|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
I realized that while there are a couple different threads discussing things going on in Europe -- UK politics thread that is basically dormant, the EU debt crisis thread, the new 'Germany is Japan' thread -- but there isnt a thread where someone who isnt a European -- ie me -- ask questions about Europe to the European posters who seem relatively knowledgeable to me so I was wondering if we could have one here? I am sort of imagining it as the US politics mega thread.
I had a couple questions as an opener.
1) Am I understanding the French polls right, is there really a pretty significant chance that the fascists will win the Presidency? And if not, at least suggests a pretty right wing turn by France between Sarkozy -- how come he is back, wasnt he convicted of some kind of gross corruption? -- and the fascists that the significant majority of French are pretty hard right? http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.614440 New poll: Le Pen would defeat Hollande in France election
The leader of the far-right National Front, would beat all current candidates in the first round of an election but would only triumph over the sitting president in a second round run-off.
2) How come the British UKIP party keeps winning things? Their leader seems like a buffoon and their policy agenda seems to have been stolen from the American Tea Party, with some of the more nuanced positions erased
Nigel Farage has said UKIP can become a major force in Parliament at next year's election after its victory in the Rochester and Strood by-election.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30140747
3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725
Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government.
|
On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Show nested quote +Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government.
Okay I'll try to answer this one. Although it is true that some old SED (GDR ruling party) members have become members of 'Die Linke', they're not a socialist/statist party anymore. So they're no left radicals by any means and the coalition agreement for Thuringia is basically just social democratic stuff(the SPD could have partnered up with the CDU and had a lot of leverage) . Also a lot of SPD members (center-left mainstream party) are very uneasy about the decision to be part of this coalition, so the whole thing is by no means uncontroversial. The SPD has also stated that they'd never want a cooperation with 'Die Linke' on the federal level. It's more of a pragmatic decision to get a left-wing government. Also although 'Die Linke' has never lead a coalition they've been in a lot of state governments as minor partners.
edit: Also the SPD and Green party demanded that the coallition agreement contains a statement about the fact that the GDR was a 'Unrechtsstaat'(State of injustice).
|
On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:1) Am I understanding the French polls right, is there really a pretty significant chance that the fascists will win the Presidency? And if not, at least suggests a pretty right wing turn by France between Sarkozy -- how come he is back, wasnt he convicted of some kind of gross corruption? -- and the fascists that the significant majority of French are pretty hard right? http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.614440 Show nested quote +New poll: Le Pen would defeat Hollande in France election
The leader of the far-right National Front, would beat all current candidates in the first round of an election but would only triumph over the sitting president in a second round run-off.
Definitely no. Lepen will never get elected.
Our presidential election is a two round election if there is no absolute majority for a candidate. In 2002, Lepen (the dad, Jean-Marie) passed the first with 16,5% along with Chirac who got 19% of the votes, the left-wing candidate, Jospin only got 16,2% of the votes. In the second round, Lepen got crushed 18% to 82% for Chirac.
This is only my opinion but I think it's a good take on what's happening today in the French society.
First and foremost, I think France has never been that divided politically, ideologically and culturally. France has also a history of rioting, protesting, and voicing political opinions in general and it is extremely important to take that into account.
Let's take a look at religion: 4,7 Ms Muslims, about 14 Ms practicing Catholics, about 500 000 Jews. Generally and it's proved by polls, Muslims and Arabs in general are way more likely to stigmatize Jews and the reverse is also true.
There is a bit of a problem because France is a really secular country and the veil poses a problem to both the Republican Leftists and the Right / Far Right (and conservatives in general).
The situation in poor badly designed Black / Arab / Algerian neighborhoods is dire and there is a huge frustration, especially for the unemployed youth (hence the vandalism).
Between 1 and 3% of gays, still no marriage nor adoption nor the same fiscal advantages as "normal" married couples. A strong catholic community is against gay marriage hence the huge manifestations for each side, with alot of violence (Far Right versus Far Left, both in the rise).
Environmental activists are rising and some getting more violent (see Sivens, in my city Toulouse for a few weeks, each weekend, violent manifestations).
The farming traditional world, is disappearing and stuck between industrial agriculture and organic, both aren't sustainable without becoming indebted.
