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.
Much less worker abusing tyrants like Zuckerberg and Bezos
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.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.
They are registered Democrats and tend to donate to leftist causes and candidates. That makes them leftists.
"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 would assume Bezo and co are socially liberal hence they support Democrats.
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.
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.
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...
None of which impacts anything I said about the two majority parties.