steinrokkan posted:

What's wrong with the kuna?

steinrokkan posted:

We regret to inform you the kuna is racist.

His Divine Shadow posted:

Welcome to the suicide pact I guess

His Divine Shadow posted:

Tonight at midnight Croatia joins the euro. The poor bastards.

Doctor Malaver posted:

I'm somewhat sorry to see kuna go. I like the nightingale and the bear coins.

The "nazi kuna" controversy hasn't meant anything in decades. I've heard and read countless objections against Croatian nationalism (both from Serbs and from the Croatian left) but nobody mentioned kuna since the nineties.

Tesseraction posted:

I would argue that is what a leftist political party is.

I can agree that the political landscape has changed in many of our countries to the point where these are still considered the nominally-left parties despite not holding left-wing values, but I'd argue this is the-end-of-history making every country a weird attempt for everyone to be the centre without ever understanding that a centre exists in opposition to the poles, and has led to often internally inconsistent ideologies (see: Green parties that end up backing policies that end up making climate change and environmental disasters worse).

I think it's a mistake to change language to match the world as it happens to be in this way, it feels too close to the intention of newspeak, which I also then have to say "I'm not saying we're living in 1984" because we are not living in 1984. But Orwell's concept of newspeak was a salient discussion on the limitations of common language, and I suppose was a riff on his non-fiction essay "Politics and the English Language."

Blut posted:

Its not the language itself changing (or being changed from above) but the political systems, and the preferences of European voters, evolving and changing with time. To a 1970s communist in the year 2022 the SDP in Germany or other modern center-left political parties in Europe aren't left wing by their standards. But using the same standard to a 1950s conservative modern conservative/Christian Democratic parties in Europe that have legalised gay marriage, are legalising weed etc aren't right wing either, they're far-left hippies.

Both ideologues are living in the past using measures of policy platforms that no longer apply, and are as valid as each other. Someone in 2022 calling the CDU in Germany a left-wing party, or the SDP a right-wing party, would be laughed out of any serious political debate. Because both statements don't reflect reality.

Modern European political systems (and voter preferences) have moved significantly to the right economically, and become far more socially liberal, over the decades. Thats now reflected in the positions of parties. Similar changes have happened throughout the history of democracies, its not the end-of-history - its just evolution. For both better (for minorities or gay people) or worse (for poor people) in our current local/recent evolution.

Blut posted:

Someone in 2022 calling the CDU in Germany a left-wing party, or the SDP a right-wing party, would be laughed out of any serious political debate. Because both statements don't reflect reality.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

If this is the standard we're going with, the Nazis were center-right, having captured all but the communist part of the population. The only sensible way to look at a left-right spectrum is to define the endpoints and then place everyone accordingly, not define the largest two blobs and define the center as being between those. And since Europe still has committed anti-capitalist parties, some even with parliamentary presence, the spectrum (and the center) gets dragged far to the left, leaving your so-called "center-left" parties on the right.

Don't reflect reality as perceived by people you perceive to be doing "serious political debate". Please define what "serious political debate" means here.

Blut posted:

Its not the language itself changing (or being changed from above) but the political systems, and the preferences of European voters, evolving and changing with time. To a 1970s communist in the year 2022 the SDP in Germany or other modern center-left political parties in Europe aren't left wing by their standards. But using the same standard to a 1950s conservative modern conservative/Christian Democratic parties in Europe that have legalised gay marriage, are legalising weed etc aren't right wing either, they're far-left hippies.

Both ideologues are living in the past using measures of policy platforms that no longer apply, and are as valid as each other. Someone in 2022 calling the CDU in Germany a left-wing party, or the SDP a right-wing party, would be laughed out of any serious political debate. Because both statements don't reflect reality.

Modern European political systems (and voter preferences) have moved significantly to the right economically, and become far more socially liberal, over the decades. Thats now reflected in the positions of parties. Similar changes have happened throughout the history of democracies, its not the end-of-history - its just evolution. For both better (for minorities or gay people) or worse (for poor people) in our current local/recent evolution.

Blut posted:

Your knowledge of electoral history is apparently rather lacking. The Nazis at no point "captured all but the communist part of the population". Their vote share in the last free election in Germany:

Blut posted:

If you want to "define the endpoints and then place everyone accordingly" then what happens when every political party becomes "far right" by your arbitrary endpoints set decades ago? How exactly do you differentiate between the parties? At no point do you decide that political endpoints set 30, 50, 100 or 200 years ago maybe aren't so relevant to a completely different democratic society?

