|
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 February 08 2018 04:23 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 03:35 Big J wrote: Schulz must be the biggest loser I have ever seen. Comes in with a boom, loses everything and the election, says there is no common ground with the CDU and the FDP will sell out cheap, sells out cheap himself, hands over the party to the next best unpopular flip-flopper and takes the easy backseat post of foreign minister.
I hope the SPD base takes this leadership down, before they can do even more harm to the party. Sometimes I almost pity social-democrats. Then I see things like this... Show nested quote +Denmark's Social Democrats want to cap 'non-Western' asylum seekersDenmark's Social Democrats, part of the left-wing opposition and the country's largest party, on Monday proposed slashing the number of "non-Western" foreigners allowed into the EU member state. "We want to introduce a cap on the number of non-Western foreigners who can come to Denmark," Social Democrats leader Mette Frederiksen said in a 44-page document which focused in particular on asylum seekers from Africa. "We want to reform our asylum system, among other things, by setting up reception centres outside Europe, and in the future it will not be possible for refugees to obtain asylum in Denmark outside quotas set by the United Nations," she added. https://www.thelocal.dk/20180206/denmarks-social-democrats-want-to-cap-non-western-asylum-seekers ... and remember that they deserve every last bit of what is happening to them. Build the cultural hegemony of the right for years, then complain that both the right and the far-right are strong. A real passion for suicide: + Show Spoiler +(Average loss in points for S&D parties between 2000 and 2017.)
How much do you actually know about their policy paper? And how much do you know about Danish politics? Because I’m less than impressed by your framing.
|
On February 08 2018 05:03 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 04:23 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2018 03:35 Big J wrote: Schulz must be the biggest loser I have ever seen. Comes in with a boom, loses everything and the election, says there is no common ground with the CDU and the FDP will sell out cheap, sells out cheap himself, hands over the party to the next best unpopular flip-flopper and takes the easy backseat post of foreign minister.
I hope the SPD base takes this leadership down, before they can do even more harm to the party. Sometimes I almost pity social-democrats. Then I see things like this... Denmark's Social Democrats want to cap 'non-Western' asylum seekersDenmark's Social Democrats, part of the left-wing opposition and the country's largest party, on Monday proposed slashing the number of "non-Western" foreigners allowed into the EU member state. "We want to introduce a cap on the number of non-Western foreigners who can come to Denmark," Social Democrats leader Mette Frederiksen said in a 44-page document which focused in particular on asylum seekers from Africa. "We want to reform our asylum system, among other things, by setting up reception centres outside Europe, and in the future it will not be possible for refugees to obtain asylum in Denmark outside quotas set by the United Nations," she added. https://www.thelocal.dk/20180206/denmarks-social-democrats-want-to-cap-non-western-asylum-seekers ... and remember that they deserve every last bit of what is happening to them. Build the cultural hegemony of the right for years, then complain that both the right and the far-right are strong. A real passion for suicide: + Show Spoiler +(Average loss in points for S&D parties between 2000 and 2017.) How much do you actually know about their policy paper? And how much do you know about Danish politics? Because I’m less than impressed by your framing. Enlighten me: I had also heard that there was a law to confiscate some goods from migrants if they had the means (with fairly terrible results from what I read). Why was it voted exactly?
|
On February 08 2018 04:50 TheDwf wrote: LOL, nice right-wing coming out. "To hell with collective action to solve social problems, empower yourself and long live individualism! From Hartz IV to billionaire with some effort!"
Individualism should be the first goal in our society, that's not right wing at all. Social Democracy was always about setting conditions for individuals to thrive in a free society, it's not a collectivist ideology where a paternal state takes care of you all day.
We should guarantee free healthcare, free education and easy access to things that give you all the chances in life and here social democrats differ from right-wingers who will defend 'natural' hierarchies and inequalities and leave everything to the market and take negative freedoms over positive ones.
But at the end of the day here in Europe, you can go to university for almost nothing, you get an apartment if you can't afford one, if you're sick you'll get a treatment. The biggest difference you can make right now is by yourself. The Hartz IV reforms haven't changed any of that. There is no substantial difference in welfare spending now or twenty years ago.
