You must log in or register to comment.
I’d like to take a moment to thank the enlightened centrists in here for tripping over themselves to prove the point. Bravo.
Wow, people aren’t actually living walking, walking, strawman characters and they’re speaking up about it. eNliGHteNeD cEnTRisT
He said, about the people making the supposed strawman a real boy 😂
You guys are still a bunch of redditors no matter how self congratulatory you are about getting away from it.
Deflect with all the baseless ad hominems you want, doesn’t make centrism any less of a shitshow 🤷
You guys are still a bunch of redditors no matter how self congratulatory you are about getting away from it.
The most redditor thing ever is to hate redditors. So congrats?
You guys are still a bunch of redditors
I also dislike that site but c’mon y’all sound like Kenny stepped on your shoelaces in the playground with that shit lol
The fucking irony, lol. This going beyond the pot calling the kettle back.
lol thank you for your service.
Dude, what’s the point? Do you think you can convince a disingenuous memer that the far left isn’t the social democrats? He’s already painted you as the soyjack so he has won. The pigeon’s knocked over the pieces and shit on the board, you can’t checkmate that. It’s like arguing with a teenager on Discord, you can’t beat their collection of 17 second videos designed to make it look like you’re dumb without actually saying why.
In fairness, the meme doesn’t work all that well in Europe. The “far left” statement is defines centre-left parties here; far left is usually about enforced wealth and income sharing, even if it means imprisoning or mass killings. See Marxist collectivisation efforts, for example.
I wrote a whole 3 paragraph reply to this, but it crashed and now I’m too lazy to write it again.
But yes, this. “Everyone getting UBI and universal healthcare” is not far left. Far left is firebombing pharmaceutical companies or forceable seizure of private property to distribute amongst others, or enforced working arrangements to bring about equality.
What most Americans on Lemmy call “far left”, I’d call “basic respect for your fellow man and the compassion to put others before yourself”.
We have an Overton window problem here
Yeah the furthest left American politician that has any sort of following is Bernie Sanders. And his basic ideas are let’s tax billionaires and give people healthcare. Not exactly revolutionary stuff.
it is in murica lol
Which is why it’s so crazy that people in America try the enlightened centrist thing. Our far left is center in many other countries.
Removed by mod
you mean excluded literal autocratic dictatorships?
that seems implied
For that matter, even “Western Europe” covers a lot. This argument tends to rest on the overall better social safety net policies of those countries. When it comes to gay marriage, trans rights, abortion, or even racism, many of those western European countries don’t survive the comparison looking quite so rosy.
Yes, so a reasonable centrist comes off as a little more left than right - but the failure of the Republican party to retain it’s moral center doesn’t make the left correct or sane in its thinking.
The key thing is getting out of party mentalities, and getting into well-reasoned positions by identifying and facing your own (personal) fears.
Emotions scale up into collective action - you get a bunch of angry, hateful republicans who haven’t dealt with their losses of power and moral authority well, and the whole organization becomes angry and hateful.
You get a bunch of idealistic, unrealistic thinkers who can’t help but see themselves as victims, yet can’t help but ride the Hate Train when anyone does something that dares to look like it’s something bad, or foes against current virtue signaling trends? …well, that organization also becomes avoidant, irrational, and hateful in its own way. It’s just, with all the avoidance, it doesn’t have to deny the hate - the people involved genuinely believe they’re “the his guys”.
Deal primarily with your oen issues, and utilize whatever power you personally have for the best good you can see. That makes me centrist.
Your “far left” are centre-right conservatives by civilized standards.
There are plenty of far left people on here, if violent rhetoric is a key indicator. E.g., run into more than a handful of people that clearly assume most white people are white devils that genocide people of color in their spare time and that need to die, who also use the language of social leftism when they’re not spewing hate.
Besides the Overton Window shifting to the right in the US, another problem is defining what is “left”. Does left mean open borders, or does it mean not using migrants as political pawns? Does left mean enforcing secularism in the public sphere, or does it mean bending over backwards with tolerance toward exclusivist minority religious groups who would not return the favor if they gained power? (Does it mean I have to learn how to uptalk and entirely repress myself to the point where I don’t even know what “me” is anymore and only a select few can take me seriously?)
Tis the bane of my existence that people in the America’s tar socialism and communism with the same brush ignoring their own history of market socialist policy creating long periods of stability. That McCarthism is one hell of a drug and they overdosing.
People who push UBI dont understand how economy and incentives work. Here in our EU country, we have universal healthcare and there is also some sort of UBI for a period of time if you were working previously, but lost your job or something. And its definitely not the saving grace people from US picturing it to be…
The public healtcare here is in rumbles and pre-colapse, you either wait for some essential treatments up to a week or you will pay up and go to a private ambulance anyway… The treatment you get are also basically on the bare necessary level. Most hospitals are buildings from soviet era, with minimal up-keeping and modernization… Many of those workers who work in state hospitals are under payed and overworked, so many of the younger ones just get up and go somewhere abroad where they are payed better for the same job. We have the most doctors post retirement age (65) still working (probably oldest average age in the whole world), due to qualified workers shortage, as they mostly leave. And thats the not so nice real picture, of what many of you from US want to implement.