What makes a fascist's endpoint setting any less valid than a communists? Europe also still has committed fascist parties, some even with parliamentary presence, so the spectrum (and the center) gets dragged far to the right, leaving so-called "center-right" parties on the left in their view.

See how ridiculous that logic of catering to the views of those on the antiquated, marginalised, political extremes is? It just doesn't reflect reality, its of no practical use when defining a real world political spectrum.

Blut posted:

Serious political debate is debate that involves a plausible narrative. Someone espousing a view that the vast majority of educated society would say is factually incorrect (and that would get you a failing mark in a political science examination) falls outside of this. ie in this specific case the example that arguing that the SPD are a right-wing party, or the CDU are a left-wing party.

Tesseraction posted:

I do agree with the major point of this post, because I agree that a political landscape is malleable, but I think it's a disservice to history to equate the ways in which the political left and the political right have changed. For one thing, I'd argue that the political left in Europe had a healthier response to the collective failings of the Soviet Union, Maoist China and the like, compared to the political right's response to the fall of Hitler and Mussolini.

By and large the left realised that authoritarianism was the problem, much as they will also complain about anti-leftist revanchists. The far-right meanwhile seems to have the same end goals, just know they have to hold their nose and adopt out-groups until they have their way. You can certainly disagree with me, but I feel the difference is pronounced.

That said, what I more disagree with is that the CDU is necessarily moving left as the times go by. I think this necessarily is the conservative response to the expansion of social liberalism. What was unacceptable 100 years ago can be normal by now. Whether it was women being allowed to own property, black people not being property, gay people not being sentenced to death or trans people being allowed to exist. That conservatives keep losing these battles to progressives is not to me a shifting of political extremes, it's an anti-humanist extreme losing time and time again and getting mad about it. For the record: that's not me accusing you of being mad about it; I just don't see the political right having to accept human beings as human beings is anything equivalent to the left getting politically sidelined.

And again, when I state "the left getting politically sidelined" I am not talking about the tankies and similar authoritarians. I'm talking about somewhat milquetoast left-leaners like Corbyn or Sanders*. I'd include Melanchon but I've heard he has some skeletons to deal with. Likewise I'm also rather rudely ignoring Spain and Portugal given Sanchéz and particularly Costa have veritably not been sidelined, and seem to be doing good things. I guess West-Central Europe is going to be the focus of these kind of debates since we're a bloc of solipsists.

*yes I know he's American but the two are the ones that come easily to mind

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Politics don't end when voting does. The German population at large accepted what the Nazis were doing/became politically "inactive", allowing the Nazis to take control of the center of German politics.

Why are you assuming the fascist endpoint isn't included alongside the far left endpoint? It is, it just doesn't move the spectrum as much, because fascist political views are closer to the center as defined according to the position of the largest political parties.

Which population is included in "educated society", and who educated them? An education system isn't free of bias, especially on softer more politicized topics like politics and economics.

Blut posted:

How the far left or far right has responded to the movement of the views of the center point of the electorate wasn't my point, it was merely that the movement of the views of the center point of the electorate has occurred. Which has required the standard definitions of "left-wing" or "right-wing" parties to move along with it to remain accurate, as has been the case throughout the history of political systems in democratic societies.

Blut posted:

The Nazis highest vote percentage in free elections in Germany was 37%. There were always multiple popular political parties to their left who won substantial percentages of the vote while Germany was a democracy. Your claim that "the Nazis were center-right, having captured all but the communist part of the population" shows you clearly had no idea about the electoral history of the time.

Blut posted:

I'll ask again since you seem to have ignored it, if you want to "define the endpoints and then place everyone accordingly" for all time then what happens when every political party becomes "far right" by your arbitrary endpoints set decades ago? How exactly do you differentiate between the parties? At no point do you decide that political endpoints set 30, 50, 100 or 200 years ago maybe aren't so relevant to a completely different democratic society?

So you want to include both fascists and communists views in your endpoints? How does that work when a communist regards the SPD as right-wing and a fascist regards the CDU as left wing, when they have completely conflicting endpoints? What sort of endpoints are they going to agree on?

Blut posted:

If you think the CDU are closer to fascists than the SDP are to communists then you really do need to do a lot more reading on what life was like under fascist rule, its not just electoral history you're completely unaware of. Both political extremes are very far from the modern center left or center right parties.

Lord Stimperor posted:

Every season or so I check on this thread and find people shouting the most insane poo poo at each other. Last time it was something to the extent of "yes people SHOULD vote for fascist parties because that'll give us luxury communism faster" and i don't even know anymore what the current discourse is about, with posters splitting hairs over what each other's contributions from five pages back mean exactly

Dawncloack posted:

I think it would make this discussion better if everyone would delineate whether they are talking about left and right on the economic and social axis.

