The Left Fails Yet Again
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
Zardnaar
Deity
In the OP I covered left wing populism which the NZ Labour party campaigned on.
The failed but still better than the right that caused a lot of problems in the first place.
By left or right I generally mean whatever party or parties and factions that get to world political power in your country.
Being generous if the faction can also influence policy.
Generally doesn't apply to the fringe elements, communists etc unless the communists or whatever have political representation in your countries government.
Basically it's because if they can't get into parliament they have already failed.
The right means something similar, in opposition to the left however it is defined in your countries politics.
Big reasons I think they fail a lot is they have trouble appealing to the average voter, party long time loyalists with a lack of charisma get thrown up as candidates, and general disorganization and factionalism.
The failed but still better than the right that caused a lot of problems in the first place.
By left or right I generally mean whatever party or parties and factions that get to world political power in your country.
Being generous if the faction can also influence policy.
Generally doesn't apply to the fringe elements, communists etc unless the communists or whatever have political representation in your countries government.
Basically it's because if they can't get into parliament they have already failed.
The right means something similar, in opposition to the left however it is defined in your countries politics.
Big reasons I think they fail a lot is they have trouble appealing to the average voter, party long time loyalists with a lack of charisma get thrown up as candidates, and general disorganization and factionalism.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,023
I think you're the one whose failed, here. Failed to make any rational, coherent sense in your arguments. Here, and in your bizarre one about "likelier assaults" in @Lemon Merchant's LGBTQ small town thread, and a few others, and certainly on the "I'm not a Fascist, but I think they're points are all valid and they got into power in the '20's and '30's for very good - but I don't empathize with them at all," posts much earlier on. You need to work on that rambling, self-contradictory, and nonsensical style that often outright ignores the points your responding to and seems to be answering completely different questions than you claim to be answering, but getting impatient and annoyed when your opaque statements are not "obvious" to others. I mean this as constructive criticism, not a personal attack.
"The Demon in Liberalism
by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
July 14, 2019
http://www.danielpipes.org/18947/th...ail&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-b961410d77-33664049
"Why has Sweden become the North Korea of Europe?" That's what a Dane semi-facetiously asked Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks at a conference I attended in 2014. Vilks unconvincingly muttered about Swedes' partiality for consensus.
Lars Vilks, Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders and Daniel Pipes, Parliament, Copenhagen, Nov. 2, 2014.
Now, along comes Ryszard Legutko, a Polish professor of philosophy and leading politician, with a better answer. His book, translated by Teresa Adelson, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies (Encounter), methodically shows the surprising but substantial similarities between Soviet-style communism and modern liberalism as defined by Sweden or the European Union or Barack Obama.
(continued)"
Danial Pipes point out a few of the similarities mention in Adelson's book like "... later, with the overthrow of the Soviet Bloch, he watched liberals warmly welcome communists, but not their anti-communist opponents. Why so?"
And so it goes.
They are registered Democrats and tend to donate to leftist causes and candidates. That makes them leftists.
Saying they aren't is like saying the Soviet Union wasn't communist simply because it didn't live up to your idealist interpretation of communism.
I'd call it tithing. Maintaining the appearance of being a good person, while your companies are unfairly competing in increasingly relevant markets to gain a monopoly and destroy regional competitors. It's like the nobleman going to church and appearing a good Christian, while after that he goes to the stable with the peasant's daughter.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
Hitler's NSDAP was also socialist by name, included social programs, yet not a single credible historian nor political scientist would say he is a leftist, he is clearly a rightist authoritarian. Similiarly, donating for a social cause or climate change does not make one a leftist. Neither does being a member of the Democrats, especially seeing as how the Democrats aren't a left-wing party, but rather a center-right party.
Both the Zuck and Bezos are clearly authoritarian personalities, stand against unions, against worker's rights, promote neoliberal globalist bullcrap in order to cheat on taxes, the list goes on ad infinitum. They're almost Randian in their behavior, and it genuinely doesn't get more right-wing than Ayn. they're the Alan Greenspans of the 21st century, the business reincarnation of Thatcherism with just enough catering to make people think they aren't sociopathic megalomaniacs. and you fell for it, too.
no, superficialities like party membership and some absolutely marginal donations mean absolutely zero. they're publicity stunts. judge people by their actions, not by what it says on some paper. the Soviet Union was communist, and Bezos is a sociopathic free market slavedriver par excellence.
Last edited:
I think there's just an easy rephrasing. "Bezos is left of the Republican Party". Sure, let's pretend that's true. But that doesn't mean people who're left of the Republican Party are 'leftist'.
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
"The Demon in Liberalism
by Daniel Pipes
Washington Times
July 14, 2019
http://www.danielpipes.org/18947/th...ail&utm_term=0_086cfd423c-b961410d77-33664049
"Why has Sweden become the North Korea of Europe?" That's what a Dane semi-facetiously asked Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks at a conference I attended in 2014. Vilks unconvincingly muttered about Swedes' partiality for consensus.
Lars Vilks, Lars Hedegaard, Geert Wilders and Daniel Pipes, Parliament, Copenhagen, Nov. 2, 2014.
