Continuing from Part I, the Revolutionary Realm deserves to be defined as the question of whether it is possible for the Socialism Nation to be defined by a particular State or the lack thereof. The American Union and the German Reich have entertained this issue before in their own respective histories, the Americans and the Germans presented with the choice of opting for a Federal Union of States or a Federal State of the Union. Both choices affect important characteristics like the geographical location of the capital, their internal politics, why certain governmental policies were signed into law, and how the National Essence is shaped over the centuries. We begin with the general descriptions which I have written for both polities:

A “Federal Union of States” denotes a specific variant of Federalism where there is not one Nation, but multiple different Nations whose States are united by a single supranational State. The Sovereignty of these “Member-Nations” are partially maintained insofar as they technically exert land ownerships distinct from those of the supranational State. The Member-Nations still have to relinquish part of their Sovereignty as part of their economic and financial integration into the Union. Should anyone wish to leave the Union, they are free to do so without being accused of Secessionism. This is because the Member-Nations have distinct national identities whose differences can never be truly reconciled. And if a cartographer were to draw the country’s borders on a map, they would have to include the internal boundaries of its own Member-Nations.   

A “Federal State of the Union,” meanwhile, envisages the unification of multiple Nations by a single State as a single unified Nation. While nowhere close to becoming a Unitary State, a Federal State of the Union has its Member-Nations sharing the Sovereignty of their own Nation. Nobody can leave this Union because doing so is tantamount to Secessionism as it is generally assumed within its own legal jurisprudence that all Member-Nations share the same national identity. Therefore, if a cartographer were to draw this country’s borders on a map, they would never include the internal boundaries of the Member-Nations since a Federal State essentially conducts itself as a single Nation with special legal arrangements in place for Autonomy. The Federalist American Union described in The Work-Standard falls squarely in this category.

As for the German Reich, its own political developments are worthy of mention here. The general trend was to become a “Federal Union” and eventually a “Federal States” before the 20^th or 21^st centuries. However, the German Reich was never reunited by the Prussians and the Austrians, otherwise the two World Wars would have been entirely different. Besides Pan-Germanism’s idea of unifying the German-speaking world into a single Nation, the German Reich was also presented with “Pan-Europeanism,” which advocated for the German Reich to play an overwhelmingly disproportionate role in the affairs of a supranational state presiding over much of Europe. Pan-Europeanism eventually prevailed over Pan-Germanism, not because of the Hitlerists or the House of Hohenzollern, but because of the dissolutions of Europe’s colonial empires and the rise of the US, the Soviet Union, the PRC and Imperial Japan. If there was any hope for Europe to serve as a counterweight against those four, somebody in Europe had to step forward as the premier continental power.

Moreover, Pan-Europeanism was also responsible for contributing to the establishment of the European Union/North Atlantic Treaty Organization (EU/NATO) as an elaborate Free Trade Agreement (FTA) that featured its own US-backed military alliance. It spent the latter half of the 20^th century turning the EU/NATO into a Federal Union of States as part of “European Integration.” Today, the EU/NATO currently has no plans to turn itself into a Federal State. Even so, much of its organizational characteristics are indicative of being a Federal Union of States catering to the ideological aims of Liberal Capitalism, which is important because of the ideological criteria that the EU/NATO itself expects its own Member-Nations to uphold.

To begin, the European Member-Nation loses the possibility of pegging its Currency to the Work-Standard. Either its central government adopts the Euro and becomes subject to the whims of the European Central Bank (ECB) or they are forced to adhere to a bureaucratic set of arrangements to ensure that its national currency conforms to the interests of the Eurozone. In the case of the latter, it means having a Financial Regime operating on a Floating Exchange Rate and a Fractional-Reserve Banking System as part of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism II (ERM II).

Second, its Common Market requires the European Member-Nation to be capable of adopting the “Market/Mixed Economy,” retrofit its Technology for “Spontaneous Order of Natural Selection,” and its Mode of Production set to “Production for Profit” as part of establishing a “Labor Market.” The Member-Nation is not allowed to establish and operate State Commissariats and Kontore.  

Third, the Schengen Area prevents the European Member-Nation from controlling its own borders because anyone from the rest of the EU/NATO is allowed to cross its own borders without having to undergo any major passport checks or border controls.  

Fourth, the European Member-Nation’s Armed Forces and Education must conform with the EU/NATO’s positions regarding those two. This means that the Armed Forces will literally become a parasitical burden on the Member-Nation’s State Budget and if the Member-Nation joins NATO, they are going to be paying for those “membership fees.” The national education system will become an OECD-Type Student Economy, which means young people will be unemployed or underemployed and forced to emigrate, resulting in a gradual loss of talent and expertise.   

Those are just some of the problems that I have with the EU/NATO as an American Eurosceptic for the past several years now. What I see in the EU/NATO is a hideous parody of American Federalism and the Federalist American Union (FAU) intended for these United States. Another point of contention that I have with the EU/NATO is related to the Coronavirus Pandemic itself, particularly how the Europeans handled the Pandemic compared to these United States.

Unlike here in America, where “COVID-19 Lockdowns” are obviously seen as impractical because of their economic and financial impact under Liberal Capitalism, the EU/NATO continues to uphold the notion that Lockdowns are somehow effective and still adhere to Liberal Capitalism. The EU/NATO is trying to conform to its preceding ideological stances while at the same time prevent the Coronavirus Pandemic from overwhelming their healthcare systems. When the Pandemic spread to Italy in March 2020, the EU/NATO demonstrated that it was more concerned about enforcing the Schengen Area than, well, isolating the Pandemic to Italy.       

Moreover, what does it mean to impose any form of “Lockdown?” Does it mean curtailing “all non-essential economic and financial activities” to prevent the further transmission of COVID-19? Does this entail a national effort to minimize as much movement as possible by having to suspend all annual peacetime festivities? Why reopen those non-essential economic and financial activities and annual peacetime festivities?

I address these questions because, unlike most people, I still remember the fact that much of the world in the early months of 2020 was entering a wartime frenzy. Europe was no exception to this, and there was a sense of desperation and dread that occurred when COVID-19 crossed international borders. I also remember with vivid clarity the level of skepticism from some people about whether the Liberal Capitalists were expecting their rhetoric to be taken seriously. After all, the very notion of imposing a Lockdown indicates that the Market/Mixed Economy is incapable of going for months without massive influxes of Kapital. Make no mistake: the Coronavirus Pandemic will at some point. The problem confronting humanity at the moment is the fact that the Liberal Capitalists have no definitive plan on how to end the Pandemic and return back to peacetime normalcy.   

Categories: Uncategorized

Tags: ARPLAN, Coronavirus Pandemic, Economics, Europe, European Union, Finance, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Socialist Finance, United States, Work-Standard