|
I just wanted to bash the fash and you bring these ethical conundrums to the table smh
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 11:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
dex_sda posted:I just wanted to bash the fash and you bring these ethical conundrums to the table smh bash the fash anyway imo
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 12:44
|
|
|
The Guardian published a pretty good read, "The ruthlessly effective rebranding of Europe’s new far right". It's pretty long though and I'm not sure if the people who most should read it will.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Morticia makes me hard posted:bash the fash anyway imo yeah
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Ligur posted:The Guardian published a pretty good read, "The ruthlessly effective rebranding of Europe’s new far right". quote:Across the continent, rightwing populist parties have seized control of the political conversation. How have they done it? By stealing the language, causes and voters of the traditional left Yep. As I say: the left-wing is aping the right-wing and pushing for right-wing policies, the right-wing is aping the far right and pushing for far right policies, and so people turn to the far right because they hope they'll push for left-wing policies. People want to vote for left-wing politicians, and the only ones around to exploit a left-wing narrative are the far right... The traditional left-wing is all about pursuing a right-wing narrative of getting the trust of the markets and investors by giving fiscal incentives to job creators while increasing the competitiveness of the ungrateful, entitled working class; mostly by lowering the ever-too-high labor cost. The traditional right-wing is all about Making Country Great Again by deporting all the Roms and Muslims and being Tough On Crime. The rise of the far right is to blame on the left-wing for having abandoned leftist causes, and on the right-wing for having embraced fascist causes. The actual fascists can step right in the vacuum left and they get to appear as the only sane and reasonable politicians because of that. We're all hosed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Thats's an... interesting take on it. "Seizing control" is also a bit of a hyperbole. It isn't as if there were not a lot of leftwing voices too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
quote:To Frits Bolkestein, who led the Netherlands’ centre-right VVD in the 1990s – and was briefly Wilders’ boss when he was a young aide in the party office – the rise of the far right is as much about class as it is about Islam. The Dutch Labour party, he argues, gave up on its working-class base: “They made a major mistake,” he says of his old rivals, with a tinge of satisfaction. Faced with “the choice between the foreign-born and the labour classes, they chose the foreign-born … and they’ve paid for it dearly”. Current polls project that the party will drop from the 36 seats it now holds (out of 150) to just 10.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You're well-placed to comment on those who give up on the working-class, you fucker. Bolkey is the one responsible for the directive on detached workers. Yeah, but as the leader of the VVD, he never once pretended to care about the working class. That makes him less of a social-traitor than PvdA members.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Ligur posted:The Guardian published a pretty good read, "The ruthlessly effective rebranding of Europe’s new far right". Great article, worth the read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Yep. As I say: the left-wing is aping the right-wing and pushing for right-wing policies, the right-wing is aping the far right and pushing for far right policies, and so people turn to the far right because they hope they'll push for left-wing policies. People want to vote for left-wing politicians, and the only ones around to exploit a left-wing narrative are the far right... The traditional left-wing is all about pursuing a right-wing narrative of getting the trust of the markets and investors by giving fiscal incentives to job creators while increasing the competitiveness of the ungrateful, entitled working class; mostly by lowering the ever-too-high labor cost. The traditional right-wing is all about Making Country Great Again by deporting all the Roms and Muslims and being Tough On Crime. At this point "left" and "right" lost any kind of meaning, it's just that politics and journalists didn't get the memo. In France, a big talking point for the FN is how PS and LR are basically the same and only they are in the opposition and can bring real changes. PS enacting all those "right-wing" economic policies is feeding voters directly to Le Pen. Of course, it's probably a feature and not a bug. The socialists are aware they're going to get destroyed in upcoming elections, and what do socialists do in those case? They make the FN bigger to dilute their loss, like Mitterrand did in 1986. All fine and dandy as long as the glass ceiling holds and the FN never gets any political power. And I bet they'll be reaaaaal sorry when the glass ceiling breaks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Ligur posted:The Guardian published a pretty good read, "The ruthlessly effective rebranding of Europe’s new far right". This isn't exactly a new strategy either. The Nazis didn't call themselves Nationalsozialisten without reason, the appropriation of traditionally left-wing language and demeanour was an important part of their presentation towards the working class.