|
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. |
On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism.
Yup, and that is exactly what social-democrats stopped doing, instead becoming teary-eyed managers, aka "moderate" conservatives. Isn't the mere fact that they govern hand-in-hand with actual conservatives in so many countries telling enough? When you have so many S&D/EPP coalitions going on, this means that their difference is of degree and not of nature.
|
Look Danglars, you are the one who brought up your personal grievences from the US Pol thread, to which have obviously affected you as I never even wrote any of that. If you care so much, you can PM me, other please stop posting. If you said all you need to, just stop posting. It's as simple as that. I've done the same in this thread and others, if I genuinely don't care for an argument so I just let the other guy have their last say. Especially since you have evinced lack of knowledge and loudly proclaimed disinterest. You can do the same. You don't need to have the last word.
My view on political labels like conservative is that they are too broad to have any real meaning. For instance the Conservative party in UK is progressive in some issues, and conservative in others. What can be considered conservative in in realtion to a time period, or current policies which may or may not have moved on since the political election, generation, century or so forth. It will be much more interesting to hear your view RVB on what conservatism, which I consider an entirely different kettle of fish from right wing. Just to confuse things, I also consider left wing and right wing broadly pointless labels, especially since they appear to have different political contexts across different countries, or even different generations of people.
|
On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails.
Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice.
Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are.
|
On January 20 2018 01:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:36 TheDwf wrote:On January 20 2018 00:47 RvB wrote:
Are you serious about the SPD as a conservative party or is that a mistake? Conservative as in "preserves the statu quo in their main grand political orientations," yes. Perhaps the best word is conformist though. Isn't that kind of the definition of "conservativism"? To be honest, I have never heard something like a definition of the term, aside from tautologic bullshit like "things are like they are for a reason and conservatives want to preserve that".
Yes. What I meant is that S&D come from the left-wing tradition of socialism (i. e. their intellectual references are left-wing and progressism) as opposed to EPP parties which may embrace their conservatism. In this regard S&D parties converted to neoliberalism become "conservative" in practice but would not accept being labelled as such and refute accusations of now belonging to the right. They also don't have exactly the same electoral base as historical conservative parties. It is also theorically possible for S&D parties to be brought back to the left in some conditions.
|
On January 20 2018 01:48 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. Yup, and that is exactly what social-democrats stopped doing, instead becoming teary-eyed managers, aka "moderate" conservatives. Isn't the mere fact that they govern hand-in-hand with actual conservatives in so many countries telling enough? When you have so many S&D/EPP coalitions going on, this means that their difference is of degree and not of nature.
No it's not my. I can just as easily turn that around and call current conservatives social democrats because they govern with social.democratic parties. The fact that there seems to be some kind of consensus on issues doesn't make social democrats conservatives or the other way around.
On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are.
Original economically liberals (of which modern conservative parties largely adopted their economic policies) would be shocked at the size of the current welfare state, the coercive nature of the state in the current economy etc. as well. That still doesn't make the current conservative parties anywhere left.
If you want to argue that conservative / social democratic parties have gone further towards the centre I'll be the first to agree but claiming that it makes them conservative is nonsense.
|
On January 20 2018 02:13 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:48 TheDwf wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. Yup, and that is exactly what social-democrats stopped doing, instead becoming teary-eyed managers, aka "moderate" conservatives. Isn't the mere fact that they govern hand-in-hand with actual conservatives in so many countries telling enough? When you have so many S&D/EPP coalitions going on, this means that their difference is of degree and not of nature. No it's not my. I can just as easily turn that around and call current conservatives social democrats because they govern with social.democratic parties. The fact that there seems to be some kind of consensus on issues doesn't make social democrats conservatives or the other way around.
