|
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 June 25 2018 15:30 Aiobhill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 01:18 Big J wrote:On June 24 2018 22:26 sc-darkness wrote:
I think you're going to trigger a lot of Germans with this. :D As long as the right-wing has complete control over the media so that their inner issues between Merkel and Seehofer get painted as left vs right, they have free reign to push through any surveillance and other fascist control measure they like. Reminds of the good old Stalin quip 'Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.' This btw says more about your position than about society's.
In the particular example, Article 13 and similar laws tinkered to create a legal enviroment with the single purpose as to create economic rights to things where there are none, because technology has swept exclusivity away, I'd rather resort to Hayek where it reads:
In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.
Since you brought him up: Stalin and the Soviet Socialists made the same basic mistake as conservatives have been making for centuries. They believed in an authority, they believed that they themselves should be the ultimate leaders, that they should be the people who know the values and needs of the others and who will make things better for the others. This is physically not possible, as people know best what they want for themselves. And things that are physically not possible yet still attempted are bound to lead into disaster.
If you prefer it, you can read "fascist" as communist when I use it. Since noone is using the original, Marxist/Anarchic/Liberal meaning any longer it really doesn't matter too much.
Also a supermajority of german journalists support left wing parties
Stats and definition of left/right please. I personally believe that the majority of them supports liberal parties, which means SPD/Greens/FDP and parts of the CDU arpund Merkel.
and support for Merkel - a CDU chancellor, one is inclined to forget it - is far above average among voters of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
You mean a party which, despite its often leftist youth and roots, gets most of its support from the progressive parts of the (city) burgeoisie are quite OK with a moderate burgeoise CDU chancellor. Color me unsurprised.
and still above average among voters of Die Linke compared to her general support among all voters.
This seems completely made up. Quickly researching, Merkel has massive support with the CDU and CSU voters and moderate support with FDP and Green voters. I haven't found anything that would indicate any positive support from Die Linke, much less "above average".
This is about as much left vs right as it can possibly be.
One knows conservatives have gone full retard when they believe they are their own most opposite political opponents and the choice should only be between their own wings. But well-versed as you are with Stalin, I don't expect you to say this because you are dumb.
User was warned for this post.
|
On June 25 2018 18:16 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 02:35 TheDwf wrote:
Damn, it's close... Hopefully Erdogan goes under the 50% threshold with the last 30% of votes... About 65% of Turks in Germany voted Erdogan while only 35% of the Turks living in Switzerland did so... Something strange is going on inside the turkish/german community. As for Merkel... She has lost some support but she still seems to be the by far(!) strongest german politician leading the by far strongest party.
The CDU vs CSU fight is certainly hurting but it seems like the CSU is getting hit way harder than Merkel.
iirc I read an article on Reuters that said that the CSU lost 7% in bavaria compared to last elections while Merkel is gaining in popularity over there?
But overall both CDU and CSU are losing voters over this
|
Yes it's not looking great for the CSU. Some numbers from an article today
CSU is polling at 36 nationwide (-2) compared to the federal election, ~40% in Bavaria (-7) falling short of their historical absolute majority, only a third of CSU voters is satisfied with Horst Seehofers performance whereas 72% of CDU voters are still supportive of Merkel. Support for the current CSU head in Bavaria (Markus Söder) is also low at about 40%.
Importantly, 75% of Bavarians find other issues more important than the refugee topic, even 66% of CSU supporters agree. The only voter base that puts the issue at the top is the AfD (72%).
|
On June 25 2018 17:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 15:30 Aiobhill wrote:On June 25 2018 01:18 Big J wrote:On June 24 2018 22:26 sc-darkness wrote:
I think you're going to trigger a lot of Germans with this. :D As long as the right-wing has complete control over the media so that their inner issues between Merkel and Seehofer get painted as left vs right, they have free reign to push through any surveillance and other fascist control measure they like. Reminds of the good old Stalin quip 'Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.' This btw says more about your position than about society's. Also a supermajority of german journalists support left wing parties, and support for Merkel - a CDU chancellor, one is inclined to forget it - is far above average among voters of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen and still above average among voters of Die Linke compared to her general support among all voters. This is about as much left vs right as it can possibly be. Do you feel the sun's finally about to set on Merkel? Everything I hear from you guys seems to suggest she's looking very vulnerable right now and has lost the electorate a bit. Sounds like the media's on her side though?