To say that Social Democracy would rise again if we'd go back to past politics just doesn't make any sense because most of what the people wanted back then has been realised. It's also not what everybody else wants. The SPD isn't at 15% because they're too right-wing for the population.
|
On February 08 2018 05:10 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 05:03 Ghostcom wrote:On February 08 2018 04:23 TheDwf wrote:On February 08 2018 03:35 Big J wrote: Schulz must be the biggest loser I have ever seen. Comes in with a boom, loses everything and the election, says there is no common ground with the CDU and the FDP will sell out cheap, sells out cheap himself, hands over the party to the next best unpopular flip-flopper and takes the easy backseat post of foreign minister.
I hope the SPD base takes this leadership down, before they can do even more harm to the party. Sometimes I almost pity social-democrats. Then I see things like this... Denmark's Social Democrats want to cap 'non-Western' asylum seekersDenmark's Social Democrats, part of the left-wing opposition and the country's largest party, on Monday proposed slashing the number of "non-Western" foreigners allowed into the EU member state. "We want to introduce a cap on the number of non-Western foreigners who can come to Denmark," Social Democrats leader Mette Frederiksen said in a 44-page document which focused in particular on asylum seekers from Africa. "We want to reform our asylum system, among other things, by setting up reception centres outside Europe, and in the future it will not be possible for refugees to obtain asylum in Denmark outside quotas set by the United Nations," she added. https://www.thelocal.dk/20180206/denmarks-social-democrats-want-to-cap-non-western-asylum-seekers ... and remember that they deserve every last bit of what is happening to them. Build the cultural hegemony of the right for years, then complain that both the right and the far-right are strong. A real passion for suicide: + Show Spoiler +(Average loss in points for S&D parties between 2000 and 2017.) How much do you actually know about their policy paper? And how much do you know about Danish politics? Because I’m less than impressed by your framing. Enlighten me: I had also heard that there was a law to confiscate some goods from migrants if they had the means (with fairly terrible results from what I read). Why was it voted exactly?
Nah, when you make such an arrogant post you don't get to sidestep. Fix it and then we can move on.
EDIT: You might also want to read up on the law you are talking about now, because boy did you get that one wrong.
|
On February 08 2018 05:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2018 04:50 TheDwf wrote: LOL, nice right-wing coming out. "To hell with collective action to solve social problems, empower yourself and long live individualism! From Hartz IV to billionaire with some effort!" Individualism should be the first goal in our society, that's not right wing at all. Social Democracy was always about setting conditions for individuals to thrive in a free society, it's not a collectivist ideology where a paternal state takes care of you all day. We should guarantee free healthcare, free education and easy access to things that give you all the chances in life and here social democrats differ from right-wingers who will defend 'natural' hierarchies and inequalities and leave everything to the market and take negative freedoms over positive ones. But at the end of the day here in Europe, you can go to university for almost nothing, you get an apartment if you can't afford one, if you're sick you'll get a treatment. The biggest difference you can make right now is by yourself. The Hartz IV reforms haven't changed any of that. There is no substantial difference in welfare spending now or twenty years ago. To say that Social Democracy would rise again if we'd go back to past politics just doesn't make any sense because most of what the people wanted back then has been realised. It's also not what everybody else wants. The SPD isn't at 15% because they're too right-wing for the population. I find it funny that your mental map in politics always seems TINA vs far-right vs "post-war S&D politics". Haven't you heard of things like ecosocialism or alter-globalization movements? Unlike what you seem to think, the left isn't stuck in the "Thirty Glorious" ...
Your idea that "society provides a few things, then it's up to individual responsibility" fails to explain why social reproduction is so prevalent in our societies. Or are you going to claim that children from the lower classes are systematically less "deserving/worthy" than the ones from the bourgeoisie? This is the kind of problem which can only be solved collectively, and where a "well, just work harder as an individual" answer is right-wing thought.
No one is asking revolutionary socialism from S&D, but, you know, basic S&D policies like public investments, fighting poverty, improving work conditions, rising small pensions, better regulation of big money/business, ecological transition... And as for your "Germany is doing fine overall"—well, when you claim to be part of the left, you don't do politics for people who have it easy, you know? Last I heard there were quite a lot of poor in your country, including working poor who have to endure forced part-times; not to mention unemployed people who are being brutally and needlessly controlled as if they were lazy folks responsible for their own fate: what is your party doing for them exactly?
