Corporation Socialism

[Immanuel Can]

So that's more or less the answer I was looking for. It sounds to me like you are saying that the EU is little more democratic than Russia or China. Is that correct?

I said no such thing. I said none of the three is democratic at all.

But here: I'll fix your broken question for you, by answering it in a way that actually refers to democratic governments. The EU is far less democratic than England's constitutional monarchy, or that of Canada, or the government of Australia, or the republican system of the US. It's miles and miles less democratic than any of them.

Happy yet?

I'm happy just to know that you answered my question.

Well, not exactly; the question you asked made no sense. So I had to answer a better one.

[Gary Childress]

I said no such thing. I said none of the three is democratic at all.

But here: I'll fix your broken question for you, by answering it in a way that actually refers to democratic governments. The EU is far less democratic than England's constitutional monarchy, or that of Canada, or the government of Australia, or the republican system of the US. It's miles and miles less democratic than any of them.

Happy yet?

I'm happy just to know that you answered my question.

Well, not exactly; the question you asked made no sense. So I had to answer a better one.

Made "sense" to me. It was written in English and pretty easy to answer, unless one is evading it for some unspecified reason.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm happy just to know that you answered my question.

Well, not exactly; the question you asked made no sense. So I had to answer a better one.

Made "sense" to me. It was written in English and pretty easy to answer, unless one is evading it for some unspecified reason.

As I say, it was like asking, "Which one of these three is most female," and then listing three men. None of your candidates was actually democratic at all...so how does one answer which is "more democratic"?

[Gary Childress]

Well, not exactly; the question you asked made no sense. So I had to answer a better one.

Made "sense" to me. It was written in English and pretty easy to answer, unless one is evading it for some unspecified reason.

As I say, it was like asking, "Which one of these three is most female," and then listing three men. None of your candidates was actually democratic at all...so how does one answer which is "more democratic"?

Then that answers my question, you don't think the EU is democratic at all, which maybe puts it in company with China and Russia. As far as measuring what is "democratic" I provided this link which gives some possible reasonable criteria to go by: https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... -countries

[Immanuel Can]

Then that answers my question, you don't think the EU is democratic at all...

It's not what I "think." It's the facts.

When the real power is invested in those who are not elected, then it's no kind of democracy. When those who are unilaterally appointed to make the decisions cannot be touched by the legitimate electors, the common people, then it's not democratic. When another country or group of countries can interfere with yours about massive issues, such as economics and immigration, and you and your country are powerless to resist their pronouncements against your country, it's not democratic. It's autocratic.

Any pretension to democracy in the EU is exactly that -- a pretension, not a reality.

[promethean75]

That's just semantics. Village citizens can raise the same complaint against the city, the city against the state, and the state against the federation of states.

Your line between countries and country unions is arbitrary. A EU is no different than a state having to answer to a federal gubbnint. A state may wanna make marijuana legal, but the federal gubbnint won't let em. This is not democracy and yet you have no problem with it do you?

[Will Bouwman]

Their so-called "accountability" is to the EU Parliament, not to England, or Newcastle or Bob. If you call that "accountability," then Josef Goebbels was "accountable."

Is the European Parliament democratically elected?

Are you struggling to understand the question?

[Immanuel Can]

That's just semantics. Village citizens can raise the same complaint against the city, the city against the state, and the state against the federation of states.

It's not semantics at all, actually. It's a serious human reality. The issue is the question of how large a region is too large to be governed by central control. The larger the polity, the smaller the significance of the individual, or the particular locality, or the mere province within the larger state, or of any state within the globe.

And it's not just a matter of size, either. The larger the region, the more languages, cultures, interests, demographics, regional particularities, and so on are likely to be included, and thus to have to subordinate their interests to the larger state. And the less any of them matters to the central controllers. And the less accountability the controllers feel to the individuals, locales, regions, minorities, linguistic groups, and so forth that are encircled by their empire. And the larger the polity, the less influence any persons or groups within it can possibly have -- and that's where there are democratic means in place, which is not the case in things like the EU, which is run in all its important functions by unelected bureaucrats.

As for the nation-state, there's a trade off, and no way to avoid it. The bigger the government, the more powerful it becomes, but also the less accountable. The smaller the area governed, the more power individuals have within it to influence, moderate or change it...but at the expense of the state having less power. So it ends up being a balancing act: how much autonomy ought a person or region to compromise, in order to participate in a larger government? And I suggest that the answer isn't the "none at all" answer of the anarchist, but it's also certainly not the "all of it" of Globalism or of massive conglomerate governments like the EU.

