Anthropologists have written about institutions that, in order to function, must be treated as though they do not exist. Consider a situation in which one party makes regular payments to another in exchange for loyalty, while both parties vigorously pretend that these are occasional, voluntary gifts. For the relationship to work, both elements must be present. The regular payments must continue, but everyone must maintain the pretense that they are not regular payments made under an agreement.
In our societies, the same principle applies to political power. It is almost fascinating how quickly and effortlessly a ruthless instinct for power emerges in liberal circles, while everyone must pretend that what is taking place is a spontaneous expression of the popular will, with which the dictatorship itself supposedly has nothing to do. This is one of the fundamental differences between today’s liberals and the fascist movements of a century ago. Back then, people spoke openly of the will to power, strength, historical destiny, and so forth. Today’s slogans are disinformation, defending democracy, Russian influence, and the like.
We can see this clearly not only in what they do, but even more revealingly in what they have no interest in. Virtually nothing! Do they want to pursue a particular industrial policy? Perhaps, but it is hardly important to them. A transportation policy? An energy policy? These are peripheral concerns. They support the Green Deal, but would readily abandon it if Brussels stopped demanding it. They would give up the notion of 76 genders just as easily if circumstances required it. The same goes for inclusive education or anything else. Their entire attention is concentrated on holding political power, intimidating opponents, and, when necessary, eliminating them.
Consider how prominent these themes were in the statements of the Fiala government and today’s parliamentary opposition. How often did they talk about industrial development, and how often about Russian influence or Babiš’s supposed dictatorship? Power, power, and more power. Fundamentally, nothing else interests them.
It would certainly be worth studying in greater depth how this instinct developed within a social stratum marked by decline in virtually every respect and displaying the characteristics of an irrational crowd. How did they gradually move from an ordinary scramble for money to this mentality?
Of course, this is not incompatible with an interest in money. Every power-seeking or warrior elite operates according to the same logic: I defeat a rival, seize control of resources, use those resources to strengthen my own position, and thereby acquire the ability to seize still more resources. And so the cycle continues. This also involves the ability to form alliances with various outside players. I allow you to plunder, and you provide me with political support.
Historically, however, this mentality has been associated with warriors and rulers, not with an amorphous oligarchic structure.
It is unfortunate that what stands against them is not another organized power structure, but nationalists and conservatives mostly want to deal with particular organizational and economic matters and who clearly regards the struggle for power as an unwelcome distraction and an irritation.