The American dream is alive and well, and alot of people, especially the youth are saying that France's culture, economy is dying, and would like to leave the country.
And everyone agrees that Europe is not working properly therefore due to that and the crisis we have the logical rise of Europhobia, of the extremes, of xenophobia and racism. The working class (and less educated) whose living conditions worsen the most logically vote for the party who has the easiest logical answer nowadays. So it's because of immigrants, because of Europe, France is a great nation that can be strong alone etc...
And the main division, the main issue isn't that diversity but the fact that nobody agrees on the solutions: protectionism? Liberalism? Kicking the immigrants? Going green? Recovery through consumption? More regulations? What about the social issues?
With this political climate, who to vote for? People are divided and don't know what to do, even tough our politicians aren't that bad there is strong disillusion in our politicians so people don't vote. Extreme right and right voters tend to vote more in general (long to explain why) so there you have these good results for the Far Right in "small" elections except parliamentary and presidential elections. During presidential and parliamentary elections, people that don't usually vote or who vote for "normal" parties will always vote against the extremes as ultimate resort, always, because they know it will be a political, economical and social crisis for the country if the extremes come to power.
|
On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:I realized that while there are a couple different threads discussing things going on in Europe -- UK politics thread that is basically dormant, the EU debt crisis thread, the new 'Germany is Japan' thread -- but there isnt a thread where someone who isnt a European -- ie me -- ask questions about Europe to the European posters who seem relatively knowledgeable to me so I was wondering if we could have one here? I am sort of imagining it as the US politics mega thread. I had a couple questions as an opener. 1) Am I understanding the French polls right, is there really a pretty significant chance that the fascists will win the Presidency? And if not, at least suggests a pretty right wing turn by France between Sarkozy -- how come he is back, wasnt he convicted of some kind of gross corruption? -- and the fascists that the significant majority of French are pretty hard right? http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.614440 Show nested quote +New poll: Le Pen would defeat Hollande in France election
The leader of the far-right National Front, would beat all current candidates in the first round of an election but would only triumph over the sitting president in a second round run-off. 2) How come the British UKIP party keeps winning things? Their leader seems like a buffoon and their policy agenda seems to have been stolen from the American Tea Party, with some of the more nuanced positions erased Show nested quote +Nigel Farage has said UKIP can become a major force in Parliament at next year's election after its victory in the Rochester and Strood by-election. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-301407473) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Show nested quote +Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government.
Don't believe Haaretz or any journal. They don't understand what is happening in France.
The National Front would be viewed as a far left in many countries.
Acertos : "Let's take a look at religion: 4,7 Ms Muslims, about 14 Ms practicing Catholics, about 500 000 Jews. Generally and it's proved by polls, Muslims and Arabs in general are way more likely to stigmatize Jews and the reverse is also true." What polls show is that islamophobia is higher than ever, and also in jewish population. It's pretty easy to say "look the muslim are stigmatizing the jews", while the jewish community is doing worse than that, and play a dangerous game with the Israeli war (permitting Israeli soldier and officer to recrut even in synagogues...). They are the one putting the republican pact at risk, but I guess it's easier to judge those damn muslim savages.
With this political climate, who to vote for? People are divided and don't know what to do, even tough our politicians aren't that bad there is strong disillusion in our politicians so people don't vote. Extreme right and right voters tend to vote more in general (long to explain why) so there you have these good results for the Far Right in "small" elections except parliamentary and presidential elections. During presidential and parliamentary elections, people that don't usually vote or who vote for "normal" parties will always vote against the extremes as ultimate resort, always, because they know it will be a political, economical and social crisis for the country if the extremes come to power.
That's untrue. Right vote more because they are old, but the voters of the socialist party also tend to vote more (public workers, management and urban population vote more). Meanwhile, the laborer and the most precarious usually vote for the far right, and are also the population that are more heavily touched by abstentionnism.