It is Probably true (I can't claim to know) even the CDU has moved "left" on social issues (gay rights, minorities, whatnot). Same for that opus dei ridden bunch of crooks, the PP (conservatives) in Spain.

But those parties along with the SPD, the PS in Spain etc etc. have only moved rightwards on the economic axis. (Market über alles, undermine welfare).

There are other axis, contextually, ie. regions vs. Madrid in Spain.

So, again, my sugestion is, stop mixing the two axis.

Lord Stimperor posted:

Every season or so I check on this thread and find people shouting the most insane poo poo at each other. Last time it was something to the extent of "yes people SHOULD vote for fascist parties because that'll give us luxury communism faster" and i don't even know anymore what the current discourse is about, with posters splitting hairs over what each other's contributions from five pages back mean exactly

mobby_6kl posted:

Well that worked perfectly in the 1930s so why wouldn't it now, almost 100 years later?

A Buttery Pastry posted:

This assumes our democratic systems actually represent the wants of the electorate. Now it is likely better in multi-party democracies than in the US, but in the US the stats show that only the top 10% of the electorate actually have any influence on policy. It is in fact entirely possible for parties to move independently of the electorate, if both they and the media have been captured to a degree where they no longer feel the need to be beholden to an increasingly large section of society. A process that encourages the electorate to become "apolitical", which we can see in voter turnout.

Looking at voter turnout in Europe, it appears to have dropped from 85% in the '60s to 65% in the '10s. This does have the effect of pushing the electorate rightward, as the rightward shift of the parties on offer demoralizes left-leaning people more, but the cause and effect are reversed.

quote:

Why are you talking about electoral history? Politics didn't end in Germany after the Nazis ended elections.

quote:

I am not talking about including their views, but their positions. A communist wants an end to capitalism, giving us the left-wing endpoint of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum you have the people who want completely unfettered capitalism, giving us the right-wing endpoint of the spectrum. (left-right being defined by me according to economic positions)

There is no point in including the fascists in the discussion because they're fascists and literally only take part in debates to promote themselves, and they have no positions that are worth giving oxygen to.

Fascists are (violently) pro-capital, while leftists are anti-capital (and some of them violently so). A party that does reforms to undermine the rights of workers is pro-capital, and thus right-wing. Fascism is merely taking the logic underpinning those decisions further, in defense of capital against a rising threat from the left, which is why I'm perfectly happy to say the two are more closely aligned. Hell, the "center-left" parties even come out and outright state it sometimes, like the leader of the Danish social-democrats publicly saying that being a bulwark against leftism is their primary purpose. A position mirrored by various third-way social democrats across the continent, either explicitly or as shown through their actions. (See Corbyn getting absolutely destroyed by the politicians and papers that should, if you believed their rhetoric, be most in favor of him.)

Going into the social side of things, these social-democrats have also embraced a lot of super hosed-up nationalist poo poo from the right, even if they also try to be progressive in other areas. Though note here that this progressiveness is often weaponized as proof of how civilized we are compared to other cultures. I'll give you that anti-immigrant rhetoric in Germany is likely lagging some years behind that seen here in Denmark, but I don't recall hearing much push-back from the SPD on the insanely chauvinistic rhetoric surrounding the Eurozone troubles. I guess it's possible that none of that poo poo got out of Germany, but I do feel like our resident German far-right nationalist at the time would have delighted in showing how spineless they were if they had attempted to push back on it.

Blut posted:

You're completely lacking in real world facts again here. Sweden had a voter turnout of 87% in 2018 and the Sweden Democrats won 17.5% of the vote, just behind the second largest party in parliament. Belgium had a voter turnout of 88% in 2019 and the VB won 12% of the vote, the second largest party share. France had a turnout of 74% in 2022 and the FN/NR and R! between them won 30% of the vote, high enough to send Le Pen to the top 2 final round of voting. etc. Far-right parties are doing extremely well in Europe even when elections have high turnout levels.

Blut posted:

Trying to claim that political parties in healthy representative democracies in Europe don't represent the wants of their electorates, because you don't like the results of elections, is very strong Seymour Skinner "Is it me whos out of touch? No, its the kids" energy.

