EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1425
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On November 13 2014 01:35 oneofthem wrote: it's basically national socialism To some extent, yes. Though I would argue exactly the opposite of it being dumb. Hypocritical and plain wrong, sure. But not dumb from a position of keeping certain power structures alive and well. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28874 Posts
then the american definition is socially liberal and economically "less liberal" than the non-liberals.  | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 13 2014 01:39 Doublemint wrote: To some extent, yes. Though I would argue exactly the opposite of it being dumb. Hypocritical and plain wrong, sure. But not dumb from a position of keeping certain power structures alive and well. well it's dumb because labor restriction is pretty fundamentally antimarket, and so is the fantasy of being pro-market when you spout free market ideology in preservation of the status quo. the status quo is not free market but closer to corporatist state capitalism where your strategic industries get implicit govt support including geopolitical moves. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
There is a philosopher that wrote a great deal of really interesting peaces on the subject (Jean Claude Michéa) and he believe that, in reality, there are three main branch in france political history (and it's mostly the same in europe, since france political history basically defined the polical history of the continent, in term of ideology at least) : the blue the republicans (who are liberals), the white (conservative) and the red (socialists / communists). In my opinion, the US never had any socialists, but had a lot of weird local collective actions, closer to anarchy or utopian socialism than communism (fourrier and owens all had great impact in the US). I blame the protestantism and the McCarthyism. The FN are the white. the socialist party (PS) and the union for a popular movement (UMP) are both blue. The red are dead. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28874 Posts
Generally the anti-immigration camp is not opposed to polish construction workers, although they would be willing to get rid of the polish construction workers if that meant they could also get rid of the muslims and the gypsies. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:22 oneofthem wrote: well it's dumb because labor restriction is pretty fundamentally antimarket, and so is the fantasy of being pro-market when you spout free market ideology in preservation of the status quo. the status quo is not free market but closer to corporatist state capitalism where your strategic industries get implicit govt support including geopolitical moves. ... yeah. My post did not contradict or dispute that, the opposite really. We are on the same page, you don't have to work so hard to make it seem otherwise  | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: the anti-immigration part is part inconsistency, part misinformation, part racism (or anti-islam if you want to argue that this is not racism, I don't care), part worrying about how western europe's generous social security will be exploited by immigrants who feel no affinity for their new country (which makes them more likely to exploit the system and send the money out of the country than people who are "ethnically {nationality}". The latter argument does have some numbers to back itself up (not completely sure how truthful all are though, but I also haven't really seen them refuted) and is often presented by more right-wingers who want to make us pro-immigration and pro-welfare choose between one of the two. Generally the anti-immigration camp is not opposed to polish construction workers, although they would be willing to get rid of the polish construction workers if that meant they could also get rid of the muslims and the gypsies. The FN were hugely against the "Polish Plumber". From my perspective saying that being against immigration is uninformed or racists is a flawed view that usually comes from people who are educated and/or rather safe from unemployment. Well what I'm saying is only true in France tho. I personally am against economical immigration. I'm for what made my country in its history, which is political immigration. Economical immigration only favor the capital, by lowering wages and increasing unemployment. I prefer helping people that needs it, rather than trying to gain money from immigrants. | ||
|
Ramong
Denmark1706 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:35 WhiteDog wrote: Left and right doesn't mean shit in my country. Historically, the right were the people sitting at the right of the parlament, and the left sitting at left. Liberals (socially and economically), such as Tocqueville or Benjamin Constant, were sitting at the left, while they are far from french "left". We got the same thing in Denmark, the left sits on the right and the right sits on the left side. We got a party, the largest at the moment, which is called "The Left", and it is on the right side of the political spectrum, but are named The Left because they used to sit on the left side of parlament | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:42 WhiteDog wrote: I personally am against economical immigration. I'm for what made my country in its history, which is political immigration. Economical immigration only favor the capital, by lowering wages and increasing unemployment. I prefer helping people that needs it, rather than trying to gain money from immigrants. Effectively that means that someone would be bound to the culture or political background he was born into. So depending on whether you win or lose the birth lottery you're either going to win or lose right from the start. That sounds pretty terrible to me. The fact that people can move around freely and can work and live wherever they want without giving up their identity actually seems to be pretty good. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
BEIJING (AP) — The United States and China pledged Wednesday to take ambitious action to limit greenhouse gases, aiming to inject fresh momentum into the global fight against climate change ahead of high-stakes climate negotiations next year. President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would move much faster in cutting its levels of pollution. Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed to cap China's emissions in the future — a striking, unprecedented move by a nation that has been reluctant to box itself in on global warming. "This is a major milestone in the U.S.-China relationship," Obama said, with Xi at his side. "It shows what's possible when we work together on an urgent global challenge." The unexpected declaration from the world's two largest polluters, unveiled on the last day of Obama's trip to China, reflected both nations' desire to display a united front that could blunt arguments from developing countries, which have balked at demands that they get serious about global warming. Yet it was unclear how feasible it would be for either country to meet their goals, and Obama's pledge was sure to confront tough opposition from ascendant Republicans in Congress. Source | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:51 Nyxisto wrote: Well it's not so surprising honestly, both ideologies overlap. The left is typically opposed to globalisation because of exploitation of the working class, the right is opposed to globalisation because of racism/anti-immigration or whatever. The Left wing is almost always socialist and the right-wingers can be to. Ironically they hate each others guts unlike anybody else. That's not ironic at all tho. Socialism and communism are all based around the idea that all men should be equal. In the XIXth and early XXth century, many jews were communist because it was the