As for the "Germany is doing fine overall", then why can I still see the RFA/RDA separation in the Die Linke/AfD votes?
|
Is there a legend somewhere for all the shortwords you use or am I the only one too stupid to recognise them while reading whiteout thinking about what they could mean?
wtf is S&D? Thats a thing that doesn't exist in german discourse, i really never have seen it before your post... My best guess is that your missing a P key.. But i could be totally wrong.
|
ecosocialism and alter-globalization movements are completely ineffective and don't have a genuine vision to offer. We could see with occupy wallstreet what happened around these activist movements, nothing. People put on a few masks and set a few trashcans on fire and then they dissolve because they have no framework to realise what they want. 'de-growth' and communal living isn't going to replace market economies and global capitalism and it shouldn't because it can't sustain anybody.
And of course I don't believe that people at the bottom deserve to be there, but you need to be politically realistic. When I talk to other people in the SPD (whose average member is over 60 years old) or my parents who grew up quite rural working-class what they care about they tell me is their pension and that the city is safe and that immigration scares them. Do you think I can sell them on eco-socialism? They'll think I've lost my mind
The most frequent criticism of the CDU in Germany is that it's 'social-democratised' and has moved too far away from conservatism. Do you think the solution for the SPD is to move even farther away from the life reality of people?
When people start these system discussions about radical change I don't know if they spend their entire life on a university campus. It's hard enough to convince people that immigration isn't dangerous and not messing with their lives and fixing small problems and getting them to support moderate social programs. If you think there's a hidden left-winger in everybody and you can change the world sorry you're not actually living in it. Most people don't support any sort of progressive politics.
|
On February 08 2018 07:32 Velr wrote: Is there a legend somewhere for all the shortwords you use or am I the only one too stupid to recognise them while reading whiteout thinking about what they could mean?
wtf is S&D? Thats a thing that doesn't exist in german discourse, i really never have seen it before your post... My best guess is that your missing a P key.. But i could be totally wrong. Sorry, S&D means Socialists&Democrats or social-democrats, and is the name of the EU group with all those parties.
|
So to summarize today's German news: CDU - generally pissed about Merkel giving up too many good posts; right-wingers like Jens Spahn are pissed that they were completely left out SPD - left wing/youth pissed about not going into opposition SPD - Sigmar Gabriel pissed about "how little respect for each other is left in the SPD and how promises are broken". (rumour is that Schulz gave him the word that in case of another coalition between SPD and CDU/CSU Gabriel would stay foreign minister) CSU - seems to be rather happy with their homesecurity superminister
I don't expect this government to go the distance: - The conservatives will need to change their leadership in the next two years, which means they need to dismantle their own chancellor. Or go down unprepared next election. - The SPD may want to try a powerplay in the other direction, either just in case the CDU shows weakness, or simply to keep their base together. - With the return of the FDP there is another financially well-equipped party back in business, that has the means and the mainstream conservative media support to put pressure on Merkel. - The economy will slow down in the next years, which will benefit non-government parties. - The migration topic won't go away, which will severely hurt the CSU, because now they have the posts that are connected to migration, but they can't change what isn't changeable. So the voters will look for more severe solutions, given all the promises that they made.
|
The left and youth wing of the SPD being pissed at this current deal as it stands is completely out of place. This is by far the best thing they could hope for, considering how few votes they got in the end. Sure Schulz was an idiot for his "no coalition" talk but in the end, given the circumstances, pushing for a compromise is the right thing to do.
And as far as compromises go, this is a home-run for the SPD. The only way for them to get a better result would be in the form of some RRG-type coalition which we all know isn't going to happen with new elections.
On February 09 2018 06:36 Big J wrote: - The migration topic won't go away, which will severely hurt the CSU, because now they have the posts that are connected to migration, but they can't change what isn't changeable. So the voters will look for more severe solutions, given all the promises that they made. Which promises? If you're referring to the infamous word "Obergrenze" that has been floating around when it comes to refugees: everyone who knows our courts and understands the laws they're abiding by understands that there literally can't be an absolute limit and for very good reasons.
Policies to discourage refugees coming here, solutions on an EU level? Limiting laws when it comes to (non-EU) migration or even a fixed limit there? Stronger and proper controls on a federal level? All fine, even though pushes against migration in general could be an extremely stupid idea.
Some specific arbitrary fixed limit for refugees on a national level? No.
As much as I dislike the CSU as a party as well as their personnel, they're the party that has to stand up against right-wing extremism by defining what is democratically acceptable and what isn't. Strauss did this in 1986, now it's time for Seehofer to draw the exact same line in the sand.