Sure, first it will be nice and great to have free health care, but basically in every country they have it, the service quality slowly getting worse over the decades, as there is no incentive to modernize those hospitals that much, when its free after all, and you pay for it anyway, only that you pay for it with your taxes, so even the option to vote/choose with your wallet is removed from you…
UBI for a period of time is not UBI, it is unemployment insurance.
and having been in Germany/America (privileged, I know) a week? there are Americans waiting MONTHS for essential treatment, fuck Americans routinely die in the ER waiting room. or if they don’t have insurance, in front of the parking lot!
yes, the post soviet system is genuinely better than what the Americans have right now, unless your walthy, but those people don’t have these types of issues anywhere
But what are you trying to say at the end? I dont think the US doesn’t do any better either, what could be better than both of them?
Not sure what system we need, but a state owned universal healthcare system is definitely not it either…
Question though. Do you know about the budget of your country? Do you know if state healthcare consistently loses funding over time? Or does your country continue to invest in state healthcare and ensure it has everything it needs to function properly?
The healthcare budget for 2023 is 8.1 Billion Euros in our country, from that 6.8 B. are going directly on treating patients, according to our state site.
there is no incentive to modernize those hospitals that much, when its free after all, and you pay for it anyway
While that may be true to some extent, our “third-world country” healthcare is great once you get through the door. We have competent doctors (some of whom I personally know) who got a great education from our public universities. We also occasionally get modern equipment like the new state-of-the-art sample processing robotics lab that’s the size of an apartment. And while one of my relatives has been waiting on an affordable CT scan for some time, it’s only because they’re literally constructing the building. The system may be limping along, but it’s honestly not that bad.
. . . wait for some essential treatments up to a week . . .
Clearly, nobody in the US healthcare system has waited for an important appointment for several months. Nope, doesn’t happen.
Our system sucks ass even when you can pay for it.
When I saw any self-described leftist call for that level of violence, my gut instinct was that they’re a right wing neo-Nazi type trying to make leftists look bad.
I’m starting to really dislike the “left vs right” paradigm, because it’s so not enough to describe the variety of positions people hold, and it tends to lead into “us vs them” ways of thinking that are characteristic of fascism anyway.
About which centre-left parties in which countries are you thinking?
Here in Ireland, the Social Democrats. I’d throw Sinn Féin into the same category, but they are more populists than a genuine centre left party. SocDems in other countries in general tend to be the centre-left party that fits the “we want to provide for everyone’s basic needs” definition.
Sinn fein for me was always way more left than center.
I agree that social democrats or socialist democrats would fit in the definution given here. However for me in Germany our socialist democratic party went really neoliveral 20 years ago and strayed away from these goals. Now it is a fat left position.
Example: the current chancelor does too little to help with one the basic human needs there is: housing. So at least here centre-left is not trying to reach that.
So the difference between center left and far left is the approach, not the goal?
I’m no political scientist, but I think you are somewhat correct there. The end goal seems to be the old phrase, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The approach differs, though: cenrte-left is focusing on the later part of the sentence, so each according to his needs. Far-left focuses on the first part, from each according to his ability.
In practice, this translated to “We’ll force to work your arse off, and we’ll make it illegal for you to keep any merit-based reward for your labour” in the former Eastern Bloc countries. I’m familiar with this, as I grew up in one of those countries. It was illegal to be unemployed, and if you were skilled in any way, you could bet that you’d work long hours for miserable pay, because you’ve had the “ability”.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
If you use the word “idiot” you’ve done the same thing.
Ooh, and “demented”
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
“Broadly in support of trans people” but also forcing us to use changing rooms and toilets that also often put us in danger and lead many of us to be able to spend less time in public because the minute we need to pee someone is very likely going to yell at us, smack us (usually women) or stalk us to a secondary location (usually men) because people feel empowered to treat us all like perverts and make our safety based decisions of what the path of least resistance a question a matter of technicality…
What the heck does “broadly support” mean in this context? Ambivalence to one’s existence, quality of life issues and safety because one doesn’t want to bother isn’t support.
Removed by mod
You said centrists aren’t transphobic, and proceeded to list a bunch of transphobic views a centrist may hold. You’re kind of proving the point that they are obsessed with culture war BS. They will vote against trans rights if it makes them feel icky.
Removed by mod
You listed them as non-transphobic, nuanced points one might hold. My point was just that they are transphobic views. I didn’t say it was a view every centrist holds, but one a centrist MAY hold.
A lot of people who would otherwise say they respect trans people, would hold any of the transphobic views you listed and gladly vote against their interests.
Removed by mod
I have no idea how you came to this ridiculous conclusion.
