8mo ago

How can progressive "European patriots" protect Europe from the right-populists who want to destroy Europe as we know it?

That is what I wonder. Don't know about you guys, but I feel like a European patriot, even though this maybe does not make sense to some.

Being a true European patriot means to me: caring about all of the freedoms we have, our social democracies, is to value the open pluralist societies we developed since WW2, wanting to protect what the reactionaries want to take away from us, stop those who want to lock us all up, back in the small closed-minded nation-states we all come from, which will ultimately lick the boots of either US or China/Russia.

They are well organized, but what is the organization, the movement that fights against this ongoing attack on our shared values and mode of existence?

The post-WW2 Europe is an oasis of bliss in a world which is on fire, and we are all under attack. How can we fight against this destruction from the inside as well as from the outside ?

51 comments

Fix wealth inequality. Rich people accumulate so much money that there's hardly any left for average people. Rich people hoard assets like houses and increase their prices and the cost of living. As long as we don't fix this, things will get worse. As long as politicians don't fix this other parties will get more popular no matter what they offer.
Migrants are just scapegoats. They have no lobby, they are easy to blame. They are one piece in a bigger equation. They are used as a ruse to distract from bigger problems. If the housing market was functional it could handle the influx of Ukranian refugees and the way smaller number of refugees from countries like Afghanistan or regions like Africa.
If countries had funds from wealth and inheritance taxes they could fund a working administration, faster justice systems, working infrastructure and so on. It would be absolutely beautiful and I cannot say why there isn't a bigger movement for that solution.
It's not about taxing 100.000€ in stock, or you inheriting your mum's cottage, but about taxing people who have been living off intergenerational wealth for decades without ever working at all.
- This is the number one thing. The US collapsed because of inequality. Liberals are out.
  And it can be summarised in one word: materialism.
- Yes to all but for completeness you probably want to spell out this important effect of wealth inequality. The wealth consolidated at the top buys state power which then helps distribute even more wealth to the top. As long as this feedback loop is allowed to run, none of the other proposed solutions would help. For example, education is amended to teach people to support the feedback loop, not break it.
  What could solving this look in practice? Actively participate in your union, unionize, vote for economic left parties that support unionization and breaking the wealth inequality loop.
- That's the only solution.
  
  But we could also try fascism again. Maybe it works this time.
  /s
  
  100%. Only if you solve wealth inequality, the other proposed solutions become effective in keeping inequality and therefore fascism low. If you don't solve wealth inequality, they're rendered ineffective by the accumulated wealth.
- I agree with you a 100% on the wealth issue. Though the number of migrants from the middle east is and will be more problematic for a small country like Austria.
  Therefore you need to tackle both problems at once. I'm tired of people ignoring the fact. No country wants to become Libanon 2.0.
  
  No country wants to become Libanon 2.0.
  What does that mean?
  
  Yeah no fuck off
- That's quite reformist. But I would agree. It would be an ok step to start constructing a socialist state.
- And how would you fix wealth inequality, without causing capital flight.
  
  Capital can’t flee. The money is all bound in assets. How you gonna move the houses out of Europe?
  China doesn’t allow me to own 100M USD worth of assets and live abroad without paying any tax. Why do we?
  
  Facotries, houses and even companies can not be easily moved. Even something like a bank needs employees, with certain skills and those have value. You usually can not just move those to another country, unless something really drastic happens.
  The other part is to organize. Something like the minimum company tax is a really good starting point. Most large countries have relativly high taxes anyway. The only reason tax heavens work is, because they have a tiny population and the few hundret jobs created by the paperwork are enough to support them. They could easily be bullied into having normal taxes.
  Also keep in mind the EU has 1/5 of the global economy by itself.
  
  We pay for using that capital. We pay rent, we pay for groceries, we pay for gas. Everytime we pay something, somebody makes money. Tax them.
- The gist is that you shouldn’t try to argue with them, they don’t care about reality.
  That may be true on a face to face level. In public, like on social media, it's essential to keep arguing. Not to convince the person you're arguing with, but to show other people reading that theirs is not the only perspective, nor is it the majority.
  
