imperialist”, while existing between, and functioning in tandem with, national imperialist powers and global imperialist powers. Like it’s a little too unimperialist for an entity that is situated deep within, and rooted intrinsically with imperialism.
I think it has been a good discussion and exercise sussing this out, I don’t think in was wrong Witt my comment, but I was also only looking at it from this one perspective that doesn’t consider the EU’s most crucial relationships. And as a matter of fact, I think defining the thing, particularly in the realm of social/economics/IR, by its relationship is much more revealing and historically accurate. So i guess I mean i started with the concretization process when I commented, but it wasn’t until we continued discussion that I was able to really work it out.
But that’s why I contribute to discussions! In good faith, I learn a lot
Separate comment because its easier to talk that way:
That sentence does not make sense. Its a shade of green but not green makes no fucking sense.
Here’s my reasoning: Capitalism is global, capitalism is imperialist, the national or transnational character of capitalism is geographically dependent. The EU as an entity does not carry out imperialist activity outside of the national/transnational framing. It engages in trade, legal definition/refinement, regulation. It empowers capitalists within the EU to conduct business on a global stage. The EU does not have a military, it does not operate a military that functions imperialistically. It can serve as an organizing force that unites national capital to coordinate national militaries with the aims of empowering national capital to conduct business globally.
Honestly the more I think through this the harder it is to parse out differences. Most, if not all, EU members are imperialist, but the imperialist part of them is national, not transnational. Honestly I can’t really fault your perspective, and I’d like to develop it more than a “I’m right, you’re wrong” type debate would really allow. I’d be interested in resources that support your position.
I think this depends on whether by EU you mean the actual political leadership body, or the member countries as a general Western-European power/cultural/economic projection project.
The EU itself cannot compel military action by member countries, for instance, so you could argue it is never imperialist. But if all the major EU countries are also in NATO and sign up to help the US invade Iraq and Afghanistan, is it really unfair to criticize the EU as a shared Western-European bloc?
I mean, yeah, after writing my way through it, I can appreciate the perspective. I generally like to be precise, concrete with definitions.
But the more I thought about it, the more I worked through it, I found it interesting that, based on strict definition of the EU, as an entity unto itself with particular functions, it is like you say, it is never imperialist.
But when searching for the contours of it, where an imperialist or historically colonial member nation ends, and where global imperialism picks up, those lines are not clear at all. I’m sure they are defined legally somewhere, and I would be interested in those legal definitions, but when defined by its relation to power, it is conspicuously “never imperialist”, while existing between, and functioning in tandem with, national imperialist powers and global imperialist powers. Like it’s a little too unimperialist for an entity that is situated deep within, and rooted intrinsically with imperialism.
I think it has been a good discussion and exercise sussing this out, I don’t think in was wrong Witt my comment, but I was also only looking at it from this one perspective that doesn’t consider the EU’s most crucial relationships. And as a matter of fact, I think defining the thing, particularly in the realm of social/economics/IR, by its relationship is much more revealing and historically accurate. So i guess I mean i started with the concretization process when I commented, but it wasn’t until we continued discussion that I was able to really work it out.
But that’s why I contribute to discussions! In good faith, I learn a lot