Probably by talking to centrists, I’ve come to a similar conclusion. Every single centrist I’ve talked to in person either refuses to use preferred pronouns, are outwardly disgusted by the idea of a trans woman, dont want them using their preferred bathroom, or are afraid of “trans indoctrination” in school (they dont want trans people mentioned or talked about in any class context). Idk, i know anecdotes arent strong evidence, but based on my experience, i don’t think they pulled this conclusion from nowhere.
To be fair to the other commenter, the people who you had interactions with are actually Bona Fide, Shonuff Nazis. They claim to be “centrists” to avoid being ostracized by decent people.
I’m a bisexual centrist who’s been romantically involved with trans people, does that mean me too?
That’s… …kinda cringey.
deleted by creator
It’s not always hate, sometimes it’s fear too!
Kind of like how Republicans who aren’t filthy rich like to claim they’re “Libertarians.” No, you just don’t like be called an asshole for being an asshole. You ain’t fooling anybody.
Since the gif doesn’t work: “why would I hate someone weaker than myself? I only pity them”
Well fascists love that dichotmy: The enemy is both strong and weak. “By a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak."
They make the enemy seem strong so they can rally support to fight (see: genocide) them. And they make them out as weak so they can be held in contempt and shown that the fascists are truly the strongest and deserve to rule. This contradiction is not analyzed by those supporting it. And is similar to “Doublethink” from 1984.
We are talking about two different groups here my friend. But I guess calling someone nazi or fascist is just easier than actually using the brain.
Far right = faschist.
Nazi is just a flavor of faschist, kinda like how all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Bam!
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Far left (hexbear): nuke all the western whites
Everyone else: that’s fash lol
Far left (hexbear): that’s literally transphobic meltdown
deleted by creator
Idk mate, you’d have to ask a hexbear.
This is just cringe strawman bullshit mixed eith your wierd hate bones for hexbear
Did you just shame my boner for being rock hard?
Aren’t hexbear actual far right trolls roleplaying as what they believe leftists to be like, though…?
The magic is you can’t tell the difference between honest tankies and lying fascists.
boTh sIdEs aRe tHe SaMe!!!
Nah, they see the difference. They just view both as equally bad
Edit: To clarify, I am not defending them. I don’t think both sides are equally bad, I’m saying that’s what centrists see.
Because smugly choosing the midpoint between a brutal fascist autocracy and greater worker enfranchisement and equity makes more sense than just picking the good option.
They just view both as equally bad
They’re objectively wrong according to just about any metric you might care to examine.
But shareholder profits! Wont anyone think of the poor shareholders?
sharpens metaphoric guillotine made out of taxation and nationalization
I do, every day.
Exactly. This is why the Centrist camp bootlicks the Fascists every day.
deleted by creator
Could you point to a left-wing policy or regime that has led to political instability and concentration of political powers?
I ask because concepts like worker enfranchisement and more equitable wealth distribution seem to address those problems while unfettered capitalism exacerbates them. It’s also worth noting how much democracy is undermined in a system where economic power is tantamount to political power and wealth consolidation is the norm.
On the other hand, are you able to point to centrist policy that effectively reverses the rapidly declining democracy and freedom in say the US?
Regarding your first point, there is a whole Wikipedia article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_socialism?wprov=sfla1
And your second point is clear also in France (hits closer to home for me) where centrist Macron is dangerously flirting with authoritarianism and paving the way for the far-right…
Ah yes - authoritarian worker enfranchisement.
Thanks for being the perfect case study in centrists having no understanding of politics or economics.
As for the centrist Macron paving the way for far right authoritarianism? That doesn’t sound like much of a solution to enhancing democracy and freedom to me.
Well… I’m no centrist. Sorry if my point about Macron let you think I was happy about it.
I also think any idea can be used/usurped to oppress, paradoxically including leftism. Authoritarian socialism is unfortunately what most Americans associate with leftism.
The comment about Macron didn’t leave me thinking you had a positive impression of him, but thinking citing Stalin as left-wing did (incorrectly it seems).
Those regimes were absolutely founded in a corruption of leftist values, but wound up in a state that bore no resemblance to leftism. Yes, most Americans think the USSR and China are left-wing, but by just about any serious definition of the term, they’re wrong.
The issue is most of you tankies think socialism is something that magically will not lead to what is the CCP or USSR… you’re delusional to think that power doesn’t corrupt.
There’s more than one way to run the system. The Six nations managed a very communist society for 15,000 years before white man killed off 90% of them with diseases. They had a council of grandmothers, and their constitution (much of which the founding fathers blatantly plagiarized) started with the rule that no law could be made that didn’t directly benefit all of the next 7 generations of children. They weren’t Marxist or Trotskyist, but they were definitely communist/socialist. They barely had commerce, and lived with an excess of wealth even by today’s standards, their medical care was somewhat lacking, but they still had decent medicine all things considered.
