...
and another proof of their devotion to neoliberalism
by
system failure
Standardised answers from the
European parties in power is a characteristic that someone can easily
observe especially during the period of economic crisis. The
uniformity of arguments is quite impressive through the whole
eurozone, despite the special conditions in each country, and this is
another indication of the pan-european unification of the neoliberal
forces against political parties that threaten their domination.
Such an example is a discussion
between Hannes Swoboda, of the European Socialists in euro-parliament
and Joseph Paul, of the European People's Party, for the France24
network and EuroparlTV of the euro-parliament.
The journalist asks among other
things: “Up till now, the two large groups have shared the
European Parliament, 2,5 years each, as neither of you could form an
absolute majority. Will that change much this time?”
Among other things, Daul says
that: “On 25 May we'll wait for the election results. [...] but
I think the democratic parties will keep the majority in the
Parliament.”
Here, one can see clearly the
dominant perception of the European parties in power. It's the same
perception that is continuously propagated by the mainstream media,
which is that, only the parties from the "centre" should be
considered "democratic", as if they have the "copyright"
of Democracy. They are of course the same parties that completely
adopted cruel austerity and have chosen to save banks instead of
people. They are the same parties that criminalized demonstrations in
Spain and Greece. They are the same parties that are trying to
destroy the social state in Europe. They show us clearly how they
realize democracy.
To another question, Swoboda says
among other things: “The centre dominates the evolution of the
policy in Europe. It's the centre right and the centre left.
Secondly, one must observe that these aren't concrete proposals from
the far left or the far right. Thye're a facade with no content.
They're words and mainly negative words. We cannot build a strong
Europe, a Europe that serves the interests of citizens, with words.
We need actions, visions and concrete proposals. And we, the
Socialists offer concrete proposals.”
Daul rushes to agree:
“... but, as Hannes Swoboda
said, we can't manage policy just with slogans.”
Here is clear that, the political
thinking of the European parties in power coincides perfectly by
considering that they are the only ones that have concrete
suggestions. This standardised "argument" is used all the
time in Greece too by the parties of the government coalition. It is
so standardised that ends to be a ... slogan.
This shows that there is a central
management of the way with which the parties in power face the rival
political forces in Europe, which means that, the parties in power in
Greece - a country, which is the centre of the European crisis - are
taking probably specific orders from the corresponding parties in
Europe to use a specific rhetoric.
But this is also an indication of
the unification of the neoliberal lobby, which is self-considered as
"moderate centre" and thinks that it is the only one that
has "realistic" proposals in contrast with the "far"
Left for example. It's not a surprise since these proposals are
totally favor big capital's interests which funds to a great extend
those parties.
Socialists, especially, instead of
criticize the proposals of the Left, they prefer to propagate that
the Left has no proposals. This is also something that someone should
expect, as Socialists appear that they are trying desperately to
regain the "exclusivity" of the social sensitiveness.
An independent Left as a pure
representative of people's anger against big capital interests,
cannot be easily managed. Socialists, instead, can be good to
everyone: on the one hand they vote every bill in favor of the big
capital which funds them, on the other hand, they pretend that they
fight for the majority's rights, throwing a few "crumbs" to
the people to justify their "Socialistic" ideology and
heritage.
Swoboda's anxiety to the next
question is characteristic:
Journalist question: “On the
other hand, during the crisis, it's a fact that a lot of people
expected the Socialists to have a response. That response didn't come
and you didn't act as the counterbalance to austerity.”
Swoboda: “We did respond, but
we don't have the majority. That's why we are fighting for a social
Europe, a Europe without austerity, a Europe that respects social
rules, a Europe that wants to improve transform and change the
directive on the posting of workers. We need to change Europe. We're
not defending the Europe of today. We need change and that's our
response.”
Swoboda forgot that the
destructive IMF was brought by his colleague, president of the
Socialist International, George Papandreou, that the head of IMF then
was another "Socialist", Dominique Strauss-Kahn and that,
the man who replaced Papandreou in the Greek Socialist Party (PASOK)
leadership, Evangelos Venizelos, has chosen to adopt politics of
destruction by making a coalition with the neoliberal Right in order
to stay in power.
He also forgot that, Socialists in
the euro-parliament allowed a nationalist, Nigel Farage, to
monopolize the reaction against politics of destruction and
therefore, allow his popularity reach high levels and gain high
percentage for his party. Farage, for his own reasons of course,
dared to say truths when his party had minimum power in the
euro-parliament. Where were the "Socialists" then?
Additionaly, his rhetoric appears
to be characterized with something that himself blames the Left and
the "far": it is full of generalities, wishes and therefore
without substantial proposals.
In a next question, journalist
asks: “Mr. Swoboda, in Greece we've seen that the economic
crisis has brought to the fore the Greek far left in the person of
Alexis Tsipras who is the driving force. Do you not think today that
in the end you will lose a whole section of your voters who will move
to the far left? In addition, this Greek far left has a figurehead,
Alexis Tsipras, who might stand as President of the Commission. Don't
you think you could lose support?”
The answer of Swoboda: “Yes,
in some countries like Greece we'll lose a few voters. That's true.
It's because of the crisis but it's also the response to the crisis.
I was, for example, against the Troika because it would like to
destroy the social resources or to destroy the social state. That's
why the far left has gained support. And that's why we, as
Socialists, have asked the European Commission and the majority of
contributors, the majority of the EPP and the Member States, to
change the structure. Greece must be reformed, but without this
destruction of the social state. We must clearly stop the work of the
Troika. We must ask for practical reforms of the state, but there
must be respect for the needs of the social strata. [...] What are
Mr. Tsipras' alternatives? He can't propose any alternatives.”
What is remarkable here is that
SYRIZA is considered far Left, despite the fact that its leader is a
candidate for the leadership of the European Commission! But there is
also a big contradiction in Swoboda's arguments since he states
clearly that he is against Troika's policies and that these policies
must change so that the destruction of the social state to be
stopped, but instead of seeking a support from the "far"
Left, which is coordinated to this perception, he insists on seeking
alliances with the European People's Party, which is basically
responsible for the adoption of those neoliberal, destructive
policies through the whole Europe!
Next, Swoboda insists on the
standardised "argument" concerning the lack of an
alternative proposition from the Left, targeting personally Alexis
Tsipras, but it seems that he ignores the fact that his Socialist
colleague in the euro-parliament, Hoang Ngoc, quite recently,
contradicted Othmar Karas of the European People's Party, who
supported (as expected), that Tsipras has no realistic proposals.
Ngoc said that SYRIZA's president came in Strasbourg with specific
proposals.
Swoboda's answer to a next
question clearly shows that Socialists are determined to support the
neoliberal Right in Europe, excluding any possible alliance with the
"uncompromising" Left:
Journalist: “When we see that
the European United Left could become the third party, could overtake
the Liberals and perhaps make unnatural alliances, could you see
yourself making an alliance with that group?”
Swoboda: “No. We make
alliances with parties in the centre. Of course, we have discussions
about specific collaborations with the far left, if the far left can
accept the rules of democracy, can accept the rules for participating
in practical negotiations. But we've often found the far left in this
Hemicycle making demands upon demands, but if the vote is needed to
support a pragmatic solution, a compromise, they withdraw support.
It's unacceptable.”
It would be useful if Swoboda
could make clear what he means by saying "pragmatic solution"
and "compromise". Does he mean the full retreat of the
Socialists to the neoliberal doctrine? Who is the one who decides
about the rules of Democracy? Banks or multinational corporations?
Outstanding story there. What occurred after? Take care!
ReplyDeleteMy blog post; τεχνικός υπολογιστών