only ideology that viewed them as equal as anyone. There is a core difference between an ideology that seeks to destroy hierarchy (socialism) and an ideology that seeks to preserve it (conservatism). On November 13 2014 02:51 Nyxisto wrote: Well it's not so surprising honestly, both ideologies overlap. The left is typically opposed to globalisation because of exploitation of the working class, the right is opposed to globalisation because of racism/anti-immigration or whatever. The Left wing is almost always socialist and the right-wingers can be to. Ironically they hate each others guts unlike anybody else. Effectively that means that someone would be bound to the culture or political background he was born into. So depending on whether you win or lose the birth lottery you're either going to win or lose right from the start. That sounds pretty terrible to me. The fact that people can move around freely and can work and live where ever they want without giving up their identity actually seems to be pretty good. I don't even see your point. You think we're not bind to our culture of origin by default ? And you think people can move freely in our world ? It is just used as a social dumping tool, or as a way for the richest and most educated to go wherever they please. The portugese youngsters doesn't leave portugal because they want to, but because europe destroyed any perspective for him to actually live in his own country with decency. I prefer helping the people who are fleeing their country from war and massacre and try to help countries in economic difficulties rather than taking their youth. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6303 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:36 Liquid`Drone wrote: the anti-immigration part is part inconsistency, part misinformation, part racism (or anti-islam if you want to argue that this is not racism, I don't care), part worrying about how western europe's generous social security will be exploited by immigrants who feel no affinity for their new country (which makes them more likely to exploit the system and send the money out of the country than people who are "ethnically {nationality}". The latter argument does have some numbers to back itself up (not completely sure how truthful all are though, but I also haven't really seen them refuted) and is often presented by more right-wingers who want to make us pro-immigration and pro-welfare choose between one of the two. Generally the anti-immigration camp is not opposed to polish construction workers, although they would be willing to get rid of the polish construction workers if that meant they could also get rid of the muslims and the gypsies. Geert Wilders is certainly anti polish construction worker as well. Its just that muslims are disliked even more by his party. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:53 WhiteDog wrote: That's not ironic at all tho. Socialism and communism are all based around the idea that all men should be equal. In the XIXth and early XXth century, many jews were communist because it was the only ideology that viewed them as equal as anyone. There is a core difference between an ideology that seeks to destroy hierarchy (socialism) and an ideology that seeks to preserve it (conservatism). Except for the people who happen to oppose the socialist movement. These pesky guys get sent into the gulag. To be fair that's probably not what the people that came up with the ideology had in mind but that's how it nearly always turned out in reality which seems to be the more relevant thing. Most revolutions in the name of equality for everybody have surprisingly fast turned into the exact opposite. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:58 Nyxisto wrote: Except for the people who happen to oppose the socialist movement. These pesky guys get sent into the gulag. To be fair that's probably not what the people that came up with the ideology had in mind but that's how it nearly always turned out in reality which seems to be the more relevant thing. Most revolutions in the name of equality for everybody have surprisingly fast turned into the exact opposite. Reductio ad soviet. It's like saying anything german is nazi. People were saying the same about democracy after the french revolution due to the terror. Now democracy is the sacred icon of the technocrats who starve their own people in the name of the capital. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On November 13 2014 02:58 Nyxisto wrote: Except for the people who happen to oppose the socialist movement. These pesky guys get sent into the gulag. To be fair that's probably not what the people that came up with the ideology had in mind but that's how it nearly always turned out in reality which seems to be the more relevant thing. Most revolutions in the name of equality for everybody have surprisingly fast turned into the exact opposite. Yeah man. Look at that Jesus Christ guy. That sucker had it comin'. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 13 2014 03:03 Doublemint wrote: Yeah man. Look at that Jesus Christ guy. That sucker had it comin'. Well some people have done some fucked up stuff in the name of Christianity, but overall the ideology probably has a better track record than some others. At least the contemporary version of the belief seems to be not so bad, some fundamentalists aside. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On November 13 2014 03:05 Nyxisto wrote: Well no, because Germany isn't a national-socialist country any more. If someone says he's still a nationalist in this country I have a pretty hard time believing him that he isn't identifying with Nazi ideology at least to some degree. So in the same way if someone claims to be a socialist I have a pretty hard time believing that you can just say that isolated from what socialism has done in nearly every country it was implemented. You can play this game with every ideology. Every time something bad happens based on it you claim it isn't "true xy" and just shift the blame on something else. Well some people have done some fucked up stuff in the name of Christianity, but overall the ideology probably has a better track record than some others. Christianity was and is a political vehicle. And - spoiler alert - Christianity is not necessarily the same than the teachings of Jesus Christ. Oh, how quickly did we forget when Jesus chased the gays, lesbians and pro choice people out of the temple for their sinful activity! | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On November 13 2014 03:05 Nyxisto wrote: Well no, because Germany isn't a national-socialist country any more. If someone says he's still a nationalist in this country I have a pretty hard time believing him that he isn't identifying with Nazi ideology at least to some degree. So in the same way if someone claims to be a socialist I have a pretty hard time believing that you can just say that isolated from what socialism has done in nearly every country it was implemented. You can play this game with every ideology. Every time something bad happens based on it you claim it isn't "true xy" and just shift the blame on something else. Wow that"s absurd. So you're actually saying that anybody that consider himself socialists is de facto a soviet ? A member of the tcheka even ? Hunting people and sending them to the gulag ? And do you think Merkel is not a nationalist ? Thinking with no nuance... Like it's impossible to actually make a distinction between the ideology that seeks to end the private property of the means of production and that seeks equality and freedom for everyone with no distinctions, and the historical event that happened before, during and after the 1917 revolution (do you know that 17 countries were at war against russia after the revolution ? do you think it's a healthy environment for an utopian project to actually exist and grow ?). | ||
| ||