Not OP but I think it’s fair to say Chairman Mao counts, Stalinist Russia counts, and no, I don’t think they’re particularly relevant to the modern conversation, I just think it’s important to recognize that extremist thinking isn’t sustainable regardless of its political bent.
There are strengths and weaknesses to any extremist view, and if a concerted effort can be mustered to try and take the good and leave the bad, it doesn’t really matter if one side is 90% evil and the other side of 90% good, if there is no capacity for self reflection and humility, then both sides will continue to suck to the extent that they suck and everyone will keep pointing fingers. So, railing against centrists as somehow weak and spineless is just outing oneself as unable or unwilling to evolve.
Happy to have that argument torn apart, I just can’t stand the current cuntscape of self-assured asshats who show up to any conversation with thirteen talking points about why they’re the second coming of truth and justice and the other side is a bunch of NAZIS!!1!
China and the USSR were authoritarian state capitalist - this isn’t compatible with leftist values of worker enfranchisement and equity.
I don’t care that they call themselves communist any more than the DPRK calls itself democratic - they’re lying, and you’d have to be a fool to trust either.
Self-reflection is necessary to have good political prescriptions, but calling Nazis scumbags or centrists weak doesn’t stop that Self-reflection in any meaningful way - you’d be a fool to seriously reflect on a statement from any idiot with a bad ideology and bad take.
Fair points
And good on you for living your stated values of introspection - I’ve got a hell of a lot of respect for that when it’s the easiest thing in the world to dig in your heels when some interntet dipshit like me disagrees with you.
You’re still demonstrating your inability to view as anything other than black and white issue by falsely setting it up as either supporting worker-enfranchisement (which of course sounds good) or not and not looking at any other nuance, as if the left is a single issue party only focused on workers rights and higher pay vs. complete and total political instability. Then trying to force people into making a choice in your false dilemma so you pretend to mentally and morally superior to them when they play along.
The absolute, bull-shit ridiculousness of what you’re saying is the exact reason many consider themselves to be centrist. It’s not because they lack the understanding of nuance and politics, it’s because YOU do.
What’s your definition of left wing, exactly?
Fuck me for pointing to the widely accepted core, defining traits of a political and economic system without acknowledging every possible stance on each incidental position around it I guess.
I asked for examples of the instability OP cited and a centrist policy - if you see that as a ridiculous notion devoid of the possibility of nuance and forcing you to make some kind of choice, that feels more like a you issue, my guy.
Feel free to reach out when you’re capable of engaging the point… like just giving examples or a better definition.
Post war consensus and the power of workers’ unions in Britain during the 1970s? Especially the Winter of Discontent in '78- '79.
The governments of Wilson and Callaghan were still a continuation of the Attlee socialist philosophy which gave public sector unions an immense amount of power in those days.
The general strikes called by the likes of Scarsgill were brutal for the country, I remember, I was there, culminating in pediatric nurses walking off the job and leaving child cancer patients unattended.
The trade unions did have legitimate grievances back then, their pay was paltry, and they hadn’t had an inflation adjusted wage increase in like 15 years. I totally support their strikes, but the government’s hands were tied, they simply had no money due to a confluence of factors, and eventually the whole country went bankrupt (like Greece) and had to be bailed out by the EU.
While it wasn’t pure socialism back then, Britain was still capitalist and deeply classist, it did basically destroy the country to have a lot of the social safety net and public building projects which people like Sanders and Corbyn champion today, along with very powerful unions. I’m a huge proponent of government building houses at a loss in order to give citizens a chance at affordable housing, but doing that for 20 years straight contributed massively to the UK going into financial bankruptcy in the 70s.
Also, giant workers’ unions can be a force for unbelievable evil, for example, the police union in the USA.
There were certainly negative outcomes from that, but I’m not sure it led to political instability, and a shift of power toward an under-represented class that represents the vast majority of the economy certainly wasn’t a concentration of power.
It was a crazy amount of political instability, a G7 nation went completely bankrupt and defaulted on its national debt, imagine the US doing that. And, the Winter of Discontent led to so much political instability that it completely destroyed an entire political party and ethos - British Attlee-style far left socialism. The Labour party was pretty much annihilated, and wouldn’t see power for 20 years, and even then, only because it was completely remade in Thatcher’s image as New Labour by Blair. It wouldn’t be until Jeremy Corbyn that anyone even remotely tried on those same policies with the electorate again, and he was soundly defeated.
The leftist, socialist style government of Attlee, Wilson, and Callaghan had their hearts in the right place with their policies: government built lots of housing at a huge loss in order to give the masses affordable housing, the government nationalised many industries and utilities (such as 100% ownership of all trains, water, electricity, coal mining, but also auto manufacturing and aerospace), all of these nationalised industries had huge and very powerful trade unions, taxation on the rich was massive (this is why all the famous movie stars and musicians like Mick Jagger famously left the UK and moved to the USA in the 70s. Only Oliver Reed remained). There was even a wealth tax. Government provided healthcare was established by Attlee.