No, because there is a senior and a junior partner. You have to take into account power balances, and consider who moves the most towards the other one. In most cases the S&D part makes the most concessions to the right on core issues in exchange for "smaller" left-wing concessions on secondary aspects. For example, a compromise like "OK for austerity, but don't touch to pensions" isn't a 50-50 deal.
|
On January 19 2018 23:45 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2018 23:27 Dav1oN wrote:On January 19 2018 05:28 a_flayer wrote:
I got caught in a massive hail storm this morning. Something weird happens with weather even here, we got like first snow in this winter with average temp about +2/-2. Now it's about week of snowing. About 10 years ago it would be freezing -20 and almost 3 months of full winter behind. Considering amount of weather anomalies in last years globally...Considering our climate is a complex system that affects entire planet constantly. Is it only to me looks like hard evidence of climate change and global warming? Enhanced and enforced by human ativities of course. All big scale statistics are saying that. Look at the NASA maps. My concern is that due to the size and the cost of the problem we have reached an impass to deal with it and which is why big conservative parties like SPD are now getting in line with the right and far-right to cover it up. We are not able to deal with the problem anymore with non-radical politics at this point, time is up. So you are either the idiot who ruins his country in a useless attempt of fixing it, or you just let the whole ecosystem collaps and pretend it's everyone else's fault (just cry Trump and build another VW factory). There is not a lot that can be done for the next 30 years, shit's about to get real.
When it passes the point of no return - there will be no currencies, nationalities, religions, borders and countries, because slightly cooler version of Venus would not support any complex life including us. Even ignoring NASA maps it becomes pretty clear and only a blind person can ignore that.
At least it is not over yet, it still can be fixed with education, recreation, garbage recycling and start using solar/wind power full scale instead of burning CO2. You've pointed out it would be expensive - yes, considering it is a global problem, but it is more useful then anything we've done before as a species. Money, social tendencies, religion and cultural differences, politics and war - all of these things prevents people unification around REAL problem which may cause extinction. That's hard indeed...
|
On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are.
Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over.
|
Fun fact, in Portugal the center-right party is the Social Democratic party and the Socialist party is the center-left party and ideologically they essentially agree on almost everything - the difference is in political clientele, rhetoric and tribal background. I think it might be the case in many European countries that our societies agree on most of the important issues - economic system, EU adherence, school system, health system, military, foreign policy and in many cases even on most important social issues.
|
On January 20 2018 03:46 warding wrote:
Fun fact, in Portugal the center-right party is the Social Democratic party and the Socialist party is the center-left party and ideologically they essentially agree on almost everything - the difference is in political clientele, rhetoric and tribal background. I think it might be the case in many European countries that our societies agree on most of the important issues - economic system, EU adherence, school system, health system, military, foreign policy and in many cases even on most important social issues.
Well, the Brexit vote was essentially 50:50 ... and I am afraid that UK is not singular in this. There are forces arguing for a EU referendum in Czech Republic and a lot of politicans are terrified that it could end up by a very tight "leave" result. Surely, I think a lot of "basic civilization amenities" such as essentially free healthcare and schools and other practicalities etc.. are now basically a no-brainer across the political spectrum, but the nation is pretty divided on the more "rhetorical" issues if you wish, such as "is EU good for us" without actually knowing any of the details. The old "left vs. right" doesn't even make much sense today, at least not in my country, but there is definitely a lot of topics that split the people pretty hard.
|
On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over.
Who the hell are you to decree that the debate over capitalism is over? Lol
|
On January 20 2018 04:08 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over. Who the hell are you to decree that the debate over capitalism is over? Lol
The debate over capitalism isn't over, but the debate about whether communism will replace capitalism surely is. Personally I'd say after this aired we could have called it a day
|
On January 20 2018 03:46 warding wrote:
Fun fact, in Portugal the center-right party is the Social Democratic party and the Socialist party is the center-left party and ideologically they essentially agree on almost everything - the difference is in political clientele, rhetoric and tribal background. I think it might be the case in many European countries that our societies agree on most of the important issues - economic system, EU adherence, school system, health system, military, foreign policy and in many cases even on most important social issues.
Yeah, but the Portuguese S&D govern thanks to the support of two parties from the radical left + Greens... That alone makes a difference.
|
On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over.
Yeah, they ditched it. Some 100 years ago, when they converted to Bolschewism. Marxism as an ideology is never obsolete, Marxism is the real-life materialistic critic on all systems that create idols over accepting the reality. But you wouldn't understand, you are just some right-winger who believes robbing workers of their income and redistributing it is all fair game and supersocial, because for some reason our beloved democratically elected leaders know better what the people need then the people themselves. It's not.
|
On January 20 2018 01:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Look Danglars, you are the one who brought up your personal grievences
Danglars? Is it you? What did you do with Mercedes? Edmond Dantes here.
|
Only in the world of the far left is Nyxisto anything resembling right wing...
|
So he's right-wing because he believes in taxes? As opposed to lefties who don't? I'm confused.
|
On January 20 2018 04:14 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 04:08 TheDwf wrote:On January 20 2018 03:36 Nyxisto wrote:On January 20 2018 01:51 Big J wrote:On January 20 2018 01:42 RvB wrote:
That's pretty much the definition of social democracy. Fighting for social justice within the framework of liberal democracy and capitalism. It's like calling CDU/CSU social democratic because of the Energiewende. If you really think the SPD is conservative you need some perspective on what conservatism / right wing actually entails. Not really. Original social-democratic parties were non-revolutionary Marxists. Which in essence is a branch of liberalism that sees private property and capital as restrictions of freedom and work as your private choice. Modern socdems have full suscribed to private property and capital and many have played their role in the detaxation of property and the increasing taxation of work to make up for it, for the sake of keeping things as they are. Social Democrats haven't ditched Marxism to 'keep things as they are' but because Marxism as an ideology is obsolete. And they did so basically half a century ago. It makes no sense to call Social Democrats conservative or right-wing, because they aren't. The Communist party of China is capitalist for crying out loud. I don't know what it will take for some people to see that this particular debate is over. Who the hell are you to decree that the debate over capitalism is over? Lol The debate over capitalism isn't over, but the debate about whether communism will replace capitalism surely is. Personally I'd say after this aired we could have called it a day
Communism is not the only political current which stems from the Marxian analysis/critique of capitalism. Even the left wings of social democracies still retain a few elements from Marx in some countries. No idea if you still have those kind of currents within the SPD?
You cannot affirm for sure what the next generations will want as a society (or what they will have to undergo...), whether it's actual communism or stalinian/bureaucratic dictatorships (talking about both because I'm not sure what you meant by communism).
|
On January 20 2018 04:01 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 20 2018 03:46 warding wrote:
Fun fact, in Portugal the center-right party is the Social Democratic party and the Socialist party is the center-left party and ideologically they essentially agree on almost everything - the difference is in political clientele, rhetoric and tribal background. I think it might be the case in many European countries that our societies agree on most of the important issues - economic system, EU adherence, school system, health system, military, foreign policy and in many cases even on most important social issues.
Well, the Brexit vote was essentially 50:50 ... and I am afraid that UK is not singular in this. There are forces arguing for a EU referendum in Czech Republic and a lot of politicans are terrified that it could end up by a very tight "leave" result. Surely, I think a lot of "basic civilization amenities" such as essentially free healthcare and schools and other practicalities etc.. are now basically a no-brainer across the political spectrum, but the nation is pretty divided on the more "rhetorical" issues if you wish, such as "is EU good for us" without actually knowing any of the details. The old "left vs. right" doesn't even make much sense today, at least not in my country, but there is definitely a lot of topics that split the people pretty hard.
are the people arguing for an EU referendum arguing also that it should be simple majority vote? or would they accept a more sensible supermajority requirement of some sort?
|
On January 20 2018 01:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Look Danglars, you are the one who brought up your personal grievences from the US Pol thread, to which have obviously affected you as I never even wrote any of that. If you care so much, you can PM me, other please stop posting. If you said all you need to, just stop posting. It's as simple as that. I've done the same in this thread and others, if I genuinely don't care for an argument so I just let the other guy have their last say. Especially since you have evinced lack of knowledge and loudly proclaimed disinterest. You can do the same. You don't need to have the last word.
My view on political labels like conservative is that they are too broad to have any real meaning. For instance the Conservative party in UK is progressive in some issues, and conservative in others. What can be considered conservative in in realtion to a time period, or current policies which may or may not have moved on since the political election, generation, century or so forth. It will be much more interesting to hear your view RVB on what conservatism, which I consider an entirely different kettle of fish from right wing. Just to confuse things, I also consider left wing and right wing broadly pointless labels, especially since they appear to have different political contexts across different countries, or even different generations of people.
I said that only to let you understand why I wasn't answering your barrage of questions. I honor you in that bit to give a reason, but this has gone on far enough and should be continued in PMs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