Most of your point are short sighted or flat out wrong.
|
On November 22 2014 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government. Okay I'll try to answer this one. Although it is true that some old SED (GDR ruling party) members have become members of 'Die Linke', they're not a socialist/statist party anymore. So they're no left radicals by any means and the coalition agreement for Thuringia is basically just social democratic stuff(the SPD could have partnered up with the CDU and had a lot of leverage) . Also a lot of SPD members (center-left mainstream party) are very uneasy about the decision to be part of this coalition, so the whole thing is by no means uncontroversial. The SPD has also stated that they'd never want a cooperation with 'Die Linke' on the federal level. It's more of a pragmatic decision to get a left-wing government. Also although 'Die Linke' has never lead a coalition they've been in a lot of state governments as minor partners. edit: Also the SPD and Green party demanded that the coallition agreement contains a statement about the fact that the GDR was a 'Unrechtsstaat'(State of injustice).
Thats not quite true. The PDS is the acutal successor of the SED and Die Linke is still socialist (or they claim to be just that).
However, the fear mongering against them is pretty dumb, and serves mostly as a political strategy from the other parties.
Gauck words on them were a fucking joke.
(That doesnt mean that die Linke doesnt need to clear their history, which Ramelow actually promised to do)
And Whitedog, it which country could Front National not be seen as a extrem rightwing party?
|
On November 22 2014 08:26 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government. Okay I'll try to answer this one. Although it is true that some old SED (GDR ruling party) members have become members of 'Die Linke', they're not a socialist/statist party anymore. So they're no left radicals by any means and the coalition agreement for Thuringia is basically just social democratic stuff(the SPD could have partnered up with the CDU and had a lot of leverage) . Also a lot of SPD members (center-left mainstream party) are very uneasy about the decision to be part of this coalition, so the whole thing is by no means uncontroversial. The SPD has also stated that they'd never want a cooperation with 'Die Linke' on the federal level. It's more of a pragmatic decision to get a left-wing government. Also although 'Die Linke' has never lead a coalition they've been in a lot of state governments as minor partners. edit: Also the SPD and Green party demanded that the coallition agreement contains a statement about the fact that the GDR was a 'Unrechtsstaat'(State of injustice). Thats not quite true. The PDS is the acutal successor of the SED and Die Linke is still socialist (or they claim to be just that). However, the fear mongering against them is pretty dumb, and serves mostly as a political strategy from the other parties. Gauck words on them were a fucking joke. (That doesnt mean that die Linke doesnt need to clear their history, which Ramelow actually promised to do) And Whitedog, it which country could Front National not be seen as a extrem rightwing party?
None, that's the complicated part. Basically it's a nationalist party that is historically linked with holocaust deniers and people who fought against the algerian independance. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either).
The main reasons as to why they are so high is because they are clearly touching something important in the french mythology (both nationalist, internationalist and anticapitalist); and they profit from the current complete decadence of the left and the disappearance of the communist party (who had 30% voting in forty years ago...).
But imo they are mostly right on anything europe related. The fact that they are the only ones that clearly explain what's happening is also why they are above everyone.
|
On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either).
how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s?
|
On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s?
Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood".
The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade.
|
which is like choosing between pest and cholera. Why would you defend a party that is only "culturally racist"(which is what racism usually means anyway) and not "nazi racist"? Both has no place in our societies.
|
On November 22 2014 08:44 Nyxisto wrote:
which is like choosing between pest and cholera. Why would you defend a party that is only "culturally racist"(which is what racism usually means anyway) and not "nazi racist"? Both has no place in our societies.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm just stating facts.
What amaze me with the current political discourse is that everything is "facist", "totalitarian" or "nazi" but nobody ever give a good enough definition of those terms. I'm sorry if the french modern political field cannot be understood by the perception scheme that the germans gently presented to the world in the last century.
The entirety of the french republic built itself on the destruction of its cultural diversities, with the destruction of regional communities (sometimes through massacre, sometimes through discrimination, sometimes through school and political discourse).
|
No one is saying that they're literally a totalitarian or fascist party, but these parties appeal draws from the self core ideas. We're not living in the past. Total assimilation and forcing people to give up their culture is not something that should or can realistically be done today.
|
On November 22 2014 08:56 Nyxisto wrote:
No one is saying that they're literally a totalitarian or fascist party, but these parties appeal draws from the self core ideas. We're not living in the past. Total assimilation and forcing people to give up their culture is not something that should or can realistically be done today.
That's your point of view. Personally I disagree, and I still believe in a unifying project, through school and egalitarism, altho I despise the national front and its racism.
