[0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197431/PATRICK_BREYER...
The expectation that the Pirate Party, which has quite small public support, will steamroll over the politicians with large public support is appalling. Governance by all knowing computer elites who don't have a significant public support is the actual fascism IMHO.
They simply need to convince the public first in orther to change things.
Freely electing representatives does not mean those representatives will faithfully execute the will of their voters. The people of the US freely elect their representatives, and yet:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. - https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
That is not to say the same is true in the EU, but it shows that free elections alone are no guarantee that voter preferences influence policy.
That's exactly what it means - the caveat is, not being hostile to businesses and work with the businesses is part of the reason why people will choose them. If they fail to deliver enough, they don't get elected again. That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy.
Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves producing stuff that are sent to a galaxy far way is a fantasy. The "elites" are just people who manage the machinery that produces the stuff that the folks want. You can argue over their disproportionate compensation but when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production, they also make the decision in favour of the people who earn their living from that business.
It can be argued over the long term impacts but that's part of the process. For example, we are in process convincing people that they need to give up some of their comforts to prevent very bad things happening 50 years from now. Once they get convinced, vote in people who will work for it and they do the thing.
Most times it is a compromise because people have conflicting interests and the people voted in need to come to a solution that works good enough for everyone.
Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours? Obviously, the portrayal of unelected bureaucrats shovelling whatever they want down the throat of the people is false.
> Let's not portray it as if they are clerks of an external organisation.
I'm not sure whether that refers to the commissioners or the MSPs. Regardless, the commissioners are not elected by the people and the MSPs cannot propose legislation. That set up is essentially the same as the Soviets used and no one called that democracy (even though it technically was) so why should the EU get a pass?
> Anyway, if the MP's were simply rubber stamping whatever the commissioners propose, what they were discussing for 16 hours?
I've seen plenty of jobsworths in my time, they don't seem to have anything against appearing to be doing something, or actually doing something that serves no good use. That's not a problem for only the EU parliament, of course, but the point is whether it's a representative democracy and it clearly is not. I'm not even sure whether it could be.
That is exactly what is doesn't mean, the poster you are replying to has provided proof in the form of peer revied research.
You don't get to dismiss that based on how something should hypothetically work in an ideal world.
'That's actually the core premise of a representative democracy.'
Communism also has a core premice, that does not mean it's valid and holds in a given country today
"Elite cabal from a completely different species controlling the system in which we are slaves"
The same argument judtifies Feudalism
"when a political makes a decision in favour of an interest group, let's say steel production"
This is literally the dictionary definition of 'undemocratic'
And it also would justify Feudalism
Not really, due to the nature of the US political system which is strongly based around dynamics which make sure that the parties in power stay in power.
Calling elections for a (in practice) two party system free is a bit of an stretch.
I mean sure it's better then a (in practice) one party system, but still there is (in practice) no real choice to vote for, nor can "you" create a new choice (in practice, theoretical you could but due to the dynamics of the system it doesn't work in practice EDIT: As long as not one of both of the parties fully collapse and even then it might not work).
OK, I agreee that fascism is bad but is that fascism? I don't like to see words with a precise meaning [1] being used as a catch all for everything we dislike. What you describe is a democracy of corporations, not one of the people which vote but have far less effect on decisions than corporations have. It's on a divergent axis from fascism which is dictatorship, suppression of opposition and control of economy and society.
Demos - means people. Corporations are dead entities - corpses. They have a sort of life, even though they are not alive.
Still, perhaps this is closer to the truth. The people who run corporations, get to decide what those corporations do. The corporations are just a buffer to actual individuals.
Also, its worth noting that we do not have (and never have had) democracy.
Democracy is where people make the decisions. All the decisions.
What we have is a system where we vote in people who represent us - or so it is claimed. They politicians we vote in, re-present us (read 'serve us up') and make decisions on your behalf.
PS Wikipedia is hardly a bastion of truth. But you can see a section called 'Corporatist economic system' which indicates (lightly) that corporations were a part of the control system. I would say that these apparent distinctions are a show - especially nowadays. The corporations, governance system and the media (that is apparently holding someone to account, but are really about mis-directing the conversation) are all part of the overall governance structure.
PPS In the City of London, things work as you say - corporations are able to vote.
The (direct) democracy where the people make all the decisions was the original Greek one. However only a few people could vote, adult male citizens. It worked because of the relatively small size (a few tenths of thousands) and physical proximity of the people that could vote. What we have now is representative democracy.
About the Corporatist economic system I quote the whole section
> The Fascist regime created a corporatist economic system in 1925 with creation of the Palazzo Vidoni Pact, in which the Italian employers' association Confindustria and Fascist trade unions agreed to recognize each other as the sole representatives of Italy's employers and employees, excluding non-Fascist trade unions. The Fascist regime first created a Ministry of Corporations that organized the Italian economy into 22 sectoral corporations, banned workers' strikes and lock-outs and in 1927 created the Charter of Labour, which established workers' rights and duties and created labour tribunals to arbitrate employer-employee disputes. In practice, the sectoral corporations exercised little independence and were largely controlled by the regime, and the employee organizations were rarely led by employees themselves, but instead by appointed Fascist party members.
This is what one expects any dictatorship would do: have a say on what corporations do and prevent unions from becoming kind of political parties in contrast with the government.
By the way, Confindustria still exists with that name in Italy. It's sometimes simplistically defined as the union of corporations and unsurprisingly the interests of big corporations usually prevail on the interests of small ones.
How does this work?
Do you really think this is about the Pirate Party? If we had a referendum on this issue tomorrow, do you really think that the position held by mainsteam politians wouldn't loose by a landslide?
If the referendum are not held on hackernews or reddit and the mainstream politicians are given a time to defend their positions, I think the results won't be much different than what people voted so far.
The pirate party(~parties all over the EU) are bunch of idealists who so far failed to gain any significant traction.
People love the idea that the pure and freedom loving societies are held hostage by fascist elites but that's probably the case only if a very few countries, definitely not EU, US or even Russia or Turkey. People love whatever their position is, ban this mandate that is all they want(it's just that different people want different things to banned or mandated). Notice how people tirelessly are wedging cultural wars over who should f*ck who, be called what, get dressed what, eat what.
We have whatever we have because that's whatever the people want. It slowly changes over time as new people are born and the older ones die off.
So you never heard of terms like Democratic Deficit, you have never read any serious research on the subject, you have not heard that USA was declared a flawed democracy. You personal opinion trumps whatever Phds and proffesors have come up with and published as peer reviewed research?
> I think the results won't be much different than what people voted so far.
The pirate party(~parties all over the EU) are bunch of idealists who so far failed to gain any significant traction.
This is a total Non-Sequitour - the facts/arguments you are providing do not support the assertions/opinions you are putting forward.
The Green Party in United Kingdom has almost no representation. However polling has shown that if you take any green party policy, it has like 70% support across the electorate. Why do people not vote for green party? That's up for debate, maybe people are stuck in the old Labour/Tory mindset, maybe it's the First past the Post System, maybe they debate poorly, there could be a million reasons.
Politicians really are executing the will of the people! They're not simply passing legislation that justifies unacceptable invasion of privacy and sanctions the mining of the individual's information.
phew!
That's not what fascism means.
>Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy
It's sad that "fascist" became one of those words that are thrown around for anything (ie. politicians/parties/system of governance) that one doesn't like.