The nation state is not a perfect solution, to be sure; and yes, ours are somewhat arbitrary -- but things like the EU are simply too big, too heterogeneous, and too immune to the democratic influence of localities and individuals. They're bound to become undemocratic and tyrannical. It's just what they always do. Empires are like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Their so-called "accountability" is to the EU Parliament, not to England, or Newcastle or Bob. If you call that "accountability," then Josef Goebbels was "accountable."

Is the European Parliament democratically elected?

Are you struggling to understand the question?

Not at all. I'm struggling to believe you're capable of the answer.

[mickthinks]

The truthful answer is “Yes, the European Parliament is democratically elected.” and the only person who seems to be incapable of it is Immanuel Can.

Manny’s last resort when he knows he’s wrong is to abandon the truth. And he is wrong a lot of the time. That’s really all you need to know about him.

[BigMike]

The truthful answer is “Yes, the European Parliament is democratically elected.” and the only person who seems to be incapable of it is Immanuel Can.

Manny’s last resort when he knows he’s wrong is to abandon the truth. And he is wrong a lot of the time. That’s really all you need to know about him.

Naturally. IC is fanatically and irrationally religious, and as everyone is well aware, the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

[Immanuel Can]

The truthful answer is “Yes, the European Parliament is democratically elected.” and the only person who seems to be incapable of it is Immanuel Can.

Manny’s last resort when he knows he’s wrong is to abandon the truth. And he is wrong a lot of the time. That’s really all you need to know about him.

Naturally. IC is fanatically and irrationally religious, and as everyone is well aware, the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

Too bad both of you didn't really read the thread. I already answered the question, and answered it by using not right-wing propaganda, but Leftist expressions of concern over the non-democratic nature of the power wielded by the EU.

Here, repeated for your edification, is what I already posted earlier:

"Such grand claims [of "democracy"] might make sense if the EU were a fully-fledged federal state with a truly sovereign parliament — in other words, if it were truly a parliamentary democracy. Yet it is anything but. In fact, the European Parliament has very limited powers: for starters, unlike national parliaments, it doesn’t even have the power to initiate legislation. This is a power uniquely reserved for the EU’s “executive” arm, the European Commission — the closest thing to a European “government” — which avows itself “completely independent,” promising “neither to seek nor to take instructions from any government or from any other institution, body, office or entity.” (The Jacobin)

In short, the real power is held by appointees, the EU Commission. So whether or not the Parliament is elected is mere window dressing. And that's the point that Will is so desperate to ignore, as well...so that you might imagine that there's some sort of "democracy" going on, when it's actually just a bureaucratic autocracy.

PS -- For those unfamiliar with it,

"Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture. The print magazine is released quarterly and reaches 75,000 subscribers, in addition to a web audience of over 3,000,000 a month." (From The Jacobin's "About Us")

[Will Bouwman]

I already answered the question, and answered it by using not right-wing propaganda, but Leftist expressions of concern over the non-democratic nature of the power wielded by the EU.

I imagine the fact that it was the Conservative Party, fully aware of how the EU Commission operates, that took the UK into the EU is lost on Immanuel Can. Still that he thinks a "Leftist" can be a reliable source of information is some sort of progress. Thing is though, a "Leftist" can spout ill informed, biased nonsense and be as hopeless a researcher as the next man. Even if that man happens to be Immanuel Can.
For anyone interested in how the EU Commission actually works, not Mr Can obviously, here's the EU Web page about the EU Commission.
https://european-union.europa.eu/instit ... mission_en

[Immanuel Can]

I already answered the question, and answered it by using not right-wing propaganda, but Leftist expressions of concern over the non-democratic nature of the power wielded by the EU.

I imagine the fact that it was the Conservative Party, fully aware of how the EU Commission operates, that took the UK into the EU is lost on Immanuel Can.

Oh, don't worry...you're wrong again. But you must be getting used to it by now.

Still that he thinks a "Leftist" can be a reliable source of information is some sort of progress.

No, I don't, of course. But I do think they have an incentive not to be "right wing," which would be your accusation if I used any more moderate source; and I do note that, being Socialists, they OUGHT to be delighted with big government and internationalism...which means they are among the last people who would naturally have an incentive to be critical of something like the EU...unless they just happen to be telling an inconvenient truth.

Your absorption with the ad hominem is just another testament to your refusal to face the facts. It's a total red herring, since I'm not even asking you to rely on me for this information. In fact, I'm asking you to rely on my opposition. So you're being contradicted on the right, the center and the Left.

Now WHY you don't want to see what everybody on all sides apparently knows, I can't imagine...but I can see that's what's happening, because you ought to know the truth, but you aren't interested in seeing it, it seems.

[mickthinks]

… the religious are fundamentally untrustworthy.

Not as a rule, they aren’t.