And from the OP
1) Am I understanding the French polls right, is there really a pretty significant chance that the fascists will win the Presidency?
|
On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade.
So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue?
|
On November 22 2014 09:00 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 08:43 WhiteDog wrote:On November 22 2014 08:40 Sub40APM wrote:On November 22 2014 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:
. But in the last 10 years, their core value changed and they added many ideas that directly came from the far left (before that, Le Pen presented himself as the french Reagan). They are some kind of hybrid, nationalist and somewhat communist (but not national socialist, let's not make quick assumptions, and not facists either). how is that not nationalist socialism? not the actual program carried out by that failed painter but the vague theoretical national socialism of the 20s? Because the national socialism was based on the very germanic idea of the race (altho a french built it, but with a cultural intent, see Levi strauss Race and history), that we french never really believed in. The nationalism in french is mostly a cultural nationalism that goes with intolerance towards non national cultural practice and not necessarily intolerance towards a different "blood". The national front represent a (violent) reject of the multiculturalist ideology and the valorisation of ethnical diversity, supported by both the PS and the UMP in the last decade. So just to be clear, the reason you dont want anyone calling them national socialist because you are worried that the distinction between genetic and cultural supremacy will confuse the issue?
No because that's two completly different issue. There is a deeply universal project at the core of french values that is not necessarily racist (the enlightment, the declaration of the human right). That this project might lead to intolerance toward difference is another matter, but it's still a unifying project to begin with.
A racist perspective on nation will always exclude, it's different. Jus soli and jus sanguini are different to me. The FN is always playing with the line, between the blood and the soil, the race and the culture, but I have never heard them really use a racist discourse - it's not the arabic populations that are unable to integrate our society to them, but it's the islamic culture, and overall the communautarism, that pose a problem in their mind.
|
If you're so passionate about core French enlightenment values then the first minority in the country you should be concerned about is the Muslim community. Still when it comes to criticism of different cultures the first group the French youth jumps at are the Jews, while defending horrible Islamic statements in the name of multi-culturalism. This is also happening in countries like Sweden and Germany, not just France. This is why people don't buy this, it's eerily resembling things we have seen on this continent before.
If the economy is in bad condition, synagogues are set on fire again and people tour around with national socialist kinda policies, then the first thing I'm thinking about is not the French enlightenment and I doubt that's only the case because I'm German.
|
One of the possible answers to the 3rd question could be: because one side won the war and the other did not.
|
On November 22 2014 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:
If you're so passionate about core French enlightenment values then the first minority in the country you should be concerned about is the Muslim community. Still when it comes to criticism of different cultures the first group the French youth jumps at are the Jews, while defending horrible Islamic statements in the name of multi-culturalism. This is also happening in countries like Sweden and Germany, not just France. This is why people don't buy this, it's eerily resembling things we have seen on this continent before.
If the economy is in bad condition, synagogues are set on fire again and people tour around with national socialist kinda policies, then the first thing I'm thinking about is not the French enlightenment and I doubt that's only the case because I'm German.
That's factually untrue. The french just jump on the arabs, and the jews are favorised by our political elites.
I am concerned about the spread of islam, I call it musulmania personally, but I don't really care if synagogues are set on fire. That's just a completly uninformed comment from you : do you know how many libraries, how many school were burned in the last twenty years in France ? Synanogues (just like mosquee) are more a problem than anything, when a religious institution take side in foreign politics, push its youth to a brutal and rather unhuman war in palestine, it is a problem.
|
On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Show nested quote +Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government.
people who are part of other parties like to bash "Die Linke" for being the successor party to the SED but the reality looks like this "Die Linke" is a fusion of two older socialist parties WASG and PDS. WASG was based in western germany and PDS in the east. The PDS did indeed have members from the former SED but they were by no means in the majority afaik. The WASG obviously did not have any old SED members.
funnily enough members of "Die Linke" who are from the western parts of germany tend to be much more communist and far left orientated then the members that come from the east.
to me personally it does not matter where the members came from before germany reunited, what matters to me is what they do now. Like someone else already mentioned calling "Die Linke" the successor party is just a cheap insult by idiots who dont have any other arguments and it's often the same idiots who start this crap.