I have no clue. For half of the last decade, I lived abroad and was surprised that she survived the lengthy bailout for Greece virtually unscarred. One remaining strength in the view of a sizeable portion of the electorate is the complete lack of people able to follow in her footsteps - within all parties. The Media is indeed overwhelmingly on her side, but critics are becoming more prominent. Even public broadcaster ARD, which treated her outright deferential during the refugee crisis, had one commentator calling for her to step down.
On June 25 2018 21:16 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2018 15:30 Aiobhill wrote:On June 25 2018 01:18 Big J wrote:On June 24 2018 22:26 sc-darkness wrote:
I think you're going to trigger a lot of Germans with this. :D As long as the right-wing has complete control over the media so that their inner issues between Merkel and Seehofer get painted as left vs right, they have free reign to push through any surveillance and other fascist control measure they like. Reminds of the good old Stalin quip 'Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.' This btw says more about your position than about society's. In the particular example, Article 13 and similar laws tinkered to create a legal enviroment with the single purpose as to create economic rights to things where there are none, because technology has swept exclusivity away, I'd rather resort to Hayek where it reads: Show nested quote +In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people—he is not an egalitarian—but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others. Since you brought him up: Stalin and the Soviet Socialists made the same basic mistake as conservatives have been making for centuries. They believed in an authority, they believed that they themselves should be the ultimate leaders, that they should be the people who know the values and needs of the others and who will make things better for the others. This is physically not possible, as people know best what they want for themselves. And things that are physically not possible yet still attempted are bound to lead into disaster. If you prefer it, you can read "fascist" as communist when I use it. Since noone is using the original, Marxist/Anarchic/Liberal meaning any longer it really doesn't matter too much. Stats and definition of left/right please. I personally believe that the majority of them supports liberal parties, which means SPD/Greens/FDP and parts of the CDU arpund Merkel. Show nested quote +and support for Merkel - a CDU chancellor, one is inclined to forget it - is far above average among voters of Bündnis 90/Die Grünen You mean a party which, despite its often leftist youth and roots, gets most of its support from the progressive parts of the (city) burgeoisie are quite OK with a moderate burgeoise CDU chancellor. Color me unsurprised. Show nested quote +and still above average among voters of Die Linke compared to her general support among all voters. This seems completely made up. Quickly researching, Merkel has massive support with the CDU and CSU voters and moderate support with FDP and Green voters. I haven't found anything that would indicate any positive support from Die Linke, much less "above average". One knows conservatives have gone full retard when they believe they are their own most opposite political opponents and the choice should only be between their own wings. But well-versed as you are with Stalin, I don't expect you to say this because you are dumb. User was warned for this post.
stats for jounalist party preferences:
http://www.statistiker-blog.de/archives/politische-praferenzen-von-journalisten/5262.html
Linke-Voters support for Merkel:
https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/umfrage-seehofer-merkel-56024340.bild.html
both german language sources; I had a non-Bild source for no. 2, if I can be arsed to find it, I'll add the link
|
On June 26 2018 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:Yes it's not looking great for the CSU. Some numbers from an article todayCSU is polling at 36 nationwide (-2) compared to the federal election, ~40% in Bavaria (-7) falling short of their historical absolute majority, only a third of CSU voters is satisfied with Horst Seehofers performance whereas 72% of CDU voters are still supportive of Merkel. Support for the current CSU head in Bavaria (Markus Söder) is also low at about 40%. Importantly, 75% of Bavarians find other issues more important than the refugee topic, even 66% of CSU supporters agree. The only voter base that puts the issue at the top is the AfD (72%).