If some voters (or parties) want 'more severe solutions' than what the German constitution intends for then that desire needs to be called out for what it is: Unconstitutional.
|
On February 09 2018 07:23 r.Evo wrote: The left and youth wing of the SPD being pissed at this current deal as it stands is completely out of place. This is by far the best thing they could hope for, considering how few votes they got in the end. Sure Schulz was an idiot for his "no coalition" talk but in the end, given the circumstances, pushing for a compromise is the right thing to do.
And as far as compromises go, this is a home-run for the SPD. The only way for them to get a better result would be in the form of some RRG-type coalition which we all know isn't going to happen with new elections.
The Jusos have a pretty mainstream left-wing program, unlike the SPD which is hardl different from the CDU on most economic topics. Their whole point is that "the best that they can hope for" with Merkel and 20% is worse than reprofiling the party and pushing their agenda in opposition to the government and the current politics (which includes the SPD politics of the past years). What people like you and Nyxisto don't want to understand is that there are people, in particular in the left, that believe that the current politics are heading towards disaster and there is simply no compromise to be made with disaster. It's a race against the time to change politics and to get the economical-ecological-social systems (back) on a longterm sustainable trajectory. You may argue that and why this is a wrong perception, or you can do what you do here: declare everyone with a different opinion stupid for not agreeing to a middle ground between Schröder and Merkel.
Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 06:36 Big J wrote: - The migration topic won't go away, which will severely hurt the CSU, because now they have the posts that are connected to migration, but they can't change what isn't changeable. So the voters will look for more severe solutions, given all the promises that they made. Which promises? If you're referring to the infamous word "Obergrenze" that has been floating around when it comes to refugees: everyone who knows our courts and understands the laws they're abiding by understands that there literally can't be an absolute limit and for very good reasons. Policies to discourage refugees coming here, solutions on an EU level? Limiting laws when it comes to (non-EU) migration or even a fixed limit there? Stronger and proper controls on a federal level? All fine, even though pushes against migration in general could be an extremely stupid idea. Some specific arbitrary fixed limit for refugees on a national level? No. As much as I dislike the CSU as a party as well as their personnel, they're the party that has to stand up against right-wing extremism by defining what is democratically acceptable and what isn't. Strauss did this in 1986, now it's time for Seehofer to draw the exact same line in the sand. If some voters (or parties) want 'more severe solutions' than what the German constitution intends for then that desire needs to be called out for what it is: Unconstitutional.
They are not drawing a line, that's the whole problem. When the AfD calls, the CSU follows. For as long as they don't aggressively push an agenda and then stick to it, regardless of what the AfD says, the picture that gets put into the people's heads will always be that "there is still room". You are right, when it becomes unconstitutional this needs to be called out. By the CDU/CSU. Experience has shown that right-wingers these days don't do this. They often stop their politics at the constitution, but their language keeps on moving rightwards which creates a demand beyond the constitution that they can't fullfill.
|
I have a genuine question, how old are you? the CDU and CSU is moving rightwards? Do you know how many conservative positions the CDU and CSU have dropped? I'll just name a few: Mandatory conscription, nuclear energy, same-sex marriage, immigration, minimum wage and so forth. All really big things to swallow for the right-wing of the party.
The CDU did the exact same thing the SPD did two decades ago. Moving from a non-maintainable ideological position towards political pragmatism. On the left that created Die Linke, which is a 10% party. On the right the same thing happened, we got the AfD which is a 10% right-wing party.
The German people have barely moved at all (we're not a really volatile bunch in modern times) and there's no political catastrophe on the horizon, we're just in a little bit of a political shake-up because party affiliations are being sorted out and shuffled around.
And concerning the Jusos, they don't have a mainstream program. I have their education brochure lying next to me. There's a pixel art Marx on the cover and the thing calls for international socialism lol.
|
On February 09 2018 09:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 07:23 r.Evo wrote: The left and youth wing of the SPD being pissed at this current deal as it stands is completely out of place. This is by far the best thing they could hope for, considering how few votes they got in the end. Sure Schulz was an idiot for his "no coalition" talk but in the end, given the circumstances, pushing for a compromise is the right thing to do.