No party in germany, except maybe the greens but who cares about them, has a "clean" history when it comes to the past. Especially Angela Merkels party the CDU grabbed up a lot of ex Nazis after the war.
|
On November 22 2014 05:29 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2014 05:14 Sub40APM wrote:3) How come German left wing parties are ok with cooperating with the party that is literally the Eastern German Communist party but with a less offensive name? I dont get this one at all, if you have a swastika on a video game that game is banned in Germany but if you are the actual representative of a formerly murderous puppet regime all is well with a little name change? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30124725Leftist parties in Germany have agreed a historic coalition deal which will see the first far-left regional president since the fall of communism.
Bodo Ramelow of the socialist Die Linke (Left party) is set to become state premier of Thuringia next month.
Die Linke, rooted in the old East German state Communist party, has never led a state government. Okay I'll try to answer this one. Although it is true that some old SED (GDR ruling party) members have become members of 'Die Linke', they're not a socialist/statist party anymore. So they're no left radicals by any means and the coalition agreement for Thuringia is basically just social democratic stuff(the SPD could have partnered up with the CDU and had a lot of leverage) . Also a lot of SPD members (center-left mainstream party) are very uneasy about the decision to be part of this coalition, so the whole thing is by no means uncontroversial. The SPD has also stated that they'd never want a cooperation with 'Die Linke' on the federal level. It's more of a pragmatic decision to get a left-wing government. Also although 'Die Linke' has never lead a coalition they've been in a lot of state governments as minor partners. edit: Also the SPD and Green party demanded that the coallition agreement contains a statement about the fact that the GDR was a 'Unrechtsstaat'(State of injustice).
We already had that last year in the election topic but let's face it, they're as close to being radical leftists as you get without actually being called radical leftists. The official party program (from 2013) included "disown everything that is bigger than a private farm and bring it into state ownership". Granted, they used pretty words to say it but they did write it down without ever mentioning it in any public discussion as far as I'm aware of.
+ Show Spoiler [from 2013] +[Die Linke steht] für eine andere, demokratische Wirtschaftsordnung, die die Marktsteuerung von Produktion und Verteilung der demokratischen, sozialen und ökologischen Rahmensetzung und Kontrolle unterordnet.
Sie muss auf öffentlichem und demokratisch kontrolliertem Eigentum in der Daseinsvorsorge, an der gesellschaftlichen Infrastruktur, in der Energiewirtschaft und im Finanzsektor beruhen.
Wir wollen eine demokratische Vergesellschaftung weiterer strukturbestimmender Bereiche auf der Grundlage
von staatlichem, kommunalem, genossenschaftlichem oder Belegschaftseigentum.
Die Wirtschaft ist einer strikten Wettbewerbskontrolle zu unterwerfen. In allen Unternehmen sind wirksame Arbeitnehmerund Mitbestimmungsrechte zu sichern Can't find the part where they were talking about what they don't consider "strukturbestimmende[r] Bereiche", but they used a small, private farm as an example for that...
They certainly are romanticizing the DDR.
On the question:
The problem is that the situation in eastern Germany is still in a poorer state than west germany. As such all the non-central parties have a better time there because they're advertising for changing things big time. No matter if we're talking about right wing, left wing or the Anti-Euro party (whatever that counts as) and really... they have to work with what they have and that ended up being a really tricky situation:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/4cQHDt6.png)
only the ones with 5% or more made the cut. (light)Blue at 10.6% is anti-europe party that noone wants to deal with, but the fact that they're at 10% means there's a lot of seats you can't work with. Green are the greens but wouldn't have been enough without a third partner for anyone.
Black is Merkel's center right and the two red ones are the center-left SPD and far left Linke.
If you take out the parties that are below 5% you end up with a red-red-green that gets 46 seats out of 91, or
black + (central-)red, as well on 46 seats.
Now the thing is that the CDU has mostly not suffered all that much while working together with (central-)red. (central-)red however has lost tons of voters while forming governments with black. Honestly I don't know why the opinions are so different about those two parties when they both rule together but (central-)red is aware of that and everytime they're going in a coalition with merkels party it's eating away their voters for some reason. Merkel got the nickname Teflon-Merkel for a reason I guess?
tl;dr: central-left was super scared of losing more voters if they'd agree into doing yet another coalition with Merkels party, the only option left was left-left-green.
|
Whats that light blue one?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
