Popular protests in the EU

[Patine]

You can put me on record as hoping that the EU will prosper as much as Netflix will in the future...
Speaking of Estonia, I'm sure that the Soviet Union mixed estonian culture with russian culture, and the cultures of the other republics within it. Didn't prevent it from breaking apart. Somewhat violently and catastrophically. Has the world changed, really? This time is different, how many times have people said it?

The Romans gave out citizenship like it was candy - even barbarians across the borders could earn it by serving a term in the Legions. They tried to Romanize all of their subject peoples, and, in terms of the Gauls, Belgae, Leptons, Iberians, Dacians, and the other Italic Peoples, were very successful, as linguistic roots alone show. But their empire also collapsed. I also fear that banal nationalism, which is all that is REALLY holding together the modern United States as a nation, may not be a strong enough bond in the long term.

 

[mitsho]

You can put me on record as hoping that the EU will prosper as much as Netflix will in the future...
Speaking of Estonia, I'm sure that the Soviet Union mixed estonian culture with russian culture, and the cultures of the other republics within it. Didn't prevent it from breaking apart. Somewhat violently and catastrophically. Has the world changed, really? This time is different, how many times have people said it?

Your historical argument doesn't hold water. Because I could also ask: Why would it be the same as last time? Assuming stasis is as wrong as having a Hegelian view (or the opposite). One of the first thing you learn as a student of history is to not make predictions. So even if your comparison would be comparable - which I'm not sure it is - it wouldn't really help in our discussion here. But I made my point anyway.

 

[Yeekim]

instead of shutting out foreign multinational corporations).

Shutting out Google feels like a great plan, sure.
What do you suggest? Build a great firewall and make them pay for it?

Big multinational corporations are successful precisely because they are best at offering stuff that people want. "Shutting them out" is not going to go over well with the public. Especially not when you don't even have a half-decent alternative to offer.

 

[innonimatu]

You must recognize that there is evidence great firewalls work as far as supporting a local company as a competitor goes, thing China and Baidu. "Half-decent alternatives" are made whey they have room to show up.

Bit multinational corporations are successful on economies of scale in the fields where those apply, that and only that. These savings are relevant from a personal point of view, but damaging from a societal/overall economic point of view, if they lead to the destruction of local production and gainful employment. Arguing other that would lead us to arguing over broader theories on trade and the economic models that support current mainstream economics. Something I will not do here and now. I've done it often years ago already. Nothing changed.

I'm just going to tell you that "the public" did not vote for "free trade". Tell me, exactly which political parties in the main european countries campaigned on a "free trade" platform? None. They all pushed liberalization of trade against public preferences, did their best to prevent debate (remember CETA?) and justified their choices with lies and propaganda (this deal will increase x% of GDP over y years).

 

[Sickening]

I don't think people believe it. Some people, however, make active steps to build a superpower based on Marx's works, on Lenin's/Stalin's, Mao's, then contemporary Chinese socialist scholars. And they succeeded in building second largest economy in the world in no time. I do understand that such result is pathetic for you to even consider that Marx's socialism will work out, but the Chinese think different.

Spoiler Xi's speech :

Speaking in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, the Chinese president vowed that Marxism will always be the guiding theory of China and the Communist Party. It’s a “powerful ideological weapon for us to understand the world, grasp the law, seek the truth, and change the world,” he said.

https://qz.com/1270109/chinas-commu...200th-birthday-of-karl-marx-with-a-vengeance/

And? Growing billion dollar stateless corporations, forming cartels and other shady practices is That much better than competition with government oversight?



Well, if you keep insisting that it is a question of faith.. there is no point arguing anything.

And on November he changed his mind by viewing Chinese system as Maoist.
https://www.ft.com/content/63430718-e3cb-11e8-a6e5-792428919cee

You should take his every speech with a pinch of salt . Most Chinese doesn't even give a damn anyway about him nor how the country is being ran off. They only care about their own business, living good and able to do their own jobs. Politics is just a waste of time for them.

Growing billion dollar stateless corporations, forming cartels and other shady practices IS that much better than competition, with government oversight. Americans do it, Israelis do it, Italians do it, everyone's doing it. Just think of every single reason why the British and American government still supporting underground banking system like the Caymans, Mossack Fonseca, etc. etc unto this day. It's what makes British American corporations great. You haven't paying much attention if you just focus on China on illegal dealings and dark business practices. The US holds the lists iof criminal and illegal activities the most. The only reason why the world kept its silence is because America is considered as the peacekeeper.

Same goes to you. Maoist ideology is just too flexible to be categorized into one whole box of ideological package. There is no more nations on earth which adopts pure socialism / capitalism.

 

[Sickening]

The Romans gave out citizenship like it was candy - even barbarians across the borders could earn it by serving a term in the Legions. They tried to Romanize all of their subject peoples, and, in terms of the Gauls, Belgae, Leptons, Iberians, Dacians, and the other Italic Peoples, were very successful, as linguistic roots alone show. But their empire also collapsed. I also fear that banal nationalism, which is all that is REALLY holding together the modern United States as a nation, may not be a strong enough bond in the long term.