Basically all of the things leftists like Sanders and AOC want today, we had them in 70s Britain, and it did lead to “political instability” because it led to national bankruptcy, and a huge brain drain as millions of young Britons went abroad to find opportunities (many went to Canada and Australia).
The only thing that has survived from those days is national healthcare, but it’s an utter catastrophe these days due to the slave labour wages it forces on its workers with no ability to strike (they technically can strike, but it doesn’t matter, because the government can force them to accept any new contract regardless, which they did in 2016).
but in the end it was thatcher gutting the system and an unwillingness of the British capitalist to actually be competitive with the rest of the world, take for example the martial fund, most European nations used the money with use stipulation that often included modernization and a repayment plan, Germany for example stall has many programs funded by the marshal fund because it acts as a loan, the UK instead, in all their wisdom just have it to rich people, in the belief that they would have of their own volition invested it.
Guess what didn’t happen? The problem with the UK was that capitalists don’t care about actually making anything better, they just care that the ratio of stuff they have is greater than the other person.
I’m not sure I understand, British capitalists were the same before, during, and after Thatcher. They weren’t allowed to be competitive prior to Thatcher because so many industries were nationalised, for example auto manufacturing and aerospace.
It was Thatcher who divested and deregulated all those industries, removing central government from being involved in any businesses such as trains, home building, aerospace, etc. Rather than be forced into deals with labour unions, British capitalists were now free to deal in the global market, and immediately began closing British factories because they were uncompetitive and the government was no longer forcing them to remain open or paying subsidies.
There’s the Portuguese government, mostly left wing for a long time and they’ve plunged us into an economical crisis and are ready to do it again. But they still are in power because the old folk doesn’t want to vote for anything they haven’t for the past century.
LOL! “Leftwing” - OMG!
We’re talking about the guys who are usually talking about “doing what’s good for businesses”, have spent 3 billion euros saving a failing private company (TAP, the airline) and now want to fully privatise it (which will yield less than half of that amount), over they years rigged the housing market in multiple ways to pump up a massive house price bubble (which now causes half the portuguese who get degrees to emigrate) and have cut funding for the National Health Service so hard that medical doctor have been leaving it in such large numbers that pregnancy services and ever emergency services are now regularly (and irregularly) closing in hospitals all over the country.
And don’t get me started on how big they are on subsiding well-connected companies and closing their eyes to their fiscal evasion (not just avoidance, actual evasion) like when the privatise electricity company sold a bunch of hydrogeneration dams without paying any of the due tax on the sale.
These guys are exactly the “centrists” being pointed out here, or in other words they’re neoliberals (hence the obcession with unconditional “supporting businesses” and privatisation) and they’re not even left of center by traditional political thinking (only in this day and age of an Overtoon Window so shifted to the right by late stage capitalism that “business supporting” and “privatising” are considered leftwing activities by the ignorant).
Unsurprisingly they and another party pretty much have a power duopoly and have held power together for almost 5 decades, making Portugal the shithole it is.
Technically speaking, PS is left wing, even though they are centrists on their policies.
But between them and the PSD, or even worse, the PCP, who are undoubtedly left wing, pick your poison.
Nah, the say of themselves as “leftwing” all the the while pursuing mainly a rightwing ideology in pretty much everything, most notably things like supporting any and all businesses (without a “only the ones positive for society” restriction), privatisation, lowering of regulation (most noteably by simply not applying the laws in the books) and so on.
I mean the only meaningful left-of-center policy they had in the last decade was raising the minimum wage, and that was more than offset by their treatment of the housing market as an “investment asset class” and pumping with several price-influencing measures (from given Golden Visas for 500k “investments in houses” and refusal to build public housing - in the country of Europe with the least public housing - to a very liberal attitude on turning housing into AirBnBs - which recently was found unconstitutional by the supreme court) a massive house price bubble that ate that minimum salary raise and then some (houses have been up about 12% a year, faster than even that minimum salary raise and way faster than average salary growth).
They were once consistently left of center, but nowadays they preach the same neoliberal “solutions” you’ll get from the likes of Merkel, only, funnilly enough, even under the CDU in Germany they actually had more and better regulations in such key markets as housing than the supposedly “left” PS has.
(I lived in both The Netherlands and Germany and the idea that the PS is “leftwing” in its policies is, when compared to what’s done in Northern Europe by even their righwing, pretty funny).
Sure, they’re leftwing by comparison with the US with their ultra-nationalism, religious nutcases and 2 centuries of power duopoly, but not by comparison with Northern Europe, which are the ones we should be emulating, not the socially backwards US and UK (I also lived in the latter).
But yeah, I agree that the choice of political parties in Portugal is horrible: not only does the mathematically rigged anti-democratic voting system (unlike, say, the Proportional Vote system that the Dutch have) creates a near power duopoly were people only really have to electable choices (the “lesser evil” and the “greater evil”, who switch periodically) but the party leadership suffers from the general problem in portuguese leadership (nepotism, cronyism, zero strategic thinking) only worse because they’re politicians.
