4 ms·
In Eastern Europe before joining the EU, the most anti EU parties were the "ex"- communist and neomarxist and the conservative parties couldn't wait to get in.
by nec4b 5y ago
In Eastern Europe before joining the EU, the most anti EU parties were the "ex"- communist and neomarxist and the conservative parties couldn't wait to get in. There can be 2 explanations why this has changed today.
1. The "ex"-communist and neomarxist parties became enlightened democrats and the conservatives changed to nationalistic anti democrats.
2. Something changed within the EU, which made it a suitable environment for "ex"-communist and neomarxist to thrive in and reminded the conservatives what was it like to live under old communist regimes.
I think the number 2 is the right explanation. The news about undemocratic Poland, Hungary and occasional other eastern-southern countries is mostly spreading through leftist western media by activist reporters who take for granted what their leftist activist colleagues from eastern countries are feeding them. For a person who reads newspapers in both parts of Europe, that fact is painfully obvious. Throw in some leftist activist MPs (like Sophie in 't Veld) and good old geopolitical power struggles and the world quickly becomes black and white (us vs them).
- tsimionescu 5y agoYou should also note that across much of Eastern Europe, the "ex"-"communist" and "neomarxist" parties were always either nationalistic and populist (e.g. the PDSR/PSD in Romania) or subservient to Russia. This means that there was a very easy pivot from "communist" parties to far-right ultranationalism, usually with a good dash of oligarchy, authoritarianism, and/or kleptocracy which also characterized the old regimes. There are very few, if any, leftist ideals held by any remnants of the Cold War-era government parties.
- nec4b 5y agoYes, communist never had troubles with nationalism. And communism is by definition a populist ideology. The legendary elusive communist who shapeshift the moment one points a finger at one (no true communism), is more of an idea of western leftists. Unfortunately the communist ideals are very much alive and well, especially in those countries where communism arose from within, without an external force.
- tsimionescu 5y agoWell, "communism" in the Eastern Bloc is more appropriately called State Capitalism, it has nothing really to do with the left, socialism or communism.
- nec4b 5y agoMaybe you'll get it right next time. Then you'll have true communism, at least until it fails again. Then the kids from the last round of red nobility will call it "capitalism something" and agitate for new true communism again.
- tsimionescu 5y agoIf you believe that the USSR (or China, etc.) were actual attempts at socialism or communism, do you also believe they were democracies? Socialism, by definition, is democratic workers' control of the means of production. A socialist dictatorial state is therefore an oxymoron. If the state itself is controlled by a violent maniac (Stalin, Mao, etc.), and the state owns and controls every aspect of society, including the means of production of course, then there is simply no logical connection to socialism. The USSR and China claim(ed) they are are democratic and socialist states. The "democratic" part is obviously a lie, and was ever since the beginning, since Lenin stole the revolution - and everyone of course knows this. Why then do people believe the "socialist" part?
- nec4b 5y agoI know, every time it fails, it's not true communism. There was a running joke in communist countries on this subject too: There was once an important communist dignitary who was treating a sick cow. After the cow died, he said: "What a shame, I had so many more ideas to try!".
- tsimionescu 5y agoPlease reply to my direct question. In which way did the USSR under Stalin allow worker control of the means of production? This isn't a changing of goalposts, it is simply ignoring obvious lies and propaganda from a regime famous for its lack of regard for the truth.