A Brief History of Europe: A New Order of Cooperation**
The historical development of Europe has always been accompanied by dreams of unification, which have not been realized. Even in Napoleonic times, the possibility of its realization was short-lived.
The persistence of European intellectual circles and the ruthlessness of realpolitik have revealed an important secret: the political form of "unification" is only a means of coping with political crises in European intellectual and political circles.
The difference between a thinker and a politician is that a thinker always comes up with the most idealistic solution, while a politician takes a more realistic and feasible solution.
As a result, once the crisis has passed, harmonized programmes that require complex procedures to be launched are often put on hold. This is because these ideas conflict with the growing trend of statism and nationalism.
At the same time, the political structure of small states and oligocrats since the sixteenth century provided the necessary competitive mechanisms for commercial societies, which was seen by Enlightenment thinkers as Europe's advantage and was driving Europe's rise and prosperity.
However, these factors led to the fact that the dream of reunification lacked real needs in real political life and in the course of the development of European society, and therefore became difficult to realize. By the middle of the 19th century, European society was faced with the urgent historical task of establishing a corresponding system of state relations for the existing model of social development.
Beginning in the 16th century, European society underwent a process of commercialization and privatization, in which the interests of individuals, individuals, and finally various communities replaced the interests of God and became the main body of social interests.
This is a process of decentralization and privatization of the core of European social interests.
This passage describes a period in European history in which the political landscape of small states and oligos and the birth of absolutism were born. This pattern adapts to the trend of decentralization and privatization of European society.
With the outbreak of the Industrial Revolution and the transformation of liberal capitalism into monopoly capitalism, changes in socio-economic models had strong reactions in the field of international relations, including the emergence of colonialism, imperialism and national chauvinism.
This shows the expansive nature of capital.
As European society evolved, so did the relationship between European countries. The nature of the relationship between competition and cooperation has been transformed into exclusivity and profit, and the "other" has changed from a former competitive partner to an existential threat.
This transformation, under the influence of the law of uneven development of capitalism, heralds the imminent end of the law of balance of power, which is based on the relations between small states. Because it no longer meets the expansive and monopolistic needs of European social development, nor does it conform to the European society's pursuit of market and profit maximization.
Trends in the socio-economic sphere are promoting the birth of a single market and uniform rules, but at the same time inevitably have political consequences, both in terms of the domestic superstructure and in the field of international relations.
In a period of nationalism and nationalism, the need for reunification could only be realized through the struggle for hegemony between the great powers. The need for unification drove competition and warfare between European nation-states.
In the 19th century, two intertwined currents of thought emerged in the field of international relations: nationalism and pan-Europeanism. On the surface, pan-Europeanism and nationalism seem to be diametrically opposed, and pan-Europeanism is too weak to compete with nationalism.
But in reality, European nationalism in the 19th century also contained elements of pan-Europeanism, albeit in the form of imperialism and hegemonism.
The core nature of this pan-European component is national egoism, which reflects a tendency towards exclusive competition; True pan-Europeanism, on the other hand, is based on pacifism, common interests and common development.
They oppose vicious competition among European countries and advocate the pursuit of common interests and common development by European countries.
Victor Hugo, a French literary giant, was also an early representative of this school of thought. At the Second International Peace Congress in 1849, he delivered a poetic and inspiring speech calling on the countries of Europe to cooperate and develop together.
He prophesied to France, England, Prussia, Austria, Spain, Italy, ** that one day you would lay down**, and that the war between London and Paris, Petersburg and Berlin, Vienna and Turin would become nonsense and absurd.
One day, you, the peoples of the European continent, will transcend unique idiosyncrasies and glorious personalities and merge together to form a European brotherhood. The rewritten copy retains the main idea of the original text, but is expressed in more concise and fluent language.
The new copy uses more metaphors and comparisons, which enhances the appeal and expressiveness of the language. At the same time, the new copywriting also modifies and adjusts some expressions in the original text to make it more in line with the language habits and expressions of modern people.
In the near future, the free exchange of ideas will be achieved in all spheres, except for the business and spiritual spheres. The war will be replaced by the right of the people to vote, universal suffrage, and a great and respectable arbitration court, a group of independent European parliamentarians.
This is like the parliamentarians in the British Parliament, the German National Assembly, and the French Constituent Assembly today. One will see that two great organizations, the United States of America and the United States of Europe, will cross the Atlantic and go hand in hand to exchange goods, art, art, etc., so that the earth will become a garden full of life and vitality.
They will overcome barbarism to improve access with the vision of the Creator, and the brotherhood of humanity and the power of God will work together to advance the general well-being of humanity.
In the 19th century, Europe underwent drastic changes, and the monopoly trend of capitalist society and the law of unbalanced development triggered rapid changes in the pattern of relations between European countries.
This change is reflected in two aspects: first, frequent wars, such as the Napoleonic Wars, the German-Italian War of National Independence, and the two world wars; Second, the idea of European unification attracted much attention during this period, and many important thinkers made a major contribution to it.
This strong signal of unification is perceptible even to almost all wise men. Among this group of famous figures are Victor Hugo, the French utopian Sant Simon, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the philosopher Hegel, and world-class figures such as Marx and Nimitz.
In 1814, Sant Simon proposed his Plan for Europe, which was based on the idea of opposing the Vienna system of establishing a balance of power to maintain peace, arguing that the balance of power actually breeds war, not prevents it.