Yeah, it's kind of sad that the CSU think that the best way of dealing with a far-right party is to swing right and try to get some voters from them. I think they are utterly confused at not being the most right-wing party in germany anymore.
And of course, it is not working. There are AfD ad signs here with the message "we are the original" on them. If people want a far-right anti immigrant party, they are going to vote AfD and not CSU, no matter how much the CSU tries to be far-right and anti-immigrant. No one wants a cheap copy of something if they can get the real thing.
|
On June 26 2018 05:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:Yes it's not looking great for the CSU. Some numbers from an article todayCSU is polling at 36 nationwide (-2) compared to the federal election, ~40% in Bavaria (-7) falling short of their historical absolute majority, only a third of CSU voters is satisfied with Horst Seehofers performance whereas 72% of CDU voters are still supportive of Merkel. Support for the current CSU head in Bavaria (Markus Söder) is also low at about 40%. Importantly, 75% of Bavarians find other issues more important than the refugee topic, even 66% of CSU supporters agree. The only voter base that puts the issue at the top is the AfD (72%). Yeah, it's kind of sad that the CSU think that the best way of dealing with a far-right party is to swing right and try to get some voters from them. I think they are utterly confused at not being the most right-wing party in germany anymore. And of course, it is not working. There are AfD ad signs here with the message "we are the original" on them. If people want a far-right anti immigrant party, they are going to vote AfD and not CSU, no matter how much the CSU tries to be far-right and anti-immigrant. No one wants a cheap copy of something if they can get the real thing.
Seems like your conservatives are trying the same recipe which pretty much failed everywhere.
Which makes me think about this: all this fuss about the rise of "populism" is overplayed; in the end it's simply the decay and radicalization of the right.
|
On June 26 2018 07:04 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 05:42 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2018 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:Yes it's not looking great for the CSU. Some numbers from an article todayCSU is polling at 36 nationwide (-2) compared to the federal election, ~40% in Bavaria (-7) falling short of their historical absolute majority, only a third of CSU voters is satisfied with Horst Seehofers performance whereas 72% of CDU voters are still supportive of Merkel. Support for the current CSU head in Bavaria (Markus Söder) is also low at about 40%. Importantly, 75% of Bavarians find other issues more important than the refugee topic, even 66% of CSU supporters agree. The only voter base that puts the issue at the top is the AfD (72%). Yeah, it's kind of sad that the CSU think that the best way of dealing with a far-right party is to swing right and try to get some voters from them. I think they are utterly confused at not being the most right-wing party in germany anymore. And of course, it is not working. There are AfD ad signs here with the message "we are the original" on them. If people want a far-right anti immigrant party, they are going to vote AfD and not CSU, no matter how much the CSU tries to be far-right and anti-immigrant. No one wants a cheap copy of something if they can get the real thing. Seems like your conservatives are trying the same recipe which pretty much failed everywhere. Which makes me think about this: all this fuss about the rise of "populism" is overplayed; in the end it's simply the decay and radicalization of the right.
You're failing to see reasons why the far-right is rising in Europe. Immigration and one EU state are key elements which make it popular. You should think why those matter to them but you should do it objectively. I don't vote for far-right parties but I think it's so obvious.