And as far as compromises go, this is a home-run for the SPD. The only way for them to get a better result would be in the form of some RRG-type coalition which we all know isn't going to happen with new elections. The Jusos have a pretty mainstream left-wing program, unlike the SPD which is hardl different from the CDU on most economic topics. Their whole point is that "the best that they can hope for" with Merkel and 20% is worse than reprofiling the party and pushing their agenda in opposition to the government and the current politics (which includes the SPD politics of the past years). What people like you and Nyxisto don't want to understand is that there are people, in particular in the left, that believe that the current politics are heading towards disaster and there is simply no compromise to be made with disaster. It's a race against the time to change politics and to get the economical-ecological-social systems (back) on a longterm sustainable trajectory. You may argue that and why this is a wrong perception, or you can do what you do here: declare everyone with a different opinion stupid for not agreeing to a middle ground between Schröder and Merkel. Just to be clear: I agree with (most) of the perspective of the Jusos when it comes to their ideals regarding policy and I genuinely hope they manage to reform their party leadership in the future. However right now the German people as a whole voted against this. We can't change this reality.
The alternative to rejecting this deal is going into a new election, one which very well might result in a CDU/FDP coalition. One that might result in a CDU/SPD coalition with a worse position for the SPD than now. It might result in Jamaica.
All of these are scenarios in which the timeframe during which we can work on these issues becomes shorter, not longer. Some magical scenario during which for example RRG becomes a thing is not going to happen in this current election and within that reality is where I say that rejecting the current deal is stupid, because it's irresponsible as hell. The main reason to reject it is the hope for a reform within the party that pushes it to a government position a few years down the line.
While admirable I don't think that's a realistic gamble.
On February 09 2018 09:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2018 06:36 Big J wrote: - The migration topic won't go away, which will severely hurt the CSU, because now they have the posts that are connected to migration, but they can't change what isn't changeable. So the voters will look for more severe solutions, given all the promises that they made. Which promises? If you're referring to the infamous word "Obergrenze" that has been floating around when it comes to refugees: everyone who knows our courts and understands the laws they're abiding by understands that there literally can't be an absolute limit and for very good reasons. Policies to discourage refugees coming here, solutions on an EU level? Limiting laws when it comes to (non-EU) migration or even a fixed limit there? Stronger and proper controls on a federal level? All fine, even though pushes against migration in general could be an extremely stupid idea. Some specific arbitrary fixed limit for refugees on a national level? No. As much as I dislike the CSU as a party as well as their personnel, they're the party that has to stand up against right-wing extremism by defining what is democratically acceptable and what isn't. Strauss did this in 1986, now it's time for Seehofer to draw the exact same line in the sand. If some voters (or parties) want 'more severe solutions' than what the German constitution intends for then that desire needs to be called out for what it is: Unconstitutional. They are not drawing a line, that's the whole problem. When the AfD calls, the CSU follows. For as long as they don't aggressively push an agenda and then stick to it, regardless of what the AfD says, the picture that gets put into the people's heads will always be that "there is still room". You are right, when it becomes unconstitutional this needs to be called out. By the CDU/CSU. Experience has shown that right-wingers these days don't do this. They often stop their politics at the constitution, but their language keeps on moving rightwards which creates a demand beyond the constitution that they can't fullfill. Back in '86 that was the game the CSU played as well. It was Strauss who introduced the term "economic refugees" in this context. The CDU used slogans such as "Kinder statt Inder!" ("Kids instead of Indians!") and "Das Boot ist voll!" ("The boat is full!") - the latter which was directly stolen from the Republicans who introduced the term.
Conservative parties always had these elements and appropriating sentences that were used by the far-right is the norm, not the exception. The fundamental difference is that, despite all the rhetoric, CDU/CSU has not shown intentions of pushing this rhetoric to extreme policies. Back then this resulted in the Asylkompromiss which still worked within the limits of the German constitution and international agreements.
|
On February 09 2018 10:13 Nyxisto wrote: I have a genuine question, how old are you? the CDU and CSU is moving rightwards? Do you know how many conservative positions the CDU and CSU have dropped? I'll just name a few: Mandatory conscription, nuclear energy, same-sex marriage, immigration, minimum wage and so forth. All really big things to swallow for the right-wing of the party.
The CDU did the exact same thing the SPD did two decades ago. Moving from a non-maintainable ideological position towards political pragmatism. On the left that created Die Linke, which is a 10% party. On the right the same thing happened, we got the AfD which is a 10% right-wing party.
The German people have barely moved at all (we're not a really volatile bunch in modern times) and there's no political catastrophe on the horizon, we're just in a little bit of a political shake-up because party affiliations are being sorted out and shuffled around.
And concerning the Jusos, they don't have a mainstream program. I have their education brochure lying next to me. There's a pixel art Marx on the cover and the thing calls for international socialism lol. The majority of Germans are for same-sex marriage. The majority of Germans are against mandatory conscription. The majority of Germans are against nuclear energy.