Simon argues that the truly effective way to achieve peace is to end absolutism and introduce parliamentary systems in countries. He argues that when all European nations are led by parliaments, it is indisputable that the pan-European parliament will be introduced into Europe without barriers.
This pan-European parliament will make decisions in the interests of the European community as a whole, and the national parliaments will be responsible for electing representatives to the pan-European parliament. The Pan-European Parliament should have the power to regulate disputes between countries.
However, the role of the Pan-European Parliament is premised on the cultivation of a "European patriotism", and the first task of the Pan-European Parliament is to develop a legal system that is universally effective.
The composition of the pan-European parliament should be modelled on the British Parliament: the House of Commons represents social groups, businessmen, apprentices, public officials and state activists (each member represents one million inhabitants); The House of Lords is elected every ten years.
Simon firmly believes that European institutions cannot replace the fundamental responsibilities of States** in terms of national sovereignty and independence. He argued that the Confederacy should be responsible for guaranteeing peace, coordinating laws, guaranteeing religious tolerance, overseeing public facilities, and working on the continent's transportation system and infrastructure.
Simon argues that peace will require the European peoples to sum up common interests and agree before pursuing special interests. Only in this way can misfortune, insecurity and the hidden dangers of war be resolved.
He believed that the human spirit would propel us towards this goal. Simon opposed Metternich's idea of European integration through a monarchical union, and he advocated the election of European parliamentarians through a professional union.
His proposal was assessed as a "true pioneer" by an EU-funded study because it saw the realistic task of finding common interests and forging strong agreements in Europe, which also became the beginning of the federalist orientation of the 20th century that led to the creation of the European Community.
In the pursuit of European integration, German thinkers have shown us the way with a unique philosophical perspective. In his 1795 essay "For Perpetual Peace", Kant proposed the necessity of a federal Europe, emphasizing that this was the only rational way to normalize relations among European countries.
He believed that a community of nations should be created even if the freedom of individuality needed to be sacrificed. Hegel's concept of "Religion - The Germanic World" put forward in the Philosophy of History reflects his in-depth understanding of the totality of Europe.
However, although Hegel paid attention to the historical inevitability of the formation of states in his study of the laws of the overall historical development of Europe, he did not pay enough attention to the future of European integration.
This is dictated by his nature as a scholar and the nationalist era in which he lived.
In his contract study, Schling concluded that Europe was not only the ultimate goal of world history, but also had the impetus to push itself towards the League of Nations and the International Court of Justice.
Friedrich Nietzsche also had a unique view of European unity, but it went beyond the thinking of a philosopher and showed the foresight of a scholar of international politics. He believed that nationalism was insane and led to a pathological alienation among the peoples of Europe.
He hoped that the threat of ** would eventually lead to a unified will in Europe, believing that the era of small countries and oligarchy politics had passed, and that the era of great power politics was coming. In the next century, the struggle for global dominance will inevitably unfold.
Marx and Lenin are the representatives of the theory of the unity of the proletarian revolution, and the theory of European unity is derived from the Marxist and Leninist theory of world revolution.
The theory of the unity of the proletarian revolution is a unique theory of European unity, which was born out of reflection on the bourgeois revolution and the desire for peace and union. Unlike other theories of European unity, the goal of the theory of the unity of the proletarian revolution is not to preserve the existing social system, but to overthrow it and achieve true peace and union.
Although politically there are essential differences between the theory of the unity of the proletarian revolution and the theory of other European unity, they are the same in the orientation of social development they pursue. The ideological basis of the theory of the unity of the proletarian revolution includes: first, imperialism is the root cause of war, and only by completely eradicating the existing capitalist social system in Europe can true peace and union be achieved; secondly, the natural laws of social development dictate that the demise of capitalism and the victory of the proletariat are inevitable; Thirdly, the bourgeoisie will unite to resist the proletarian revolution, but we must not abandon our goals because of this.
Therefore, workers across the globe need to unite and overthrow the existing capitalist system. For this reason, Marx advocated the idea of "global workers uniting".
It is undeniable that when the global workforce unites, the emergence of a global workforce** will be inevitable. At the heart of this theory is the idea that, if the workers' revolution succeeds, peace in Europe will come naturally and will not require special maintenance, since the socialist system has fundamentally eliminated the source and motivation for waging war.
In fact, both Marx and Lenin actively contributed to this. Under their guidance, three workers' internationals were established, among which the Third International, which was established under the personal auspices of Lenin, was of more practical political significance.
Lenin's opposition to European unity stemmed from the realpolitik of the time. Western countries intervened in the ** revolution, while the revolutionary wave in Western Europe had subsided, and any form of European union could become an anti-Soviet chorus and an act to isolate the USSR.
Lenin therefore regarded this alliance as a grand alliance of counter-revolutionary forces. Judging from the development of the idea of European unity, the need for integration has arisen along with the development of the struggle for hegemony among European countries, and has existed for quite a long time.
However, the development of the real society is often one step or several steps slower than the development of the ideological field, so that the ideological field can create advanced concepts and make full arguments and preparations for the final change of the real society.
Hegel used the metaphor of the growth process of seeds in nature to illustrate a truth: the origin of all things is single, but under the influence of external factors, it will undergo changes and form multiple forms.
This process of change has both a progressive direction and a regressive side, and more often than not, it is to maintain its original essence and form. Therefore, the development of human society is not always smooth sailing, it often faces difficulties and challenges, and sometimes even great achievements are destroyed.
Such turning points are not uncommon in the long course of history. Such a turn of events requires not only repeated attempts, but also a strong impetus to promote.