(And don’t get me started on the PCP: I don’t think that putting Party first, always and above all else, is at all compatible with the leftwing principle of “The greatest good for the greatest number”, especially when - as we so clearly see on their take on the Russian Invasion of Ukraine - The Party is de facto nothing more than the arm of a specific foreign government and bunch of half a century old slogans).
Frankly, having returned to Portugal after 2 decades abroad, I have come to believe that in between the incoming desertification from Global Warming and the brain drain caused by house price inflation, low salaries and the shitiest managment culture and business class in Europe, the country is well on its way to be totally fucked withing a decade or two. Certainly making Tourism a keystone of the Portuguese Economy will never get the country to catch up with the sort of country in Europe where they bet on industries with high value adding (like Tech) - and to where many of those degree holding portuguese that emigrate end up working - simply because Tourism is mid-level in the value adding chain (more than agriculture and maybe low-tech low-scale industrial production) and has no real path to reach the levels of wealth creation per-worker as even modern industrial production can (the only high-value added kind of Tourism is that which caters for the rich, and that’s only a large enough market for nations the size of San Marino, not for a country of 10 million), so that condemns Portugal to be a just-about-developed country forever.
The problem is also thinking it’s a one dimensional issue (left or right) when in reality you can pick and choosing different policies. In the US the two party system has cemented the notion that you have to pick red or blue. You end up vilifying the “others” instead of trying to find commonalities. Extremism is inevitable and corrodes society.
This is also the source of a lot of the “they are the same to me”. The positions might be dissimilar but if someone considers both parties to be morally bankrupt and disinterested in serving the country then they’re still not going to rally behind one of them.
Looking at not just the US (which stands out by being extremelly bad in that regard) but also at other countries with matemathically-rigged-for-power-duopoly voting systems (basically everything with Electoral Circles rather than Proportional Vote), I’ve conclude that the problem of modern self-proclaimed “democracies” is actually a lack of democracy.
The whole normalization of the two-sides falacy in political thinking (which justifies the very anti-democratic de facto power duopoly as “normal” by hyper-simplifying incredibly complex social and economic situations into a mere 2 and only 2 options) then fans into all manner of disfunctional (brainless, even) ways of looking at society’s problems and how to manage a country, not to mention making politics a tribalist play (the whole “us vs them”) rather than a hard-nosed rational analysis of problems and solutions and evaluation managerial capability.
Meanwhile the whole “choosing of the lesser evil” that’s the main voting mode in such systems, leaves people displeased from the start (they’re literally voting for a party they don’t like, because the only other genuine option they have they dislike even more) and guarantees that things progressivelly get worse (because power just alternates between lesser evils, never actually getting better).
Centrists: How about a fair and balanced approach to oppressing LGBT+ people, banning books, teaching children lies about history, disenfranchising voters, separating families at the border, protecting the ultra-rich, maintaining systemic racism… have I left anything important out that we need a fair and balanced approach to?
You don’t know what a centrist is do you?
ok we’ll just kill half the LGBT, only burn the first half of the books, etc…
Do enlighten me.
I would really hate to live politically and economically unstable country of germany
Completely forgot how Germany is far left and doesn’t make it’s money from capitalism…
it is far left in the american context of it, Bernie would fit into the CDU
It’s also fun to watch extremists lie nonstop but not call eachother out.
I can’t say its fun watching centrists smugly default to “well you’re both wrong, extreme, and the same” without realising they’re incapable of pointing to solutions to any problem whatsoever, and can only treat the left and right as comparable because they have zero understanding of the political poles they’re sitting on the fence between.
Left right scale is for dummies
Only if you’re the kind of dummy that thinks tankies are left wing rather than authoritarian state capitalists.
That’s a contradiction, I just said I don’t categorize any of them as “left” or “right”, so how could that apply?
Sorry you were downvoted, political viewpoints are indeed way more nuanced that a single axis (even if I do use the binary terms upon it myself as useful shorthand occasionally)
Guess that’s what I get for phrasing it like that.
Absolute fact though, “left” to “right” is complete pseudoscience, people want to try to cram the entire subject of how humans reason out ideologies onto a single scale. It makes absolutely zero sense. Most people don’t have a single thing it measures in mind, and even if they do, it’s not the same thing as if you go and talk to someone else. It has more to do with how we’ve been corralled into polar group identities and fed division by politicians and media than anything to do with how ideologies actually work.
You can even see it in this thread. Some people are going with the “horseshoe” explanation (“oh, both extremes are authoritarian”) and some people say that the “left” “extreme” is completely anti-authoritarian. You people can’t even agree on what the scale measures in the first place, so why are you using it? “Well, the ideologies on the left side are leftist, while the ideologies on the right side are rightist.”