Now, along comes Ryszard Legutko, a Polish professor of philosophy and leading politician, with a better answer. His book, translated by Teresa Adelson, The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies (Encounter), methodically shows the surprising but substantial similarities between Soviet-style communism and modern liberalism as defined by Sweden or the European Union or Barack Obama.
(continued)"
Danial Pipes point out a few of the similarities mention in Adelson's book like "... later, with the overthrow of the Soviet Bloch, he watched liberals warmly welcome communists, but not their anti-communist opponents. Why so?"
And so it goes.
ah yes, the respect Ryszard Legutko, the genius philosophy professor who argues that Christians are the most discriminated people on the planet and that Homophobia is not a problem, because it exists everywhere
In his book "Why I am Intolerant?" he describes minority groups "homosexuals, Africans, feminists" as "fashionable cultures" and their actions as "tyrannical", comments which have led to significant criticism.[8] He has also referenced Pride as “aggressive, anti-Christian and shocking[9]” as well as an “unnecessary, destructive experiment." Similarly, he has argued that homophobia is "a totally fictitious problem, it doesn't not exist anywhere" and goes on to claim that "Christians are the group that have been most discriminated against.[10]"
Sued in 2010 for violation of personal rights by calling students who demanded removal of Christian symbols from a public school “unruly brats spoiled by their parents”, he asked for a dismissal of the case based on his immunity as a member of European Parliament. In 2011 the court denied that request.[4] Plaintiffs are represented by an attorney on a pro-bono basis under the Precedential Cases Program of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights.[5]
not at all surprised that someone like you falls for the dumbest, most backwards intellectuals of the 21st century. I'm sure the book is great and "methodically rigorous", Geert Wilders surely gave it a great reception!
Last edited:
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,023
The Democratic Party of the United States is Centrist to Centre-Left, globally, except on certain social issues. There is no remote, credible jump to the Soviet Union there, except in slanderous, over-hyperbolic, ridiculous attack rhetoric.
Zardnaar
Deity
I would assume Bezo and co are socially liberal hence they support Democrats.
Over here the Democrats would be 3 parties. And we would have President Clinton II.
Over here the Democrats would be 3 parties. And we would have President Clinton II.
Last edited:
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,023
Though, other than the idea of tearing down the SOCIAL CLASS system and building an obstensibly meritocratic workers' state, the Soviets and their satellite parties were not really socially liberal or progressive to any significant degree.
When all you have is two parties for 300 million people, both parties are going to have people from all slices. You're going to find liberal republicans and racist democrats. They're not each a single monolith. I always laugh when people make such generalizations. Being a republican may make you more likely to be a racist but it isn't definitive proof.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,023
Actually, the United States has over 400-500 registered and active political parties at the Federal, State, Local, D.C., and External Territory and Commonwealth levels. The two main parties just dominate elections by means of a corrupt and rigged malfeasance and grip on the mechanisms of the electoral commissions (the only such commissions in the First World not legally mandated to be non-partisan), and thus force other parties to jump through ridiculous hoops and rules to register - even denying access outright in Oklahoma - while the two main parties are automatically and easily assumed ballot registry, even if the register grossly or breach many prerequisites, the Duopoly controls, through backroom deals, all media coverage of elections except the most fringe and marginal channels, the courts are beholden to party patronage and spoils appointments, and NEVER rule in favour of minor parties law suits against the flagrant abuses of electoral law and procedure, the FEC grant is also a huge advantage that's EXTREMELY hard to overcome, and other dirty and Mafia-style political tactics besides. The U.S. electoral system is ALMOST as crooked, rigged, and non-contested and non-free-and-fair as the "emerging democracies" the U.S. Department of State likes to scold - except, instead of predetermining who WILL win, like those other regimes do, they have the very close to as bad crimes of deciding, in and of themselves, not beholden to the voters at all, and with no consultation, who CANNOT win...
Zardnaar
Deity
Just as well I didn't mention the Soviets.
None of which impacts anything I said about the two majority parties.
Zardnaar
Deity
yung.carl.jung
Hey Bird! I'm Morose & Lugubrious
it is definitely true that the system is completely rigged against small parties, but otoh German politics has been dominated by the two "Volksparteien" (people's parties) for most of the post-war era, but in the last 20 or 30 years this has changed completely, because people are simply unwilling to support both the big parties and have showed that at the ballot. this years actually had a historically positive result for the greens, and an unprecendent loss of the bigger parties.
it is, to a significant degree, the fault of the American people that there are only two relevant parties. Americans love their political teamsports, and I see little to no active endeavors to try and change that, honestly. if anything political currents are moving in the opposite direction, I can imagine a party challenging the big 2 even less nowadays then perhaps 10 years ago. you hear this common mantra of "both parties are bad!", but few people are doing anything to combat that, and actually, few people mean it when they say that. they still have their team, they just don't want to be open about it.
it is, to a significant degree, the fault of the American people that there are only two relevant parties. Americans love their political teamsports, and I see little to no active endeavors to try and change that, honestly. if anything political currents are moving in the opposite direction, I can imagine a party challenging the big 2 even less nowadays then perhaps 10 years ago. you hear this common mantra of "both parties are bad!", but few people are doing anything to combat that, and actually, few people mean it when they say that. they still have their team, they just don't want to be open about it.