All of the above are mainstream positions in modern day Germany. The conservative thing to do for a topic like same-sex marriage or like nuclear energy was trying to be as stabilizing as possible, to hold onto the old perspective as much as possible but to give in once it becomes clear that the German people have moved on these topics.
All of those are cases where conservative parties did their job (they didn't try to push any of these with legislation initially) and all of those need to be recognized as a new conservative consensus soon(tm) since they represent the German perspective since 10+ years, whether you agree with them or not.
I consider our stance on nuclear energy terrible for example but I still have to be intellectually honest and admit that that's a minority view in Germany. That's the least 'set in stone' out of that list for obvious reasons, but the ~40% support for it is massively behind the ~95% support for more investment in renewable energy.
The CDU tried to push for more nuclear energy not too long ago, they moved back from that position again because it would have likely killed their public support.
If "conservative positions" wouldn't allow for change over time we'd still not allow women to vote.
|
I didn't criticize that they moved, I approve of the fact that they did. I said as much in my post. I am critizing BigJ's perception that the CDU or CSU are apparently pivoting towards the AfD and that there is an imminent political apocalypse inbound.
CDU&CSU are strained because they've moved towards the centre, which was necessary but somehwat painful for the base.
|
Oh, whoops. I thought you meant the "German people have barely moved at all" over a longer period of time, obviously makes sense when you're referring to short-term and party affiliations being shuffled around.
My bad, all good.
|
On February 09 2018 10:13 Nyxisto wrote: I have a genuine question, how old are you? the CDU and CSU is moving rightwards? Do you know how many conservative positions the CDU and CSU have dropped? I'll just name a few: Mandatory conscription, nuclear energy, same-sex marriage, immigration, minimum wage and so forth. All really big things to swallow for the right-wing of the party.
The CDU did the exact same thing the SPD did two decades ago. Moving from a non-maintainable ideological position towards political pragmatism. On the left that created Die Linke, which is a 10% party. On the right the same thing happened, we got the AfD which is a 10% right-wing party.
The German people have barely moved at all (we're not a really volatile bunch in modern times) and there's no political catastrophe on the horizon, we're just in a little bit of a political shake-up because party affiliations are being sorted out and shuffled around.
And concerning the Jusos, they don't have a mainstream program. I have their education brochure lying next to me. There's a pixel art Marx on the cover and the thing calls for international socialism lol.
I believe what you call 'political pragmatism' is just mainstream populism. In my view the democratic consensus used to be that parties put forward ideas, programs and ideologies and then represent them in parliament and in the government. I am not interested in voting for topics of third tier importance that big majorities of the population agree on anyways and then discuss the details of it. Some of the things you mentioned like gay-marriage or a symbolic minimum wage fall into these categories. I would expect any democratic party to not stand in the way of the people on such issues, if public and representative support for this reach a critical level. If you reduce political programs to what is easy to be done the effects are not just that you create 'extreme' political parties, you just leave big important topics undecided.
I don't share your view that the German population 'hasn't moved'. It's obvious that for reasons of overaging there is a certain stable opinion within Western countries, simply because most people stick to their guns, regardless of the outcome. But in particular within the younger generations, fueled by migration and economic crisis, there is a lot of discomfort with the political system. I also don't care too much about political crisis. Political crisis is a result of social-economic crisis, that is what we have to fear. The economy is still on life support of the central banks and as we have seen this week, the moment there is a rumour about this being taken away the markets plummet. The only reason this system is alive despite cannibalizing its consumpation base is by extending everyone's debt and I don't believe this can go on forever. I rather believe that in the next 2008 scenario we won't be equipped to deal with the repercussions.
About Marx and the Jusos: Democratic Socialism, international solidarity and Marxian critics of capitalism have been the program of social-democrats for 150-years. Schröder and Blair are not the mainstream. They are the reason for their parties declines, because their 'political pragmatism' is not what makes people vote for the left. I believe what you believe the SPD to be is a liberal party in the spirit of the American democrats. That is not correct as far as I understand from history.
|
I also don't care too much about political crisis. Political crisis is a result of social-economic crisis, that is what we have to fear. The economy is still on life support of the central banks and as we have seen this week, the moment there is a rumour about this being taken away the markets plummet. The only reason this system is alive despite cannibalizing its consumpation base is by extending everyone's debt and I don't believe this can go on forever. I rather believe that in the next 2008 scenario we won't be equipped to deal with the repercussions. On what facts are these economic prophecies based upon? The economic fundamentals haven't been this good in over a decade. Stock market corrections don't necessarily mean there's an economic impact, it just means funds' appetites are changing. Private debt as % of GDP are actually looking significantly better in the EU (especially in risk countries, PT, ES, IT) compared to 2010. What reasons do you have to believe we're actually worse prepared for the next 2008?
|
On February 08 2018 07:53 Nyxisto wrote: ecosocialism and alter-globalization movements are completely ineffective and don't have a genuine vision to offer. We could see with occupy wallstreet what happened around these activist movements, nothing. People put on a few masks and set a few trashcans on fire and then they dissolve because they have no framework to realise what they want. 'de-growth' and communal living isn't going to replace market economies and global capitalism and it shouldn't because it can't sustain anybody.
And of course I don't believe that people at the bottom deserve to be there, but you need to be politically realistic. When I talk to other people in the SPD (whose average member is over 60 years old) or my parents who grew up quite rural working-class what they care about they tell me is their pension and that the city is safe and that immigration scares them. Do you think I can sell them on eco-socialism? They'll think I've lost my mind
The most frequent criticism of the CDU in Germany is that it's 'social-democratised' and has moved too far away from conservatism. Do you think the solution for the SPD is to move even farther away from the life reality of people?
When people start these system discussions about radical change I don't know if they spend their entire life on a university campus. It's hard enough to convince people that immigration isn't dangerous and not messing with their lives and fixing small problems and getting them to support moderate social programs. If you think there's a hidden left-winger in everybody and you can change the world sorry you're not actually living in it. Most people don't support any sort of progressive politics. You are such a living conundrum for me, it's really fascinating. You are member of a political party yet you don't actually believe in politics. At all. You remind me of this guy who was saying, “in democracy you should only have the choice between liberal-conservatives and social-liberals”. Near the centre, the “circle of reason”; around, hords of populists, extremists, unrealistic, irresponsible dreamers. Nice mental map.
I have to understand. Is it because nazism happened that you think political passions can always lead to the dark side? Or is it some kind of protestant mentality related to predestination? Why this heavy fatalism.
You object to being called “conservative” yet all I get from you is TINA. Capitalism, globalization, neoliberalism? TINA. Facing the proposal of structural changes, you systematically have an “aversion to (political) risk” and you prioritize order/stability over the possible troubles which might stem from (attempting) change. How is that not the very definition of a conservative philosophy? You claim that conservatives are those who believe in natural orders and hierarchies: I fail to see how it doesn't fit you? Admittedly not on the cultural/moral/familial/religious plans, okay; you have no racist considerations, fine. But on the rest? How do you not naturalize the current social order, which by definition will disappear one day?
You would probably self-label yourself “progressist,” but what kind of social progress do you advocate? (This is a genuine question.)
You claim that “most people don't support any sort of progressive politics”, but don't you see that your discourse is self-defeating? “It won't work, so I won't even try”. Well, if you don't try, it sure won't work… All I read here is a theology of renunciation. You are right that the left is minority for now, but who is responsible for the cultural victory of the right those past decades? Those on the left who capitulated and became pale clones of the right bear a heavy responsibility. Ideas don't grow and spread on their own. Neoliberals were once minority. The far-right was once confidential. Now the first are hegemonic and they made the second return. Why would the left be forever condemned to the fringes?
When advocating for social transformation, you will indeed preach in the wilderness for a few years or decades before becoming “mainstream”. That's life? You claim that people don't want change. Perhaps. For now. But what about the future? Because your “irreversible” globalization under neoliberal flag, it's not stable at all, and it's not working either (ecologically and socially). Even the Grey Wall of Inertia might start rioting when savage cuts are applied to pensions because “sorry, we have to socialize a few hundreds of billions of capitalists losses again”. Maybe the upheaval is not for the immediate tomorrow, fine; but if you do not sow now, how will you reap when the circumstances line up better and “the opinion” is more ready for changes, if only because the disaster (again) happened? Not to mention that politics isn't a pure receptacle of social demands; there is a dialectic between the two, and political activity can make new problems emerge which were not conceptualized that way (or at all) before. Some political voluntarism is not forbidden. Instead you weave your own web of powerlessness, then you're left saying “sorry, we can't do anything” with a teary-eyed face.