I prefer a horse shoe
Yep, after interacting with tankies you realise how much more sense it makes
Tankies aren’t left-wing, they are fascists with soviet aesthetics, if you look at their policies none of it is really left-wing
yes and the open part are the loons and tinfoil hatters
That stance isn’t really the ‘far’ left, the ‘far’ left doesn’t even have have a significant voice in US politics currently.
Yeah they do bro Bernie almost won bro The green party has a chance bro
That’s not centrists
That is absolutely not what the far left wants, the US is just that far right that reasonable outcomes are considered far left.
Yeah. That’s like center-left in reasonable countries.
Is your socialist country gonna be democratic? If so, what about the people that will vote for the capatalist party? What If the capatalist party gains popular support? Will socialism just step aside?
Is your capitalist country gonna be democratic? If so, what about the people that will vote for the socialist party? What If the socialist party gains popular support? Will capitalism just step aside?
What If the socialist party gains popular support? Will capitalism just step aside?
80% of South America: hahahahaha coups go brrrrrrrr
Just do it like the Romans, Only the riche really have the right to vote
That’s basically how it already is in the US.
While poor people officially have the right to vote, deliberate voter suppression makes it difficult to impossible for tens of millions of them and easy for anyone living in a sparsely populated, rich, and overwhelmingly white area, even letting some of them vote in country clubs.
Then even if they DO manage to vote, it’s largely symbolic since corruption in the form of several kinds of legal bribes is the norm rather than the exception, leading to policies favoring the rich to the point of almost disenfranchising all poor people and de facto disenfranchisement of everyone whose policy positions are to the left of “free market” myths.
Tl;Dr: it’s a de facto oligarchic kakistocracy ruled by rich people through pet politicians who are themselves much richer on average than the general population.
Rich, male and own property* if i remember correctly
And i don’t think the romans were the first nor the last to enforce those kinds of limits, rich men who owned property have been huge fans of that system throughout the ages
Actually, white and male wasn’t part of the requirements, In the roman system every family had a vote, along with every tribe (Rome saw them as family), now commonly the leader of the family was a man who served in the roman army, and most commonly white because of where the Romans were, but the southern Rome had a few black (what we would consider sub-Saharan Africans) and many Arab families (tribes), it was also not uncommon for the wife to become head of the family if the men were in the legion or dead
You say that like capitalists let countries become socialist when the people vote for it.
Hint: they don’t“Is your egalitarian country gonna be democratic? If so, what about people that will vote for the nazi party? What if the nazi party gains popular support? Will egalitarians just step aside?”
Theoretically you can still have far left with capitalism you know, it just needs the heavy regulation it never gets
Tf?
Capitalism is incompatible with the far left which is about abolishing hierarchy and living in a stateless classless moneyless society.Far left != communism
There is plenty of overlap, sure, but they are not entirely one and the same.
ah, but vanguardism would like a word with you (also a communist system would not inherently have no money, just not the ability to purchase capital with said money)
Far left: „Capital is the root of evil. Follow me, I know the true way!”
Far right: „Capital is the root of all prosperity. Follow me, I know the true way!”
People that care to learn from mistakes of others: „Yeah no, we learned the price of following those claiming to know the true way. Over and over again.”
Yeah no, we learned the price of following those claiming to know the true way.
So we’re just gonna follow the capitalists again. And again. And again.
Boy, you are ALL OVER this thread crying and sething. Go outside and touch grass, or go back to reddit, please.
I am not crying my friend. I am responding to the shitload of hate comments I get for telling the truth.
🤣🤣🤣
I can’t tell which direction this is posted from, but if you take the bird’s perspective (how you generally refer to limbs: the owner’s perspective) the top one is the left wing.
Propaganda is not viewed by the creator, it’s viewed by the viewer. Which means the upper wing is the right wing.
deleted by creator
The US has only two parties: the neoliberals that actively want to harm you, and the neoliberals that only pretend to care about you.
Far left and far right more or less do not exist in the US
A good chunk of the GOP are literal nazis, it doesn’t get more far-right that that.
But if you had to vote for one, which do you choose?
I’d choose the pretender, because they can’t do as crazy shit without fully blowing their cover. And every now and then they actually give you a token win.
deleted by creator
Non American here, you have no left wing parties. They’re far right and father right. Your far right party has like two centrists which get blocked from doing any good from the rest of the party.
deleted by creator
Lmao, what. You think people that want to ban books, ban trans people, ban abortions, and fucking overthrow Democratic governments aren’t far right? Are you mental?
If this isn’t far right, then what it is to you? An authoritarian committing mass murder?
Removed by mod
You’re right.
You’re gonna get downvoted into oblivion.
But not because you’re correct but because you’re flat out wrong
the far left are already opressing people who aren’t 100% on their side. Even if one criticizes their ideology only in the smallest part, or even dares to reject parts of it, one is hunted down with torches and pitchforks. Instead of accepting criticism, they call everyone a Nazi (which is a relativization of the term btw) so that they do not have to respond to the arguments. Anyone who is not in line is muzzled by force.