|
On June 26 2018 15:21 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 07:04 TheDwf wrote:On June 26 2018 05:42 Simberto wrote:On June 26 2018 04:57 Nyxisto wrote:Yes it's not looking great for the CSU. Some numbers from an article todayCSU is polling at 36 nationwide (-2) compared to the federal election, ~40% in Bavaria (-7) falling short of their historical absolute majority, only a third of CSU voters is satisfied with Horst Seehofers performance whereas 72% of CDU voters are still supportive of Merkel. Support for the current CSU head in Bavaria (Markus Söder) is also low at about 40%. Importantly, 75% of Bavarians find other issues more important than the refugee topic, even 66% of CSU supporters agree. The only voter base that puts the issue at the top is the AfD (72%). Yeah, it's kind of sad that the CSU think that the best way of dealing with a far-right party is to swing right and try to get some voters from them. I think they are utterly confused at not being the most right-wing party in germany anymore. And of course, it is not working. There are AfD ad signs here with the message "we are the original" on them. If people want a far-right anti immigrant party, they are going to vote AfD and not CSU, no matter how much the CSU tries to be far-right and anti-immigrant. No one wants a cheap copy of something if they can get the real thing. Seems like your conservatives are trying the same recipe which pretty much failed everywhere. Which makes me think about this: all this fuss about the rise of "populism" is overplayed; in the end it's simply the decay and radicalization of the right. You're failing to see reasons why the far-right is rising in Europe. Immigration and one EU state are key elements which make it popular. You should think why those matter to them but you should do it objectively. I don't vote for far-right parties but I think it's so obvious.
The far-right was already scoring 15% in the 1980's in France
|
The far-right existed in the past even with people like Hitler. What's your point? There are political fractions all the time. The thing is not to feed the far-left and the far-right parties. Of course, their policies change.
|
On June 27 2018 01:49 sc-darkness wrote:
The far-right existed in the past even with people like Hitler. What's your point? There are political fractions all the time. The thing is not to feed the far-left and the far-right parties. Of course, their policies change.
And who is to define what is left and right and what is far? Those which proclaim themselves "the middle", yet for some reason can't even get half of the people behind their cause these days?
Maybe, just MAYBE... if the "oh so educated and rational" bourgeoisie would for once stop circlejerking about how "middle of the road" they are and start to accept that "the middle" is the result of a pricing process, like an election, a referendum or a market process, we could have a reasonable talk.
Conservative "middle"-thinking is like Astronomy before Kopernikus: arbitrarily defining yourself in the middle for reasons of feudal thinking doesn't make it right, it just leads to a stagnation and a bigger revolutionary process once the bubble bursts.
|
On June 27 2018 01:49 sc-darkness wrote:
The far-right existed in the past even with people like Hitler. What's your point?
The point was that in some countries, it existed even before the various recent crisis and Maastricht's EU.
|
On June 27 2018 03:17 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 01:49 sc-darkness wrote:
The far-right existed in the past even with people like Hitler. What's your point? The point was that in some countries, it existed even before the various recent crisis and Maastricht's EU.
I'm not sure that answered my question. People with extreme views exist all the time. Their concerns shouldn't be completely ignored because there's a risk they'll become a majority. Why else do parties like AfD grow? AfD is a symptom only. The root cause is more important.
|
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem.
|
On June 27 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem.
Why did UKIP rise and then quickly disappeared after the last referendum in the UK? I'm not saying they were right though.
|
On June 27 2018 05:24 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem. Why did UKIP rise and then quickly disappeared after the last referendum in the UK? I'm not saying they were right though.
You claimed that the rise of far right parties was due to immigration policies across all of the Europe, not just the UK. Each nation has its own politics and political nuances as to why a specific party gained a foothold. Each of these parties may emphasize immigration policy, but that does not mean that a lack of immigrants would have prevented them from swaying votes. Immigration can be a factor, but you have not proven it is THE factor across all of Europe, or that limiting immigration will somehow diminish the power of these far right parties.
|
By the way Big J, how come the far-right was already so high in your country in the 1990's?
|
On June 27 2018 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 05:24 sc-darkness wrote:On June 27 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem. Why did UKIP rise and then quickly disappeared after the last referendum in the UK? I'm not saying they were right though. You claimed that the rise of far right parties was due to immigration policies across all of the Europe, not just the UK. Each nation has its own politics and political nuances as to why a specific party gained a foothold. Each of these parties may emphasize immigration policy, but that does not mean that a lack of immigrants would have prevented them from swaying votes. Immigration can be a factor, but you have not proven it is THE factor across all of Europe, or that limiting immigration will somehow diminish the power of these far right parties.