Yep, America is fated for ruin as uniting a nation based on vision and ideology only works for short term. The pursuit of wealth and glory for all on the other hand is the only thing that can unite nation as a whole. The first Rome did this, the British Empire was formed for the same purpose. America was at first founded for similar goal by promising freedom and equality, on which was ruined eventually in the hands of greedy and idiotic politicians for self-enrichment.

 

[red_elk]

And on November he changed his mind by viewing Chinese system as Maoist.
https://www.ft.com/content/63430718-e3cb-11e8-a6e5-792428919cee

Maoism is a branch of Marxism.

 

[Hrothbern]

Maoism is a branch of Marxism.

Maoism is the upside down variant of original Marxism in terms of democracy in the political party
Instead of making one out of two or more... making two or more out of one

 

[Patine]

Maoism is a branch of Marxism.

Maoism is the upside down variant of original Marxism in terms of democracy in the political party
Instead of making one out of two or more... making two or more out of one

It's sort of like (though on the complete other end of the spectrum) that Mussolini established Corporatist Fascism, and then Naziism, Falangism, Shintaisei, Estato Nova, Clerical Fascism, Austro-Fascism, etc. all emerged, but, despite notable, and often very substantial, differences from each other, they were all built upon, and inspired by, the Fascist ideal that came out of Mussolini's National Fascist Union, which effectively formed, as a newspaper before it was a party, in 1915.

 

[Hrothbern]

It's sort of like (though on the complete other end of the spectrum) that Mussolini established Corporatist Fascism, and then Naziism, Falangism, Shintaisei, Estato Nova, Clerical Fascism, Austro-Fascism, etc. all emerged, but, despite notable, and often very substantial, differences from each other, they were all built upon, and inspired by, the Fascist ideal that came out of Mussolini's National Fascist Union, which effectively formed, as a newspaper before it was a party, in 1915.

Judging a party on its merits, and on its values, is for me also looking at the internal processes in that party.
The voting democracy in that party and the genuine openness to deliberating discussions. the degree of distortion of those discussions by tactical positions of infighting, the degree of finding common ground that reflects a consensus of thoughts within the party.

The semi-fascist party PVV of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has "solved" the issue of internal party politics cq internal party democracy, by reducing the political party association to 2 members: Geert Wilders himself and another association having 1 member (Geert Wilders). The first decision of that association was BTW a member stop.
He did this to avoid internal infighting getting newsmedia coverage causing voters loss (all other semi-fascist parties in NL before him inevitably broke apart in those fierce and uncompromising infightings).
When I meet people voting on the PVV, I use in between the normal arguments this totalitarian aspect of the party with amazing success.
The latest new semi-fascist party FvD of Thierry Baudet has BTW again many members in the party association.

The SP, the populist left wing Socialist Party, a former Maoist splinter of the former CPN, Communist Party of the Netherlands applies the Maoist model for internal party democracy.
The CPN applied the normal degenerated Marxist methods of party democracy a la USSR and was taken over in the 70ies by my generation youth and after a tedious long battle the authoritarian leadership was eliminated from party influence. That new CPN merged with other far left splinters into what is now GreenLeft (which has a good internal party democracy),
That democratising process led to the SP splintering out of the new CPN.
(as a person I do have however a lot of sympathy for the SP because of its strong efforts in workers/living standards and especially community efforts. It is BTW so in the SP that chosen politicians do give their full salary to the party and get back a living allowance at a pretty low wage level !)

Several attempts by the socialist and social democratic parties since already before WW2 to aim for a polarised parliamentary politics (the Westminster model) all drowned.
If not because the majority in parliament was not achieved because the voters preferred multiparty.... the polarisation model failed because the party members did not like the internal backfiring of polarisation.
Because once polarisation is applied to conquer the majority in a parliament, it is ofc also used by factions in a party to conquer the party leadership and party direction, at the expense of a true internal party democracy.

Coming back on those pre-WW2 fascist parties.
In NL we had the NSB, the NationalSocialistMovement. The most striking characteristic was that it was seen as a virtue among members and followers to NOT to deliberate, NOT to discuss about the party direction and thoughts.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Shutting out Google feels like a great plan, sure.
What do you suggest? Build a great firewall and make them pay for it?

Big multinational corporations are successful precisely because they are best at offering stuff that people want. "Shutting them out" is not going to go over well with the public. Especially not when you don't even have a half-decent alternative to offer.

Exactly right.

 

[Traitorfish]

The semi-fascist party PVV of Geert Wilders in the Netherlands has "solved" the issue of internal party politics cq internal party democracy, by reducing the political party association to 2 members: Geert Wilders himself and another association having 1 member (Geert Wilders). The first decision of that association was BTW a member stop.

Logical conclusion of the Führerprinzip, I suppose.