  While you're right, it's incredibly frustrating when it's near-impossible to convince onlookers on how the fascists operate on complete bad faith and we really should just not give them any time of day at all and ban them
  I've had great difficulties in convincing people to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, leading to the fascists further exploiting it for their own gain
- This just doesn't have a any connection with reality. You know what you suggest is what has been done for 20 years and it has massively failed? In basically all western countries? Learn from your mistakes or be an idiot.
  Make sure that you understand materialism and solidarity grounded in self interest if you want to win the working class. Get rid of idealists and identity politics (unless they're working class or populist identity politics). Get your head around consequential ethics and how to set political priorities.
  I recommend studying the 1930s strategy of the Swedish SAP.
- I have a rule: I don't pronounce the word fascist (in private or in public, I don't care) without prefixing it with "lurid" in English and in Italian appending "di merda" after fascista/i. As someone who had nightmares at night about them, given the testimony of my grandmother, I feel that not qualifying fascist people is somehow working in their favor.
  The day I will see a politician using that rule in a TV interview I will know that we have again a chance.
- This is quite literally the opposite of how you actually get people to support your cause. Ask any psychologist.
  Shutting them out completely might work fine when they're a tiny minority, but when in some cases a quarter of the population agrees with them enough to vote for them, doing that is simply impossible. They will have reach.
  I also still think we need people throwing their morals about manipulating people to the wind and starting to peddle left wing conspiracy theories just like the right wingers are doing. For example with how perfectly it fits there really should be an actual movement behind the whole trump=the biblical antichrist thing in the US, but I've only seen it as satire in spaces that are already left wing.
  
  If 75 percent block together, 25 percent can be blocked. The rest is limited. If you legitimate them through participation, you risk them being seen more acceptable a reasonable option.
It's important to recognize an individual can not move a mountain, so it's important not to get discouraged because you do not see tangible progress nationally. All politics is a grinding trench fight to wait for an opportunity to enact laws.
With that said, the very minimum thing any citizen should do is vote. Vote in local election, vote in federal election, vote in EU election.
Next is attend your local party meeting of your preference. Just showing up and listening shows that there is interest to the politicians. You have opportunity to meet like minded people which is important for networking.
Well, I think the first step is to talk about lobbyism, and who owns the media. Maybe even try to talk about how to see the world in decades not years. 🤔 but it's hard...
- That's such a middling long game, though... My personal fear is that any potential long game just gives them the space to solidify their grip on the population, I think everyone needs to do/see something pretty much soon-ish to make them want to believe in the rational alternative.
  We're entering tumultuous times in terms of emotional load, everyone is nearing desperation at an alarming rate. That's a dangerous playground to reach.
  Edit: not that I have the faintest about what could be done, I've been wracking my brain with this question for a while.
  
  The far right have been long-gaming the entire time. That is why they were able to act strategically and shift the discourse and ideas towards them step by step.
  So yes we need to do something now, but it needs to break out of the short term thinking of "just this election", which also makes many supposedly progressive parties move hard to the right, idiotically believing they would win by copying the far-rights positions. Instead what we see is a further rise of it.
Communication is key, we can take lessons from USA. Their left wing tries to dehumanise their right wing. This backfired tremendously.
So, what we should do would be simply communicate with eachother.
The part that differentiate social democracy from Marxist Leninists is that we do not try to silence people.
- You really think the American left dehumanises republican voters?
  Let's see: Democrats exclusively talk about "crossing the aisle" and bipartisanship. Bernie Sanders excessively highlights the importance of protecting low income middle Americans who work(ed) in manufacturing and other sectors that lean Republican voters, while trying to sneak in some "also no, minorities aren't evil" rhetoric.
  Old school GOP says gays are sinners, new school GOP/MAGA calls transgender folks pedophiles, liberals communist unemployed rioters, and ethnic minorities "freeloaders who should go back to their countries".
  What a load of shit saying that the American left wing is to blame for "dehumanising" the right wing. I don't think the way to fight extreme far-right ideology that is currently, actively supporting horrible shit is to pamper them and call them angels and ignore the shit they're doing.
  And here's some extra data to prove the point:
  Source
  I will clarify, I believe MAGA supporters are idiots. They are being duped into voting to gut the social services that blue states taxes pay for to help them avoid poverty, medical bankruptcy, and the effects of climate change. Their voter habits are led first and foremost by a desire to "own the libs", anti-LGBTQ religion and parasitic megachurches, and plain old racism. I do not believe they're evil, but they support some really evil stuff and we're really fucking far down the (billionaire and Russian funded/influenced) propaganda and MAGA-cult of personality rabbit hole at this point that I'm not going to just sugar coat all the nonsense they do and that they support.
  I want all republicans to be able to live dignified lives and get their fair share of America's wealth. I want our federal government to support them with free education, free healthcare, free childcare, and honestly, a basic universal income. I know that red states will never have the money to pay for these things. I don't care. I will happily pay higher taxes for them to have these things.
  But they keep voting against it. Instead, they vote in people who want to send immigrants to El Salvadorean prison camps. They commit hate crimes against my race. They ban people from Muslim countries including impacting green card holders. They don't see any problem with the current Republican administration accidentally (or not) deporting legal immigrants or sending deportation orders to US-born US citizens.
  So don't tell me that I, or the American left-wing who is a hell of a lot nicer than this, dehumanise the right. That's a load of shit. We're trying to make it so the federal government will raise our taxes to help take care of them, and every other American in the bottom 99%, instead of using racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and political-belief-polarizing rhetoric to gain support with the sole purpose of (traditionally) lowering taxes for corporations and the top 1% and (now) doing a shit-ton of insider trading and cutting down voter rights.
  Almost none of this is comparable to EU politics. Maybe there's examples here and there, but especially in Western Europe, this situation does not exist in Europe, so don't even pretend like the average MAGA supporter is the same as a SD or FN or FdI voter.
- I agree, especially in the sense that the other is also part of our society. I think it also helps to remind people in the end we are all sharing the political system that is our democracy.
  
