In Marxist theology economics trumps politics. Trade, investment, and the return on capital supersede in Marxist mysticism, the influences of politics, security, alliances and non-economic actors, upon governments. Europe was built post-1945 on openly socialist lines, with Marxist economics and cultural Marxism being notable components of the Brave New World of inter-nation interdependency. The Euro, with its present and future failure, only serves to remind us of the ageless truism, that Marxist liturgy is both a crock and a form of insanity. In the real world economics no more trumps politics, than peace overwhelms hatred in the Koran.

One of the key arguments of Marxists is the core vs. periphery explanation of world economic development and imperialism. Marx viewed trade as essentially a form of exploitation, in which the owners of capital would first enslave and hollow out their domestic workforces and consumers; and than move on to international markets, tying the colony to the motherland via investments and capital controls. Hobson in 1905 expounded this theory of colonial exploitation by proposing that nations go to war and engage in international expansion to satisfy the return requirements of domestic capital, itself built up through coercion, oligopolies and political protection. Lenin took this further in 1910 with his theory that capitalism was doomed to fail, since the exportation of money, and its return must over time diminish thereby causing the implosion of the imperialist powers and the eradication of their money and bank-centric systems. At this point the proletariat would move in and assume control over the means of production – abetted by a ruling caste who would wield the real power of course.

'Core vs. Periphery', like all Marxist dogma, is absolutely devoid of proof, real world facts or any base intelligence. Historically all 'Imperialist' powers run into a negative trade balance and capital returns from their 'overseas possessions'. India is a simple example. The British Raj returned capital back to England during the formative phases of 'occupation' [or liberation as it should be known], but by 1830 the terms and balance of trade was decidedly negative. Massive investments usually follow foreign incursions and the British like all Western imperial powers were forced to do, had to make expansive and expensive developments in everything from schools to railroads. When India started to export cotton in the 1860s, the native British cotton industry died, and the balance of trade became decidedly negative. When this happens 'leaving' the colony is just a matter of time.

Back to Europe. The 'core' namely the Rhineland area, Bavaria, northern Italy, the major cities in Scandinavia, industrialized France and southern England are funding the rest. French and Spanish farmers, southern European industry, southern Italy's integration with the north, Portugal, the Irish financial system, Scotland [55% of GDP is government]; and the 'peripheral' or traditional areas of the Continent are all on the welfare program.   According to Marxist theology which includes political luminaries such as the O-Messiah, and most EU politicians, the core should be sucking the periphery dry. After all the 'advanced' areas are simply imposing themselves on the 'poorer' are they not?

In reality of course, the opposite is true. When Marxist-Socialist theology is applied in the real world we see that the opposite flows occur. Much as India demanded and received investments in all matters of social, economic and political construction during the Raj, so too have the poorer parts of Europe canvassed for ever greater flows of capital into their regressed political-economies. Fully 40% of the EU budget which is about 5% of total EU GDP goes into regional transfers. Another 40% goes to French and Spanish farmers. The remaining 20% is to subsidize EU 'business champions', many of them in poorer areas. Lenin's thesis is precisely the opposite of what happens in reality. The periphery tends to denude the richer regions of capital and tax money.

When viewed this way, it is hard to see the Euro surviving. The main point of the Euro is of course to cement a future political union. The problem is that outside of the Rhine and its tributary areas there is no commonality in business, economic, trade or investment cycles between the 25 EU states. Neither is there monetary policy nor fiscal policy similarity. The only logical currency union would be between the Benelux and Germany. These are the only states which share a symmetry in the various factors which make a monetary union successful.

Unnatural unions always fail. It is hard to make a coherent argument that the Euro is a sensible idea. Only for vacationers and pan-EU businesses are there any savings or profit from the Euro. But even here caveats abound. The EU and its various states have never undertaken the needed reforms necessary to make a Euro concept valid and acceptable. Government and its control over society continues to expand, unions are stronger than during pre-1992, and the nexus between big business, big unions and big government is as twisted, corrupt, and impenetrable as ever before. All the Euro has meant is that nation states have given up one of the prime planks of their credibility – monetary policy – and handed it over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels. It is at odds with reality and common-sense.

Even more perniciously the Euro has allowed nations to hide their colossal bankruptcy and their insolvent  financial systems. The single currency obfuscates the fiscal profligacy of individual states by giving investors and business people the idea that somehow a gigantic Euro zone will find a way out of its debts, future obligations and statism. This is folly. At some point the curtain has to be removed to reveal the wonderful midgets and Wizards of the Euro Oz, naked, short, grinning, on high stools, pulling on strings to keep the mirage and the show going. It will be an ugly sight indeed. Perhaps then the world will get wise and drag the Euro towards zero. More likely some individual 'core' nation states, will have left and decided that managing their own currency, and their own quite unique political-economic zones is a better idea, than subordination to people in Brussels who elevate their own self-interests over those of the populations they rule.