Are those all powerful leftists in the room with us now?
Or do you mean to equate people disagreeing with your shitty takes with oppression?
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I’ve deleted my Facebook account 10 years ago lol. but Thanks for the polemic
Who exactly is being oppressed? By what metric are they being oppressed?
the far left are already opressing people who aren’t 100% on their side.
Oh no. Someone told me I’m wrong! Help, help! I’m being oppressed!
one is hunted down with torches and pitchforks.
Not literally. Because that’s what the Nazis have been doing. But metaphorically this poster feels chased through the streets.
If you can show evidence of your claims, you might get literally anyone to give a shit. For example, my torches comment was about Charlottesville white supremacy rally. Your turn.
I’d be glad it would only be get told to be “wrong”.
The people who not 100% agree with the far left get publicly called names which leads to death threats, getting attacked in the streets, vandalism, and they lose their jobs because their employers get forced to fire them.
What far left realy mean: “we are gonna exterminate entire social groups because of their opinions and/or believes”
Which social groups are being referred to here, and how is ‘exterminate’ literally defined in this scenario?
The majority who is not far left. everyone who is not 100% on the side of the far left gets muzzled by force. It’s only a matter of time until they start use violence to force their ideology.
Edit: they already use violence, just not collectively
“The left will use violence in the future, even though it’s not happening now, while the right is using violence right now, so they’re basically the same.”
Yeah good one, enlightened centrist.
I meant that they will start collectively use violence, there already individuals who use it.
It’s funny how you people oversee the other arguments on purpose.
Jezus fuck if you really are German you absolutely should know better but you’ve really managed to dodge all of those educational bullets, hey? Almost impressive how fucking ignorant you are…
Honestly, it was stupid enough the first time around.
Going through a hundred years of industrialization and the first world war to then go with the fascists is pretty damning.
The communist party was stalinist of course, which is a real pity.
Ha, actually a nice parallel with the current Linke throwing away their chance at redefining themselves in the face of Russian’s war mongering and choosing instead to lick Putins boots.
Depressing
Wagenknecht, the Putin wisperer
The only bullet I luckily dodged was the far left propaganda. The far left call everyone who they don’t like nazi and collectively report them until they get banned from socialmedia platform XY.
Edit: and also I do know better, that’s the reason why I call out this BS Meme
have you considered that maybe the people calling Nazi aren’t inherently wrong?
why should I? I know what real nazis are and the inflationary usage of the term is relativizating it.
Nazism started small and grew, just as everything does. Use your head.
I’m confused. How does taking care of people translate to eradicating entire groups? Why do you think force is inevitable? Does that mean every political party will resort to force?
It’s only a matter of time until they start use violence to force their ideology.
So not exterminated. This is a slippery slope fallacy. You’re pissed about being banned on reddit or something. “I’m being muzzled!” Sorry but death threats and bigotry gets you banned on privately-owned platforms.
Nope
You’re right. This “meme” is shit and not even accurate.
no u
In Germany we say “der Klügere gibt nach” Which translates to “the wiser gives in” which is the reason why a dumb and loud minority is able to opress the majority now.
there is no great silent majority being oppressed in Germany, the only people arguing this are the literal fascists over in the AFD
The far left try to forcefully implement something called “gendern” into our language. It’s supposed to be a gender neutral speech if you speek about a person or multiple persons. (we already have gender neutral terms)
About 74% of the population either rejects it completely or at least critizise it. There is a far left foundation (which is ironically paid by tax money) called “Amadeo Antonio Stiftung” which tries to influence the government to make it illegal that people don’t use their stupid terms.
just for the lolz: the “Amadeo Antonio Stiftung” was founded by an ex-Stasi employee
Edit: I do know what you are trying to do. I am not a supporter/voter of the AfD. I voted and will continue to vote for die PARTEI which is a left wing party :)
(we already have gender-neutral terms) these gender-neutral terms are used to objectify something/someone, literally. And the attempt to remove gender when describing groups of people is for inclusivity, while I agree that many of the proposed solutions are silly, language is a living thing that does change with time, so we will see what actually gets adopted.
as for Amadeo Antonio Stiftung, do you know what they actually do, or do you just repeat shit you hear on social media? even if they are a group of tankies, it’s not like anyone outside “die Linke” actually follows their demands, I would be more worried about the fact that seemingly all CDU appointed verfasungschutz heads keep strong ties to openly Neo-Nazi organizations
We have the generic masculine which is considered gender neutral.
For the AAS: you are talking alot of bullshit. The family ministery has a tight bond to the AAS and also provided the foundations with millions of tax money. Dunno if you are German yourself but the AAS got alot of attack lately because of their bullshit.
We have the generic masculine which is considered gender neutral.
Honest question. Why not use the actual neutral term?
Haven’t you made enough comments in this thread crying about nothing?
I am just responding lol