Pope Hilarius II posted:

This is the kind of counter-argument that works sometimes, especially against political fantasists who espouse ideas that are wildly unpopular, but falls apart quite quickly in this case. Tackling climate change, maintaining or expanding socialised healthcare and taking action against excessive profiteering by the 1% and monster corporations are all popular positions (as long as you don't stick party labels on them). There was a recent - and telling - research in Flanders that revealed journalists consistently think the electorate is much more right-wing than it really is.

Indeed, when push comes to shove the relentless bombardment of the public with right-wing talking points, constantly bashing any kind of politician further to the left than some milquetoast centrist, mixed in with an appeal to racism convinces a lot of voters to vote against their own self-interest or even their own values. That's how the far right ends up with a grab bag of voters ranging from those who express concern for the environment but hate the Greens to flat-out climate deniers and conspiracy theorists.

Blut posted:

The public is absolutely swayed by the media in unfortunate right-wing directions. But if a far-right political party is winning ~20% of the vote in a free and fair democratic election, and is the largest or second or third largest party in the country, then unfortunately a large percentage of the population do harbour quite right wing views - regardless of how they got to hold them. Its patently nonsense to argue that said parties are "moving independently of the electorate" as A Buttery Pastry did when they have that level of popularity - no party espousing views that the electorate completely disagrees with will get that level of support.

Blut posted:

Trying to claim that political parties in healthy representative democracies in Europe don't represent the wants of their electorates, because you don't like the results of elections, is very strong Seymour Skinner "Is it me whos out of touch? No, its the kids" energy.

Blut posted:

I'm talking about electoral history because you made a terrible statement about the Nazis and communists winning the support of the entirety of the German electorate between them that was completely factually inaccurate. Electoral democracy ended in Germany after the nazis ended elections, there was no longer a political spectrum for political parties to be on the left or right of when they were banned from existing.

Blut posted:

If you insist that a communist's views on defining political systems are relevant in Europe in 2022 than fascists have even more claim to that relevancy, because they represent more of the voters in our political systems.

Blut posted:

I see you've ignored the question again about how many decades your ossified political endpoint system that can never be changed would last - I presume that means you have no coherent answer to that. Which does rather derail your whole argument.

Blut posted:

An honest to god communist in the year 2022 arguing that the SPD in Germany aren't a left-wing party (ie the poster I was responding to) would pretty much be the definition of a "political fantasist who espouse ideas that are wildly unpopular" I would think.

The public is absolutely swayed by the media in unfortunate right-wing directions. But if a far-right political party is winning ~20% of the vote in a free and fair democratic election, and is the largest or second or third largest party in the country, then unfortunately a large percentage of the population do harbour quite right wing views - regardless of how they got to hold them. Its patently nonsense to argue that said parties are "moving independently of the electorate" as A Buttery Pastry did when they have that level of popularity - no party espousing views that the electorate completely disagrees with will get that level of support.

A Buttery Pastry posted:

Parties being able to move independently of the electorate is not the same as every party doing so. In fact, parties moving independently of the electorate is a major potential driver of new parties, who can present themselves as a new home for recently politically orphaned voters. Which in our media environment generally means going to the far right, who will often claim to support specific types of welfare that will attract these orphaned voters, or will create the conditions for that type of welfare to be viable again (by kicking out all the free-loading immigrants).

I do not agree that our representative democracies are healthy. Being free and willing to vote for a variety of parties is not inherently healthy, you also need to be informed. Which the population is clearly not.

Politics still exist beyond electoral politics. The German population accepted both the coup that got rid of electoral politics, and every crime that followed from that, with barely a peep. Whether they had a vote on it is irrelevant.

I am not sure what you're arguing here. I have already said that both communists and fascists define the endpoints. The fact that fascists have more support just means that when it's time to place votes on the spectrum, the distribution will skew right.

I already defined how it works. Both communists and fascists are active political forces in the political context we exist in, so they are the end points. That you've decided that these two endpoints are ossified is not my problem.

V. Illych L. posted:

i note that you have ceased responding to me (which is fine), but for the readers: the specific points of contention were whether 1) the SPD represented "anti-imperialist" tendencies on the left and thus acted as the energy policy of such tendencies, 2) that the german greens are a left-wing party, and 3) that these things are so obvious that one is an idiot for objecting to them. this is fairly easily borne out of the posting exchange if one for some reason wants to go over that.

blut has come around to arguing my own objection to his original claim, which is that anti-imperialist left-wing politics have been almost totally marginalised in contemporary politics in the period where the relevant decisions were made (with a possible exception for willy brandt) and so were not a major driver in pushing germany into an energy partnership with russia. everything which follows from this is just him wanting to insult socialists for some reason and abandoning all pretensions of intellectual consistency to do it

Blut posted: