|
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 March 01 2018 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
read your link. Article is very waffly and woolly. In any case the left and liberals barely make any sense, as for me I'Il associate the left with liberal policies and the right with conservative protectionism. It doesn't help that the authors definition of keynesianism appears to be his own personal definition of keynesian which is unrecognisable as well as broadly undefined. So it which point I will have to ask what exactly do you mean by left and right and liberals.
I did read the link or I wouldn't have posted it, thanks for that suggestion
The author defines keynesianism as managerial capitalism / liberalism mostly found on the centre left nowadays which is a pretty mainstream usage of the term ever since the 80s when it was replaced by Friedman-like laissez faire politics on the right.
The author seems to take left-wing politics as traditionally anti-capitalist, liberal politics as spanning from the centre-left to the centre-right, and right-wing politics as the mostly nationalist phenomenon we've seen in recent times. I think that's familiar terminology
|
The problem with Keynesianism is the classic fundamental problem of any planning/guidance philosphy: To guide you need to have a goal. That goal is inevitably your own goal. Just as the liberterians take the easy way out, by declaring capitalism=liberalism by the sheer virtue of market forces, regardless of capital distribution, the Keynesian liberalism requires a fairly altruistic planner that does sufficiently understand the needs of people to guide the market into that direction. And that can identify its successor, without those rulers ever becoming monarchs. I used to believe in such people existing too, but I have fallen from that belief. There is no Fuhrer and noone else that deserves to judge your very own needs, and decisions if they do not get into the ways of another ones needs. To find the regulations that proportionally punish and disincentive behaviour that fucks over others is already an enormous task, don't overcomplicate it by additionally trying to move people into the direction that you believe is inevitably "right". You are not going to find that direction.
That aside I would be quite glad to have some Keynesian economics as a compromise between capitalist-sceptical liberalism as I propose it and the current burning out process of capitalism. There is much room for Keynes' end of export-based beggar-thy-neighbour politics, the economic strengthening of (democratic) state-planners (only achievable by high taxation on those who hold the money) and sensible debt-policies that don't go full Murica, but also don't force current generations to pay off debts they did never make. Germany is on the total opposite course of this at the moment, and the SPD shares much of that blame.
|
On March 01 2018 05:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 21:54 Big J wrote:
The reason why many left-wingers react so badly to those liberal reforms is that in their - my - eyes they are not "much needed". They at best release some surficial pressure on some fronts, but they don't deal with the causes. In contrary, such reforms make capital distributions worse, weaken demand and market power of the labouring people and thereby naturally lead to the next "necessary" reform, once the effects of the loss of demand kick in.
When we look at right-wing "liberalism" it is apparent that all their reforms are either Keynesian debt-stimuli (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump), or they lead to export-based production that are met with trade barriers or lead to crisis in other countries and lead to more of the same medicine being "necessary" a few years later. And that's just the collective vision on it. The alternative for left-wingers seems to be to schism into 10 different communist or socialist parties, marching through the streets on election day and tolerating a rise of right-wing politics just to then glee over the demise of the centre-left while saying "we told you so!" Here's a good article from the left perspective on why the left ought to throw their lot in with the liberals.
(1) Mass organizations at the left existed historically, and some still exist; not sure why you bring this "lol @ the dozens of far-left sects" on the table?
(2) You social-democrats were in power while the far-right grew and you have the guts to blame us for this? Clean your own mess.
(3) Are you sure you understood the conclusions of this article correctly?
|
On March 01 2018 05:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 21:54 Big J wrote:
The reason why many left-wingers react so badly to those liberal reforms is that in their - my - eyes they are not "much needed". They at best release some surficial pressure on some fronts, but they don't deal with the causes. In contrary, such reforms make capital distributions worse, weaken demand and market power of the labouring people and thereby naturally lead to the next "necessary" reform, once the effects of the loss of demand kick in.
When we look at right-wing "liberalism" it is apparent that all their reforms are either Keynesian debt-stimuli (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump), or they lead to export-based production that are met with trade barriers or lead to crisis in other countries and lead to more of the same medicine being "necessary" a few years later. And that's just the collective vision on it. The alternative for left-wingers seems to be to schism into 10 different communist or socialist parties, marching through the streets on election day and tolerating a rise of right-wing politics just to then glee over the demise of the centre-left while saying "we told you so!" Here's a good article from the left perspective on why the left ought to throw their lot in with the liberals.
I mean in America, can you really blame them when it was probably the Democrat's self-destruction and relentless assault on the social democrats that caused them to lose the election?
And with the abysmal performance from New Labour and Hollande, do you really expect leftists to want to form an alliance with them? I don't want to appear like I am an apologist for the left, but you are implying like this kind of anger is unwarranted. It's like hearing a Thatcherite wonder why coal miners and much of the working class them so much that they prefer UKIP/BNP over conservatism.
Yeah like Dwf said, clean up your own mess. Once the left starts fucking shit up like SYRIZA and KKE have, you have a good platform.
|
On March 01 2018 07:31 TheDwf wrote:
(2) You social-democrats were in power while the far-right grew and you have the guts to blame us for this? Clean your own mess.
(3) Are you sure you understood the conclusions of this article correctly?
Social Democracy has been falling for a long time, not just because of Schröder or Blair. Even in countries where Social Democracy still represents all of the good ol' values. The article says quite literally that even people who consider themselves to be farther on the left might find that there's a good opportunity right now to revive Social Democracy rather than engaging in mass movements which barely exist at all.
concerning (3) and the post above, everybody who considers themselves to be somewhere on the centre to left spectrum needs to pick their battles because the right always falls into line like soldiers. Literally everyone from Evangelical to corporate types to libertarian or whatnot, they all turned out for Trump no matter how contradictory he is.
If the left infights and the right doesn't, you'll get perpetual right-wing governments forever.
here is much room for Keynes' end of export-based beggar-thy-neighbour politics, the economic strengthening of (democratic) state-planners (only achievable by high taxation on those who hold the money) and sensible debt-policies that don't go full Murica, but also don't force current generations to pay off debts they did never make. Germany is on the total opposite course of this at the moment, and the SPD shares much of that blame.[
yes it's true Germany is a country uniquely averse to active econ policies it's a tough thing to campaign on. Nonetheless I think there's an important point there that there's a kernel of common values that people can organise around that should be utilised if Social Democrats ever intend to put up a chancellor again.
|
On March 01 2018 08:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 07:31 TheDwf wrote:
(2) You social-democrats were in power while the far-right grew and you have the guts to blame us for this? Clean your own mess.
(3) Are you sure you understood the conclusions of this article correctly? Social Democracy has been falling for a long time, not just because of Schröder or Blair. Even in countries where Social Democracy still represents all of the good ol' values. The article says quite literally that even people who consider themselves to be farther on the left might find that there's a good opportunity right now to revive Social Democracy rather than engaging in mass movements which barely exist at all. concerning (3) and the post above, everybody who considers themselves to be somewhere on the centre to left spectrum needs to pick their battles because the right always falls into line like soldiers. Literally everyone from Evangelical to corporate types to libertarian or whatnot, they all turned out for Trump no matter how contradictory he is. If the left infights and the right doesn't, you'll get perpetual right-wing governments forever.
The right suffers from just as much sectarianism as the left. Just watch some Murdoch Murdoch and you will go "Right-wing Trotskyists"
And what do you mean perpetual right-wing governments? The right got demolished in Netherlands, France, and are very much an irrelevant protest party in Germany. I don't know where you are getting the idea that the right is united and happily reports for duty while the left is broken. If anything and probably fortunately, it's the liberal democrats who are starting to make a strong return after a wave of Trump, Brexit, and Orban.
|
On March 01 2018 05:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 28 2018 21:54 Big J wrote:
The reason why many left-wingers react so badly to those liberal reforms is that in their - my - eyes they are not "much needed". They at best release some surficial pressure on some fronts, but they don't deal with the causes. In contrary, such reforms make capital distributions worse, weaken demand and market power of the labouring people and thereby naturally lead to the next "necessary" reform, once the effects of the loss of demand kick in.
When we look at right-wing "liberalism" it is apparent that all their reforms are either Keynesian debt-stimuli (Reagan, Bush, Bush, Trump), or they lead to export-based production that are met with trade barriers or lead to crisis in other countries and lead to more of the same medicine being "necessary" a few years later. And that's just the collective vision on it. The alternative for left-wingers seems to be to schism into 10 different communist or socialist parties, marching through the streets on election day and tolerating a rise of right-wing politics just to then glee over the demise of the centre-left while saying "we told you so!" Here's a good article from the left perspective on why the left ought to throw their lot in with the liberals.
"The center left is always bitching about how the far-left never supports them, and lets the right-wingers take over the country all the while complaining gleefully about the far-left and their supposedly ridiculous world views. Why doesn't the center-left compromise with the far-left to form an unstoppable block of democratic power?"
|
because it's unpalatable to pretty much a majority of the population to a point where it starts red scare campaigns. Whenever there's a real 'threat' of red/red/green coalitions in Germany the voters storm and vote CDU/FDP into office like crazy
it almost never works and when it works the governments seem to be unpopular, like the current one in Berlin. And making a left-wing government unpopular in Berlin is quite an achievement in and of itself
Do you think Trump Or Bannon would have come to power if they'd joined the libertarian party? Everything the alt-right believes might be idiotic but politically they organised themselves well within the mainstream GOP. Socialists used to do that too in the UK with some pretty good success.
|
On March 01 2018 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
because it's unpalatable to pretty much a majority of the population to a point where it starts red scare campaigns. Whenever there's a real 'threat' of red/red/green coalitions in Germany the voters storm and vote CDU/FDP into office like crazy
it almost never works and when it works the governments seem to be unpopular, like the current one in Berlin. And making a left-wing government unpopular in Berlin is quite an achievement in and of itself
Do you think Trump Or Bannon would have come to power if they'd joined the libertarian party? Everything the alt-right believes might be idiotic but politically they organised themselves well within the mainstream GOP. Socialists used to do that too in the UK with some pretty good success.
The alt-right is falling apart due to its sectarianism with the "alt-lite" and a lot of them are losing faith the same way many progressives lost faith in Obama. Just the progressives who were wondering when the "real Obama" was gonna awaken, some of the more naive alt-right are wondering when the real "God Emperor" is gonna awake and kick Kushner out. The alt-right is not mainstream and probably will not be, they were passionate activists who got played by a politician.
In Europe, the joys of a multiparty system allows parties like the Lega Nord to not have to work with Berlusconi which is probably why right-wing populists are going to be active longer in Europe than in North America where its dying out and as Trump is becoming just another standard tax cutting Republican.
|
On March 01 2018 08:13 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 07:31 TheDwf wrote:
(2) You social-democrats were in power while the far-right grew and you have the guts to blame us for this? Clean your own mess.
(3) Are you sure you understood the conclusions of this article correctly? Social Democracy has been falling for a long time, not just because of Schröder or Blair. Even in countries where Social Democracy still represents all of the good ol' values.
I'm not sure of that:
Plus in France it's extremely clear that S&D fell when they betrayed their very left-wing promises. First they decreased after they abandoned socialism in the 80's, then they were evaporated after Hollande's mandate, where even the most modest form of social-democrat policies were absent.
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/8gAxJyG.jpg) % of expressed votes for the PS and the PCF in législatives. Putting the PCF since it was part of the left-wing bloc which won in the 80's Huge electoral sanction in 1993, but they bounce back to a decent level. Then comes Hollande the Gravedigger and boom, in 5 years the PS is gone.
The article says quite literally that even people who consider themselves to be farther on the left might find that there's a good opportunity right now to revive Social Democracy rather than engaging in mass movements which barely exist at all.
What I read in the article is that many of those people who consider themselves "socialists" are in fact keynesian social-democrats, but it's fine since it's at least a decent start to recreate the possibility of socialism.
concerning (3) and the post above, everybody who considers themselves to be somewhere on the centre to left spectrum needs to pick their battles because the right always falls into line like soldiers. Literally everyone from Evangelical to corporate types to libertarian or whatnot, they all turned out for Trump no matter how contradictory he is.
That might be true in the USA and in the UK because there's a two-party system there, so you're somewhat forced to practice entryism. But that is not at all the situation in countries with more sane systems, and the point is even moot in the UK since Corbyn is an actual left-winger and the Labour already returned to the left; so this question mostly exists in the USA, where the political system makes zero sense to begin with anyway.
If the left infights and the right doesn't, you'll get perpetual right-wing governments forever.
The French left was united like a single man behind Hollande in the second round of 2012 (even the far-left called to vote against Sarkozy). Look at what happened next. I'm done with those "unite the left" mantras without any ambitious content—or any content at all—simply to "beat the right". The goal is not simply to beat the right, but actually succeed afterwards.
And as Shiragaku says the right is pretty divided as well; very heavily in France.
|
Leftists compromising with the Neoliberal Centrists hasn't really worked here in the Netherlands anyway. Not when it comes to stopping the far-right.
First it happened on a "high" political level: in 2012, Labour (PvdA) joined a coalition with the Neoliberal Centrists (VVD) to stop the far right (PVV, Wilders). This resulted in neoliberal policies (austerity, etc) because the effect of "compromise" was essentially for labour to be subservient to the neoliberals.
That's not what you're talking about, though, is it? You're talking about the voters themselves, aka a "low" political level. So fast forward to the most recent elections and lets look at the voters.
In 2017, Labour -- which compromised in 2012 -- lost 29 seats (from 38 to 9). Never before did a political party lose that much ground in one election cycle. Those votes are now mostly spread amongst the centrist parties (look, that's the voters compromising, isn't it, how wonderful!) with a not insignificant percentage of (horrible and distasteful, I know) uncompromising voters diverging towards the two green parties who gained a combined total of 13 points.
Meanwhile, Wilders has 5 points more than he did in 2012, and there's a second far-right party who also got 2 points.
So, basically the Labour/Green and Neoliberals/Centrists switch around a few votes, while the far-right continues to increase from whatever bleeds off the "centrists" (most likely VVD voters leaving).
Tell me again how "compromise" (subservience) from leftists helps stop the far-right.
|
Macron managed to put a halt to the far-right by running on a course of 'civil renewal' in the centre. Th far right rises aren't just limited to countries where the left moved to the centre. I don't doubt that dwf's graph says something about Western Europe, bu what about Hungary or Poland? They can't even muster any sort of left-wing or even liberal politics. What about Sweden which is hardly a neoliberal nightmare but has seen a drastic rise of the Sweden Democrats? Or the Social Democrats in Denmark which admittedly are doing a little better but probably only because they've pivoted to AfD level politics on immigration.
|
In France, during the first round of the elections Le Pen polled at 16% in 2012, and 22% in 2017. Macron didn't stop shit. We'll see if Macron stopped something during the next cycle. If the far-right is in decline by then, only then we may say that he stopped something (although it's possible he wouldn't be responsible).
It's not as if, due to the election of Macron, all the far-right rhetoric is suddenly gone from France. It's not gone just because they're not winning a presidential race like they did in the US. It's still right there where you left it.
I don't even know what the hell you're on about at this point with Poland, Hungary, Sweden, etc.
What's happening in Denmark is illustrative of what's happening elsewhere, though. Everywhere in Europe there's political parties who are currently in power compromising with the far-right to maintain their power (as they are desperate to cling onto votes rather than sticking to any sort of principles or values). From banning headgear to changing immigration policies. And they're leaving the left hanging out to dry as they do so, probably all the while complaining like you do about how the left won't compromise.
|
On March 01 2018 13:36 a_flayer wrote:
Everywhere in Europe there's political parties who are currently in power compromising with the far-right to maintain their power (as they are desperate to cling onto votes rather than sticking to any sort of principles or values). From banning headgear to changing immigration policies. And they're leaving the left hanging out to dry as they do so, probably all the while complaining like you do about how the left won't compromise.
What I can tell you, at least from a German historical experience, is that this was to be expected. At least it's how we rode out the last time something similar happened.
From 1986 onwards the (German) Republicans threatened to become actually relevant in the wake of the amount of asylum seekers going up, especially due to the revolutions of 1989, the Yugoslav Wars and the fall of the Soviet Union. The response? CSU grabbing a large chunk of their language ("The boat is full!" / "The flood of asylum seekers!") and working from there.
When years of "civil debates" like that lead to the extreme of the 1992 Rostock-Lichtenhagen riots, where apartment blocks with Vietnamese asylum seekers living there were set on fire with 3000 people cheering it on, the solution was to close the asylum center there, deport all the Vietnamese people involved without compensation and to enact laws that were eerily close to what the far-right suggested a few years earlier.
Shortly after these laws were enacted the amount of asylum seekers even asking for asylum went down massively (1992: 400.000 / 1996: 115.000 / 2007: 19.164) and the far-right went back into obsolescence.
The exact same is happening/happened again: CSU (and to a lesser but still relevant extent CDU) take some of the far-right vocabulary, push for some smart and some less smart changes and both due to these measures and natural changes a large chunk of asylum seekers will go back, some will be deported and the remaining portion will have to be integrated into society. From at least my point of view the discussion about refugees and asylum seekers in general is already over, we know how that portion will play out. What's left is to hope that it doesn't end as goddamn disgraceful as it did almost 30 years ago.
By the way, both FDP (neoliberal) and SPD (Social Democrats) ended up voting for these changes to our asylum laws after massive inner-party controversies over these issues. And that's the story of how our constitution was changed to limit the influx of asylum seekers with the support of all parties except for the Greens.
What's different this time is a) a larger amount of asylum seekers b) this type of party actually gaining political power and c) the internet and social media as some of their main tools existing.
What we should actually worry about is when far-right parties step over that line, like with threatening upstanding citizens who have been living in their countries for decades sometimes. If that sentiment sweeps into the mainstream, that's when issues will show up that won't disappear as quickly as they came.
|
On March 01 2018 08:27 Nyxisto wrote:
it almost never works and when it works the governments seem to be unpopular, like the current one in Berlin. And making a left-wing government unpopular in Berlin is quite an achievement in and of itself
They poll rather nicely for an unpopular red scare government...
Do you think Trump Or Bannon would have come to power if they'd joined the libertarian party? Everything the alt-right believes might be idiotic but politically they organised themselves well within the mainstream GOP. Socialists used to do that too in the UK with some pretty good success.
What you don't understand is that the Sanders can accept to support the Clintons, but the reverse is not true. In France, when the PS primary chose a left-wing representative, the right-wing of the party either betrayed him or let him fall without helping at all. Remember what the right-wing of the Labour did to Corbyn?
On March 01 2018 12:15 Nyxisto wrote:
Macron managed to put a halt to the far-right by running on a course of 'civil renewal' in the centre. Th far right rises aren't just limited to countries where the left moved to the centre. I don't doubt that dwf's graph says something about Western Europe, bu what about Hungary or Poland? They can't even muster any sort of left-wing or even liberal politics. What about Sweden which is hardly a neoliberal nightmare but has seen a drastic rise of the Sweden Democrats? Or the Social Democrats in Denmark which admittedly are doing a little better but probably only because they've pivoted to AfD level politics on immigration.
