Wednesday, June 18, 2008

It’s a Fish-Eat-Fish World

Last night, in a post that described the opposition of various European socialist parties to the Treaty of Lisbon, I asked the following question:

What’s going on? Why has the European Union, for two generations the great wet dream of European socialism, suddenly become a bad idea?

In the comments section on the post, Ypp came up with an answer that makes sense to me (edited slightly for clarity):

Fish-eat-fishThat always was the fate of the left. Those who offered the ideas were later overcome by those who grabbed more power using their ideas.

The “idealists” then go into opposition, claiming lack of democracy. The same happened with the Russian Social-Democrats, Social-Revolutionaries, and various types of opposition within the Bolshevik party itself.
- - - - - - - - -
Now it’s happening with Clinton supporters. They’ve lost their power and recalled democracy. Which is not bad, by the way. We all learn.

So the big socialist fish is eating all the little socialist fishes, and the little fishes don’t like it.

But the socialist fishes aren’t the only little fishes being gobbled up. Any political party which has been participating democratically at the national level in the EU member states is finding itself marginalized.

Not only that, the elected members of the European Parliament do not have the power that they would have in a properly-functioning legislative body. The important legislation is drafted in other non-democratic organs of the European superstate, mostly in the European Commission.

The MEPs are really just window-dressing on a huge dictatorial edifice, just as the “legislative” bodies of the Soviet Union were. The real power lies elsewhere.

Fish-eat-fishSo it’s no surprise that the little fishes are now acting in concert and turning on the big fish whose gaping jaws were about to swallow them.

10 comments:

David said...

The real power lies elsewhere.

Well, they don't really learn. They're just crying foul and 'remembering' democracy because they were beaten to the punch...it's not them in power after all.

On the subject of real power, it may be time to start compiling a list of names. Not this scattered bit of so and so over the web that vaguely defines who is in what position, what they do, and what power they have, but a list of those who hold the real power. Institutions are run and created by people. Identify those people...start at the top, and work your way down to the local level in each country. Also identify financial backers and those who stand to profit from such actions, as they will be those who reinstitute the same type of government under a different name. Name those corporations and associations, their CEOs, board members, financial officers, and the like.

Know who they are. It'll be easier to dismantle the system if we know exactly who have to be concerned with.

Homophobic Horse said...

Well, I suppose the first name to add to that list would be Javier Solana.

Henrik R Clausen said...

There's an important distinction between being socialist and conservative:

- The socialist obtains political power by promising to give it back to the citizens. But in real life refuses to let it go.

- Conservatives are walking the walk of giving power back to citizens, regardless of what the citizens wish to do with it.

It follows that if you want political power for yourself, being a conservative doesn't work well. 'Socialism' really works much better.

Not much fame is left for those who give back the power to the people. But I find it a noble quest, though a bit confusing :)

Jungle Jim said...

Ypp has a good point. There was some poetic justice in the great terror in the Sovet Union in the 1930s. The pre-1917 Bolsheviks got hit harder than any other group. They should have known that if they bestowed unlimited power on the government, that a common thug like Stalin would seize the reins of power and use it in the worst way possible.

As Lincoln said, those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.

Conservative Swede said...

Also, I'd say that the EU is more of a liberal project than a socialist project, even though it's of course both. Many socialists never felt fully at home with it.

Afonso Henriques said...

At ADMG and Conservative Swede and any other bloody Castillanista out there...

Ai Caramba!

You see... when will PP come to power in Spain? When Andalucia, Catalonia, Aragón and the Basques, as well as the La Mancha region will not vote PP?

And when will a (more or less) true right-wing government rule the four Eastern fifths of Hispania?

And when Juan Carlos is dead?
And if Letízia is to Spain what Lady Diana was to England?

Will the Spanish monarchy survive another twenty ~ thirty years?

Well, maybe the most prestiged newspapers of Portugal, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy and the U.K. do not make any sense at all...

Why don't you people learn with Yugoslavia???

Long live the Tradition and the Nation State (even if it apeares tobe a contradition)!!!

Wait 'till 2015 fellows!

hank_F_M said...

Baron

A good point but there is an element of practical politics to consider.

The Socialist parties got most of their political clout by convincing actual working stiffs that they supported their interests who then voted Socialist. The Gates has discussed the veracity of such claims before and I will not repeat them. Much of the EU leadership is strongly influenced by Socialist ideas but that is different from the formal parties, which while ideologically convinced have a strong streak of pragmatic leadership.

But these workers are among those displaced or threatened by Moslem immigrants as well as immigrants from other parts of Europe. Which as you have noted is strongly supported by the EU leadership. If they lose this support they lose most of their political clout. It is a matter of survival.

no2liberals said...

Corporate Cows

1. SOCIALISM:
You have 2 cows and you give one to your neighbor.

2. COMMUNISM:
You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and gives you some milk.

3. FASCISM:
You have 2 cows; the Government takes both and sells you some milk.

4. NAZISM:
You have 2 cows. The Government takes both and shoots you.

5. BUREAUCRATISM:
You have 2 cows; the Government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and throws the milk away…

6. TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM:
You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd
multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.

7. AN AMERICAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyze why the cow dropped dead.

8. A FRENCH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.

9. A JAPANESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called Cowkimon
and market them World-Wide.

10. A GERMAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves.

11. AN ITALIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows, but you don’t know where they are. You break for
lunch.

12. A RUSSIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You
count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows.
You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

13. A SWISS CORPORATION:
You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge others for storing them.

14. A CHINESE CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity,
and arrest the newsman who reported the numbers.

15. AN INDIAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You worship them.

16. A BRITISH CORPORATION:
You have two cows. Both are mad.

17. A ZIMBABWEAN CORPORATION:
You have two cows. You eat both.

randian said...

Will the Spanish monarchy survive another twenty ~ thirty years?

No, they'll be replaced by an Emir of the Spanish Caliphate.

AMDG said...

> The MEPs are really just window-dressing on a huge dictatorial edifice, just as the “legislative” bodies of the Soviet Union were. The real power lies elsewhere.

¿Like the Senate in the imperial Rome?