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Nyandaber Z posted:At this point "left" and "right" lost any kind of meaning, it's just that politics and journalists didn't get the memo. In France, a big talking point for the FN is how PS and LR are basically the same and only they are in the opposition and can bring real changes. PS enacting all those "right-wing" economic policies is feeding voters directly to Le Pen. Of course, it's probably a feature and not a bug. The socialists are aware they're going to get destroyed in upcoming elections, and what do socialists do in those case? They make the FN bigger to dilute their loss, like Mitterrand did in 1986. All fine and dandy as long as the glass ceiling holds and the FN never gets any political power. And I bet they'll be reaaaaal sorry when the glass ceiling breaks. This would be true if the PS hadn't been engaging in right-wing economic policy since they got elected, ie since 2012. No, I can guarantee that they absolutely believe their neoliberal and TINA bullshit, and they managed to convert a non-negligible part of their electorate to it (thanks to the use of words such as "responsibility" and "seriousness" and so on). And at the same time they are scared shitless of the FN and they have no idea what to do, so they resort to pompous grandstanding about Republican Values (TM) and poo poo like that. It's terribly inefficient. I feel like this article doesn't go far enough in exploring the causes of the collapse of the Left in Europe. My feeling is that it's also more subtle: people actually rarely jump from the left to the far-right, but people who used to vote for the left tend to vote less, and newer generations who have never voted before tend to embrace the far-right as the only real alternative. And here's a great article by Jacobin that also explores the collapse of the Communist party in France from yet another angle. Did Corbyn have any success in stemming this tide in England/the UK? Or is the party leadership still too horrid and repulsive to bring wayward voters back into the fold?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
I think you ought to crosspost this in the UKMT.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Did Corbyn have any success in stemming this tide in England/the UK? Or is the party leadership still too horrid and repulsive to bring wayward voters back into the fold? We really can't know until the next election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
No matter what you think of far right parties' policies, they really have the best narrative of the bunch. Consider from the perspective of an un-/underemployed, unsatisfied, sort of conservative male: - Center right: You hosed up, work harder, get a better job. By the way, you need to accept lower wages so that we can create jobs for others. Don't worry though, we'll make sure that nobody gets to live better than you on your tax dollars! - Center left: Your situation is unfair, but we can't help you any more than we do right now, since the economy is doing terribly. To fix the economy, you need to accept lower wages so that we can create jobs for others. - Green-left: Your situation is unfair, but look at all these people who are treated more unfairly that we need to help! And just so you know, you are not without blame in their unfair treatment! You should pay more taxes so that we can help them and maybe eventually get to helping you! - Far right: Your situation is unfair, and it's because our resources are being spent on others while you are expected to fend on your own. You have no reason to be ashamed and all the reason to be angry. We should direct the resources back to ourselves so that we can take care of your children first. Even if the guy sympathises with many leftist viewpoints, far left has never really been an option to him, they don't care about him. Center left used to be, until they stopped guaranteeing his employment and instead told him to lower his wages and started giving the surplus to the swelling ranks of undeserving unemployed. Center right, they at least use the surplus for tax reductions. Shame on him for not trying hard enough, and shame on all those leeches below him. But wow, who are these guys everyone calls far right populists? They understand him, care about people like him. Offer him his honor back. He has suffered enough, now it's time for the world to worry about him. The new left populist parties in countries like Spain have also produced successful narratives, but the established left seems to be stuck talking about academic issues that are far more interesting to them than to the average person. And by average, I don't just mean "white male" but also everyone else who have similar dumb hangups about other minorities. All in all, identity politics as front-and-center appeals mostly to people who intellectually enjoy advancing equality as a value in itself. The rest care about THEIR equality, and the far right understands that what they need to do is get enough people to believe that they will get their equality through their policies. Anyone who intuitively feels that equality is a zero sum game will flock to far right and be skeptical of the green-left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