  Yeah I also believe that good communication is key. Communication with everyone we might even strongly disagree with, as long as they are not actually beyond that in their beliefs and are just mislead or uninformed etc., but well-meaning. Such people need to be somehow included and heard and not pushed away into the arms of the extremists...
- Hahahaha, 'the left was mean to the right in the US and now Trump is very angry 😭, lets not do the same and directly give them power in Europe 🥰'
  I for too think the problem of US is there is too many Marxist Leninist in it... Damn Marxist Leninist they ruined it 😂😂😂
  
  The thing you should take from this, is that when you keep antagonising people, they will hate you. 😁
Push for more european countries to pass proportional representation to strengthen their state stability and democracy.
The countries that have some form of pr are coloured:
- Propotional representation? As in party lists? How much country needs it to be marked?
  
  Most countries use party lists, some mixed member proportional and Ireland uses the single transferable vote.
  I’m not sure I understand your question. I would say every country should receive some form of pr as democracies are more fair and peaceful.
Long term? Education: a broadly based, liberal education that makes the shared values understood and appreciated by most people, on the basis of good evidence, morality and reason. Without this, if everyone is taught and believes different, conflicting ideas, then there are no shared values to defend. Many organizations are involved but most significant are families, schools, colleges, universities, religious organizations and the media.
Short term? Justice, law and order that balances personal and collective interests. Without this, people will live in fear and desperation with immediate survival concerns being a priority over getting or giving a good education or making any personal sacrifice for the benefit of society. Also, sufficient resources for everyone so that no one is living in desperation and insecurity. This requires, among other things, preventing extremes of inequality of wealth and power. Not the elimination of inequality, but limiting and moderating it so that tyranny and jealous desperation are avoided. Again there are many organizations involved but most significant are the legislatures, courts, police and military.
Transparency and oversight are required for all these organizations, to ensure they are doing what they should, and freedom of thought and communication so that their behaviour, virtues and faults can be discovered, communicated, discussed and controlled. Whistleblowers and protections for them, and the media.
Fight hunger, fight drug addiction, fight the destruction of the European values. This doesn't work. Those are not targets. If you want to destroy something then you have to pinpoint a target that can be destroyed. "Destruction of the European values" is not a target.
However, do you really want to destroy something or don't you rather want to build something?
It doesn't come with the thrill of fear, but uniting people to build something is more sustainable.
In any case, take a close look and check if the oasis is not already burning or even spreading fire all over the world.
If you choose construction, make sure that the values you are going to implement are consistent and operational. Progressive means nothing but promising everybody that the world will develop according to the progess they envision. That won't happen. There can only be one direction.
My personal opinion is that Pluralism makes it difficult to unite people. People follow their leaders. If the idea would be enough, this post would explode, there would be discussions until people agreed on what to do and then do it. In a pluralist society you have to convince all leaders, and they have to agree to get active at the same time.
So start with finding the leaders and let them convince their communities.
- You have to destroy something when you 'fight against this destruction'. But you can't fight abstract things, not even Fascism or imbalance.
  Yes, people are easier to unite against something. The famous outside attacker. But how to fight fascism if it promises to fulfill what people want? People have to see that democracy is better. Maybe fight corruption, so that democracy can be at its best?
Being a patriot is quite dumb if I may say so. And even dumber if you are a patriot for a imperialist and neoliberal organisation that even compared to a so-called liberal "democracy" is undemocratic. Instead of calling yourself a patriot you should read a book. And then call yourself something based on that. And please explain to me what freedoms one has in the EU. Freedom to pay insanely high rents? Freedom to have to chose to heat or eat? Freedom to be exploited by ones employer? I could go on like this forever. I would also like to know where the aforementioned is social and where there is democracy in the EU. And last but not least I would like to know in how far the EU is open. To my knowledge everywhere in the EU the marginalized are still marginalized.
- Which part of what literature didn't you accept?
- A product so good that only a socialist state sold them.

51 comments