There's no single factor. I was mentioning some of topics the far-right talks about. These topics increase their popularity. There isn't much more to say about this.
|
On June 27 2018 05:24 sc-darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem. Why did UKIP rise and then quickly disappeared after the last referendum in the UK? I'm not saying they were right though.
Because Farage left. Can you name UKIP's current leader without googling it? I couldn't. They disappeared because they don't have a face anymore.
Brexit didn't solve the problems that some British people have with immigration, so 'mission accomplished' can't be the main reason why UKIP fell off the map.
|
On June 27 2018 06:39 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2018 05:24 sc-darkness wrote:On June 27 2018 05:13 Plansix wrote:
Point to immigration and claiming it is the root cause of their rise is myopic. The rise of right wing parties across a large number of nations cannot be linked to a single cause. And ceding ground on issues like immigration does not assure they won’t gain more power. It a simplistic solution to a wildly complex problem. Why did UKIP rise and then quickly disappeared after the last referendum in the UK? I'm not saying they were right though. Because Farage left. Can you name UKIP's current leader without googling it? I couldn't. They disappeared because they don't have a face anymore.
Last time I was checking news, UKIP was in decline after the referendum even with Farage as an interim leader.
|
On June 27 2018 05:41 TheDwf wrote:
By the way Big J, how come the far-right was already so high in your country in the 1990's?
The story goes like this: The Austrian social-democracy was very strong throughout the 70s and 80s, so they ruled alone and when they lost the 50% they carried on with the tiny FPÖ, which used to be some semi-liberal, semi-nationalist party at that time. A lot of this was due to the influence of the German FDP, which tried to establish them as a liberal party of their kind in Austria.
In 1986 young Jörg Haider revolted in the FPÖ which led to the social-democrats breaking up the coalition, because of Haiders Nazi-slang provocations, leading to the so-called Vranitzky doctrine, a party resolution (named after the SPÖ chancellor Vranitzky) which is valid to this day, which forbids the SPÖ to form a coalition with the FPÖ.
What followed were endless standstill coalitions in the 90s of the (leading) social-democrats with the conservatives and Haider pretty much inventing modern populism, eating through the conservative voter base, but also becoming popular with "the working man".
So in my eyes it's a mixture of the SPÖ-ÖVP standstill and the charismatic, opportunistic character Jörg Haider, that made the FPÖ grow big in the 90s.
In 1993 the liberals split from the Haider-FPÖ, founding their own party, which was eventually canibalized by the rise of the (back then) left-liberal Greens led by (the current president) Alexander Van der Bellen
In the 1999 election the FPÖ got second place in front of the ÖVP-conservatives (behind the social-democrats) and ÖVP/FPÖ formed a coalition under the leadership of ÖVP-party leader Wolfgang Schüssel and with Haider taking no government role. In the wake of Haider a lot of young opportunists, more liberal than nationalist, took over the leading government roles of the FPÖ. The party lost most of their voter base to the conservatives in the 2003 elections, but they formed another FPÖ/ÖVP government.
In 2005 Haider tried to get rid of the Nazi-parts of the party so he and the governing part of the FPÖ with all the opportunists founded a new party called BZÖ, leaving only the outmost Nazi scum in the FPÖ.
Turns out the Nazi scum had a lot of rich donors and a very fine strategist/propagandist (current interior minister Herbert Kickl) and they survived. After Haider died in a car accident, driving home from meeting with his secret gay lover in 2008 the BZÖ collapsed, with the FPÖ, now led by true and outright Nazis like Heinz-Christian Strache or Johann Gudenus and 50% German-nationalist fraternity members for members of parliament, taking all the right-wing voters.
With their march towards becoming the biggest party only stopped by Sebastian Kurz taking over the ÖVP and taking over all their positions without being an actual (or former) Nazi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