You are absolutely right that center parties do not have a good narrative. What they have is too complicated. But it's necessarily the case. Center parties have to appeal to the median voter. They just can not go overboard as they stand to lose on both sides of the spectrum. But yes, the incentive of center-right is clear and they move into anti-foreigner / anti-immigration / anti-EU perspective as is appropriate. Show me a center-right politican who stands by helping refugees, and I show you someone who a) a person of principals and b) who will not be in office next time (hint: its only Merkel).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Guess what the Guardian article should have offered to the Left is that simply calling everyone who disagrees with your policies racist hitlers won't work, and it's not even true that they are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Another thing is that the far-right parties in Germany has always been more or less socialist. So this is not really a new angle for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Like someone said the left/right difference is getting more obscure all the time, and in the real world it is. To some "far-right" seems to be anything or anyone who isn't balls out for mass immigration for example, even though their policies would otherwise be considered quite left economically or center-left in anything, but of course there's also other poo poo going down behind that. For example someone who is ok with gender equal marriage and LGBT rights but against millions of young Arab man wandering around the continent makes him far-right person to someone. Then again, someone who is a libertarian or for gun ownership (those dudes also exist in Europe) but doesn't give a drat about immigration is again a far-right loonie to someone else. Something like that could be of course said about the (far-) Left, but from my POV they seem to be more consistent in their ideology, ie. gently caress the natives, gently caress the working class, gently caress the middle class and especially gently caress the rich as long as they are Europeans. Perhaps we should do away with the old left/right divide. It doesn't really reflect Europe in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Ligur posted:Guess what the Guardian article should have offered to the Left is that simply calling everyone who disagrees with your policies racist hitlers won't work, and it's not even true that they are. Look who's salty because he's been called a racist hitler, again
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
caps on caps on caps posted:Another thing is that the far-right parties in Germany has always been more or less socialist. So this is not really a new angle for them. The AfD is extremely neo-liberal in their economic policy though, with heavy emphasis on trickle down economics and small government. Total opposite of the NPD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 00:06
|
|
|
IMO this is a predictable fallout of the type of society we have made and until we actually change it, the populists parties are only gonna get more power, until they can change it themselves (and it's questionable the populist parties will actually implement working policies, some of them are neoliberal as mentioned, the cause of all problems ever). The idea of a federal EU is dead, the euro is dead, globalization* is dead, they just don't know it yet. Eventually even mainstream politicians will start to adopt these talking points. This isn't a question of "if" anymore, only when the breaking point's gonna be. * = as in this balls deep all the way in no breaks or holds model we have implemented
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:IMO this is a predictable fallout of the type of society we have made and until we actually change it, the populists parties are only gonna get more power, until they can change it themselves (and it's questionable the populist parties will actually implement working policies, some of them are neoliberal as mentioned, the cause of all problems ever). The idea of a federal EU is dead, the euro is dead, globalization* is dead, they just don't know it yet. Eventually even mainstream politicians will start to adopt these talking points. This isn't a question of "if" anymore, only when the breaking point's gonna be. Of course, the issue is there isn't a clear route out of the current predicament. Our entire economic structure is built on free trade and cheap labor, and in order to disentangle it you need an alternative path. Protectionism has been brought up but the West imports so much of its energy and manufactured goods there is going to have to be a very painful readjustment. How do you put the "consumption" genie back in the bottle at this point? Anti-free trade talking points are already there, but it has largely come down to pandering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