Macron did nothing, the far-right committed suicide with an incoherent strategy and a splendid media seppuku during the debate. I'd have to dig the numbers but I'm fairly sure that Mélenchon did more to fight Le Pen by taking away potential first time voters from her (there is no direct transfer between their respective electorates, the horseshoe theory is still horseshit).
There is no single explanation for the rise of the far-rights in Europe, the situation is different depending on countries, and the far-right parties themselves do not necessarily defend the same things on the socio-economic themes. For the AfD, Le Pen's FN were dirty "socialists" ...
Neoliberalism isn't the only problem with S&D parties, some of them also co-build the ideological victory of the right when it comes to immigration, islam, etc. In France that was totally the case under Hollande and Valls (one of the reasons why the latter was stomped in the PS primary).
|
What you don't understand is that the Sanders can accept to support the Clintons, but the reverse is not true. In France, when the PS primary chose a left-wing representative, the right-wing of the party either betrayed him or let him fall without helping at all. Remember what the right-wing of the Labour did to Corbyn?
To be fair, Sanders took a while to publically support Hillary. Corbyn's Anti-Brexit stance was less much less fierce than the "New Labour" leaders would have wanted it to be. Mélenchon was very explicitely running against the PS.
There is simply not much common ground on many issues at the moment. The problem is, that the political systems in most countries were never made to properly represent opinions if they were not streamlined by big parties beforehand. It seems like the Dutch or the Swiss systems are really good at this, while Germany is collapsing under that task.
|
I don't think the Dutch system is better. We're just more versed in and accepting of compromise.
|
At least you guys have some semblance of a left. Here the far left are unheard of (under 1% every election), which is to be expected given that 'communist' and 'socialist' have become insults after 89.
The soc-dems are currently (and often) in power but oh boy.. they pander to pensioners, the church, social conservatives in general, and they regularly fuck workers. Recently they've shifted some taxes from employers to employees for example. Though most of their efforts these days are spent undermining the anti-corruption directorate, claiming that the reason so many of their party members have received sentences for corruption is due to, you guessed it, a witch hunt.
|
On March 01 2018 06:28 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2018 06:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
read your link. Article is very waffly and woolly. In any case the left and liberals barely make any sense, as for me I'Il associate the left with liberal policies and the right with conservative protectionism. It doesn't help that the authors definition of keynesianism appears to be his own personal definition of keynesian which is unrecognisable as well as broadly undefined. So it which point I will have to ask what exactly do you mean by left and right and liberals. I did read the link or I wouldn't have posted it, thanks for that suggestion The author defines keynesianism as managerial capitalism / liberalism mostly found on the centre left nowadays which is a pretty mainstream usage of the term ever since the 80s when it was replaced by Friedman-like laissez faire politics on the right. The author seems to take left-wing politics as traditionally anti-capitalist, liberal politics as spanning from the centre-left to the centre-right, and right-wing politics as the mostly nationalist phenomenon we've seen in recent times. I think that's familiar terminology
I would take the point that the meanings of left differs in a period of a few years, and that the author takes left-wing politics as both spanning centre, left and right as being an ever increasingly pointless political descriptor.
For instance I would regard keynesianism as entirely non-political; it can neither be regarded as a philosophy of the left or right, it is an economic position or policy in its own right. Neither political sphere can claim it as theirs.
|
On March 01 2018 20:02 TheDwf wrote:
What you don't understand is that the Sanders can accept to support the Clintons, but the reverse is not true. In France, when the PS primary chose a left-wing representative, the right-wing of the party either betrayed him or let him fall without helping at all. Remember what the right-wing of the Labour did to Corbyn?
I'm in favour of New Labour supporting Corbyn as long as they get to provide some input, I'm not at all in favour of disavowing them the way Blair did for example (in the beginning, he seems to have come around somewhat). I also think Hillary should have supported Bernie and vice versa without any public schism.
For the simple reason that Blair and Corbyn and Sanders and Clinton have much more in common than you seem to give them credit for, especially when the opposite side of the spectrum consists of Trump, Farage, and Boris Johnson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