I am wondering, when you will start doing politics again? When your so-called “undying order” dies from a terminal crisis in a few years? When half of Europe is struggling with fascist demons? When neonazis surpass you and Die Linke becomes the first left-wing party? What kind of catastrophic event would it take so that Nyxisto believes again in politics?
Crisis, conflicts, wars and various unreasonable-things-which-should-not-exist do happen all the time. Politics exist. Human collectivities are no calm sea. Trump happened, Brexit happened, the political systems are becoming unstable and/or collapsing a bit everywhere in West Europe. You claim “better depoliticization than Trump,” but isn't Trump the child of depoliticization? Now; there are two main thesis to explain the recent events and political recomposition:
(1) People are stupid and irrational, so they're unable to “vote right”: they have to be neutralized somehow, and it is best to keep the power in the hands of “pragmatic” technocrats/bureaucrats which will take “the right decisions”. This is a technical/mathematical conception of politics, in fact an anti-politics: an equation where there is only “one” solution, maybe two to introduce irrelevant nuances.
(2) Those events are the symptoms of a social order which routinely fails to integrate/satisfy increasing parts of the population, and people seize whatever is available to them, for better or worse, to ask for “change” and “something else” (because they don't agree with the general direction taken).
The (1) thesis leads to this:
+ Show Spoiler +
This is fine, our policies are fine, people are just never happy and ask too much. Enter Brecht.
The (2) thesis makes you wonder: how to offer a left-wing solution which conciliates democracy, human rights and fundamental liberties, public services and social rights, a new and much needed way to produce and consume, etc. all of this with more egalitarian social relations.
You ask me how you can sell your parents left-wing ideas. Well, you can start by asking them if 45 households possessing as much as 40 millions of people makes any sense to them?
+ Show Spoiler +
Everyone has an inner sense of justice, and things are now so grotesque that even right-wingers can line up behind basic tax reforms which don't even touch property or power of the capital. See, no need for “dirty collectivism”.
And to sell them ecological ideas: climate change is now widely recognized, and it is very easy to point out the responsibility of the capitalist mode of production and the corresponding consumerist society. The critique even already exists in the mainstream field, so how hard it is for the left to simply “ride” it. Or is the human civilization doomed to perish sitting on a mountain of useless commodities?
+ Show Spoiler +
“TWNA”?
|
On February 09 2018 20:34 warding wrote:Show nested quote +I also don't care too much about political crisis. Political crisis is a result of social-economic crisis, that is what we have to fear. The economy is still on life support of the central banks and as we have seen this week, the moment there is a rumour about this being taken away the markets plummet. The only reason this system is alive despite cannibalizing its consumpation base is by extending everyone's debt and I don't believe this can go on forever. I rather believe that in the next 2008 scenario we won't be equipped to deal with the repercussions. On what facts are these economic prophecies based upon? The economic fundamentals haven't been this good in over a decade. Stock market corrections don't necessarily mean there's an economic impact, it just means funds' appetites are changing. Private debt as % of GDP are actually looking significantly better in the EU (especially in risk countries, PT, ES, IT) compared to 2010. What reasons do you have to believe we're actually worse prepared for the next 2008?
All of what you are saying is under the condition of historically low central bank rates. If you can't get them up during the time of a strong economy, how are you ever going to react to a crisis? If you have no answer to that then monetarism is dead. What is the next alternative to this? Liberterian privatized money models? Helicopter money or the abolishment of cash to save monetarism? I believe we are jumping from one money model to the next, instead of dealing with the underlying problems with money and property. Which are not dealt with through socialism, but which you can't just ignore because a collective economy is shit too.
And the base problem of the eurozone, being bound by currency but without proper federal governance still remains. The US underwent the same history, trying to be a country without a federal budget. It didn't work out. You can't expect people to take responsibility for other people, their money and their services leaving the local structures. You either allow that and cushion the blow (the part that federal conservatives understand very well) or you can't have a common economy (the part that nationalist conservatives understand very well). Above all political conservativism that might be around, people expect not to be thrown under the bus in their personal lives. We are doing neither, which leades to beggar thy neighbour politics, and "take back control"-nationalism at the left and right, neither of which can work because the economies are too intervined.
And before I hear that argument that the SPD and Macron and whoever want common budgets... We are talking about 20% of GDP in the case of the US, not about going from 1% to 1.1% and "let's invest a little bit more into infrastructure".
|
|
|
|