The problem of the left in this post or late modern world is that they want to regulate the flow of capital without regulating the flow of people. In the minds of many people, mass immigration is inextricably linked to neoliberal globalist policies and the gradual undermining of the welfare state. The left has no coherent answer to these concerns other than blanket dismissal or hollow slogans about a 'different kind' of globalisation and no one being illegal. And it's totally understandable that they do this - it's an ideological catch 22 for them. The populist right, as primitive as it often is, has no such contradictions, which is why it's so successful. That's not to say the left is dead, in a cultural and social sense it is in fact crushingly dominant. But the traditional economically-focused left is dead and buried. It has no place in a post-Fordist world, which is why it's lost much of its electorate to the populist right. The latter might not be able to bring the factories back, but at least they'll stop importing foreigners into their neighborhoods. My prediction is that the European left will eventually follow the extremely successful American model, with an almost exclusive focus on identity politics and symbolic/cultural issues. It will be the party for minorities and the white cultural bourgeoisie (in the sense that Bourdieu meant). In fact, this has already happened to a significant extent in most of Western Europe. Phlegmish fucked around with this message at 08:26 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Of course, the issue is there isn't a clear route out of the current predicament. Our entire economic structure is built on free trade and cheap labor, and in order to disentangle it you need an alternative path. Protectionism has been brought up but the West imports so much of its energy and manufactured goods there is going to have to be a very painful readjustment. How do you put the "consumption" genie back in the bottle at this point? War? The world pre-ww1 was about as globalized as todays according to some economists and that sure got killed fast, this was in finnish economists Christer Lindholms book on the myth of globalization cannot be stopped, is a force of nature etc. It's not, it's a distinct set of treaties that needed to be brought into existence, which happened in the 90s. Remember all those anti globalization demonstrations back then, I do, this was what it was about. Cold war perhaps, the world seem to be realigning back into two opposing camps, west vs russia and the russians might get the chinese on their side. This could help stop globalization and make the western countries more inclined towards stronger states, less free trade with russia and china and more internal trade. His Divine Shadow fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:War? The world pre-ww1 was about as globalized as todays according to some economists and that sure got killed fast, this was in finnish economists Christer Lindholms book on the myth of globalization cannot be stopped, is a force of nature etc. It's not, it's a distinct set of treaties that needed to be brought into existence, which happened in the 90s. Remember all those anti globalization demonstrations back then, I do, this was what it was about. Well formal war is out of the question with nuclear weapons, and thus you are only going to end up with endless proxy civil wars. I think globalization may stall, but it is very difficult to fully stop it simply because technology has made shipping so efficient. I think the more likely scenario is a Second Cold War with a Russo-Chinese de facto "cooperative pact". In many ways it has already silently happened. The Chinese and the Russians have only grown closer together, and between the two they have the resources, technology and manufacturing muscle to be independent from the West in a way the Soviets couldn't. Also, both countries have been significantly more aggressive in the past few years and the US hasn't been able to come up with much of a response. I think Russia would be an independent but ultimately junior partner in such a relationship. There of course is issues with this, such as both countries need to export to the West but on the other hand I don't think there is a will to cut off either Russia or China at this point. Phlegmish posted:The problem of the left in this post or late modern world is that they want to regulate the flow of capital without regulating the flow of people. In the minds of many people, mass immigration is inextricably linked to neoliberal globalist policies and the gradual undermining of the welfare state. The left has no coherent answer to these concerns other than blanket dismissal or hollow slogans about a 'different kind' of globalisation and no one being illegal. And it's totally understandable that they do this - it's an ideological catch 22 for them. I don't know how successful it is in the states looking at the current Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has been shred at the local/state level and it isn't doing so well at the federal level either. (I am taking this as literal considering this forum.) If you look at how liberals/the former center-left have fared in countries that already have turned authoritarian (Russia/Hungary/Turkey), it is easy to see how they could be pushed in a permanent rump position over time in Western countries. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:36
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think globalization may stall, but it is very difficult to fully stop it simply because technology has made shipping so efficient. It's really not, all you'd need is for the US or EU to gradually start rolling back trade treaties. It doesn't matter how cheap shipping is if you make it expensive to cross borders. Hell, that's already the purpose NAFTA and the EU trade zone serves in the world economy. To arbitrarily be able to make export from non-partners and non-exception countries less competitive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:It's really not, all you'd need is for the US or EU to gradually start rolling back trade treaties. It doesn't matter how cheap shipping is if you make it expensive to cross borders. Hell, that's already the purpose NAFTA and the EU trade zone serves in the world economy. To arbitrarily be able to make export from non-partners and non-exception countries less competitive. The problem with that is you start having tariff wars and the fact certain countries actually need imports (especially energy) undermines the endeavor. Also, the cost of living would skyrocket in such a circumstance and it is very possible it would hit people already on the margins. It might be possible but painful in the US because it is of its size and the fact you are talking about a unified state but it would be a complete poo poo show in the EU. Another thing that would probably have to change is countries would have to redistribute wealth to a much further extend to deal with the rising cost of living, and that is pretty much impossible ideologically in the West at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