 

[Yeekim]

You must recognize that there is evidence great firewalls work as far as supporting a local company as a competitor goes, thing China and Baidu. "Half-decent alternatives" are made whey they have room to show up.

If your stated goal is to "bring back democracy", China does not really work as proof of concept, I'm afraid.
There's a whole lot of stuff that works, at least to a degree, if we're willing to sacrifice certain freedoms. Literal walls work as well, as people from Berlin may attest.

Bit multinational corporations are successful on economies of scale in the fields where those apply, that and only that. These savings are relevant from a personal point of view, but damaging from a societal/overall economic point of view, if they lead to the destruction of local production and gainful employment. Arguing other that would lead us to arguing over broader theories on trade and the economic models that support current mainstream economics. Something I will not do here and now. I've done it often years ago already. Nothing changed.

Yeah, I guess it would lead there... and no, I'm not up for it either atm.
I'll just say that we'll probably agree on what the positives and negatives of free trade and protectionism are, but apparently we don't agree on which outweighs which.

I'm just going to tell you that "the public" did not vote for "free trade". Tell me, exactly which political parties in the main european countries campaigned on a "free trade" platform? None. They all pushed liberalization of trade against public preferences, did their best to prevent debate (remember CETA?) and justified their choices with lies and propaganda (this deal will increase x% of GDP over y years).

So... the largest free trade zone in the world has been constructed against public preferences ... while all political parties in main European countries have actually been campaigning against it?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

The fourth reich/iluminatti/francmasonry doesnt need the agreement of the so-called political parties or any other terrestrial power.

 

[Patine]

If your stated goal is to "bring back democracy", China does not really work as proof of concept, I'm afraid.
There's a whole lot of stuff that works, at least to a degree, if we're willing to sacrifice certain freedoms. Literal walls work as well, as people from Berlin may attest.

Yeah, I guess it would lead there... and no, I'm not up for it either atm.
I'll just say that we'll probably agree on what the positives and negatives of free trade and protectionism are, but apparently we don't agree on which outweighs which.

So... the largest free trade zone in the world has been constructed against public preferences ... while all political parties in main European countries have actually been campaigning against it?

BRIC and the TPP (which I actually believe are both each bigger than the EU in raw population of member states) had votes on the issues, or even transparency by the governments negotiating them toward their peoples at all? This is news to me...

 

[Sickening]

BRIC and the TPP (which I actually believe are both each bigger than the EU in raw population of member states) had votes on the issues, or even transparency by the governments negotiating them toward their peoples at all? This is news to me...

What amazes me is that politician/representative as a job title has not been considered as obsolete. Why don't the EU, which promote itself as champion of justice and democracy still haven't use iphones as media for immediate response for voting crucial and immediate decisions.

 

[innonimatu]

What amazes me is that politician/representative as a job title has not been considered as obsolete. Why don't the EU, which promote itself as champion of justice and democracy still haven't use iphones as media for immediate response for voting crucial and immediate decisions.

You're talking about an entity that hates putting its fundamental "laws" (treaties, actually) to referendums and has a recorded history of threatening the population who votes against with dire consequences until they do a second vote and submit? And sometimes actually unleashes the dire consequences on them suddenly (example: freezing Greece's financial system and foreign trade overnight, in breach of the EU treaties).

 

[Traitorfish]

What amazes me is that politician/representative as a job title has not been considered as obsolete. Why don't the EU, which promote itself as champion of justice and democracy still haven't use iphones as media for immediate response for voting crucial and immediate decisions.

Who is proposing votes or drafting legislation, if there are no politicians? Civil servants? Who appoints and oversees civil servants- other civil servants? What you're describing seems less like radical democracy and more like the technocrats wet dream: the democratic process shrunk so far as to fit inside an iPhone app, and the entire business of drafting and applying policy restricted to those who can be trusted (that is, who trust themselves) to do it correctly. Without much broader changes to the political and indeed social and economic apparatus, all this proposal seems to offer is the concentration of power into the hands of those who already have it, provided they can manage the shifting moods of the plebeians with occasional referenda; a sort of bureaucratic Bonapartism.

Also, this specific proposal effectively disenfranchises everyone who doesn't have a smart phone, which is an awful idea all on its own.

 

[uppi]

What amazes me is that politician/representative as a job title has not been considered as obsolete. Why don't the EU, which promote itself as champion of justice and democracy still haven't use iphones as media for immediate response for voting crucial and immediate decisions.

I don't know about you, but I don't have time to make an informed decision on every political action there is.

 

[Silurian]

What amazes me is that politician/representative as a job title has not been considered as obsolete. Why don't the EU, which promote itself as champion of justice and democracy still haven't use iphones as media for immediate response for voting crucial and immediate decisions.

As well the people who do not have i phones as Traitorfish noted you are also going to disenfranchise people who can not use an i phone at the time of the vote.
Many areas do not have mobile phone coverage. Many people are employed or carry out activities where they can not or are forbiden from having a mobile phone on their person or using it such as when driving.