the EU's problems have more to do with poor integration of its constituent parts and demographic decline than they do with globalization.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:My prediction is that the European left will eventually follow the extremely successful American model, with an almost exclusive focus on identity politics and symbolic/cultural issues. It will be the party for minorities and the white cultural bourgeoisie (in the sense that Bourdieu meant). In fact, this has already happened to a significant extent in most of Western Europe. IMO this is what they have been doing since they failed to stop globalization in the 90s and it seems to me the problems are becaue this model is running out of steam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 09:46
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the EU's problems have more to do with poor integration of its constituent parts and demographic decline than they do with globalization. Not really, the EU's problems mirror those of the world economy if you dumb it down a little. The current world economy functions like this: 1. US consumers want to buy something (car, computer, iPhone, whatever) 2. China refines some resources to meet that demand, adding a bit of the value of the end product 3. Germany, Japan or South Korea further refines those resources, adding most of the value of the end product 4. The US now has to buy this How do they afford it? By the nations of step 2 and 3 pushing the surpluses of their value adding into US bonds. This is fine because even if world growth stalls momentarily the US can just print dollars to keep the cycle going. The EU has a micro-version of this relationship going: 1. EU consumption economies (France, Greece, Portugal) need a product or service 2. The surplus economies (Germany, UK) add value to meet that demand 3. The consumption economies can afford this but only by using money borrowed from the profits of the surplus economies However, unlike the US they can't print currency because of the Euro. Furthermore, they aren't the focal point of the world economy which opens them up to predatory speculation so everything eventually collapses unto itself and then we get the Eurozone crisis. This is a greatly dumbed down explanation but I'm just trying to contextualize that the EU's problems are not entirely divorced from the problems of globalization. You still have the same house of cards aesthetic going on with the monetary flows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
that's not really what the word globalization means, and fits pretty well under poor integration of constituent economies
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
Only if you perceive the EU as one coherent economic entity (like the US) instead of individual nation-states competing within a broader context.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
IMO a eurozone crisis was guaranteed from day one due to the way it's built up. There are only two ways to go about fixing it, more integration or going back to national currencies. And I am pretty sure further integration has a snowballs chance in hell given the way europe's changning it's attitudes. So dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:25
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:bloodshed watch europe start another loving war
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
blowfish posted:watch europe start another loving war The Finnish president Juho Kusti Paasikivi, practically on his deathbed in the 1950's, told his successor "Germany has started two world wars, and it will start a third one. I will not be here to see it, but you might be. Make your decisions accordingly." Rappaport fucked around with this message at 11:21 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 11:18
|
|
|
 UK High Court rules that the government cannot start the EU exit process without a vote in parliament
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
Mikl posted:
Calling it now, attendance is amazingly low for that vote because nobody wants their name on the record either way. Going to be a whole load of sick leave certificates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
We are never gonna get rid of the UK, aren't we? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:19 |
|
|
Rappaport posted:The Finnish president Juho Kusti Paasikivi, practically on his deathbed in the 1950's, told his successor "Germany has started two world wars, and it will start a third one. I will not be here to see it, but you might be. Make your decisions accordingly." Third time's a charm. / Aller guten Dinge sind drei.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 12:41
|
|
