Why aren't leftists (as far as I am aware) capitalising on the wave of populism spreading across Europe? Or even acknowledging the opportunity it presents as a vehicle for leftist politicians to gain power?
In the UK, for example, Corbyn is the current figurehead of the left. He has a great base and stands a non-zero chance of gaining power on his own. However, if he was to adopt reactionary social policies, of the type espoused by the populists, he would win in a landslide (If you disagree, I would really like to hear why you think so). The mainstream left (i.e, not you) seem to have this idea that such policies are incompatible with leftism - look at Stalin. Look at Juche. It's not only compatible, it is effective. What it's incompatible with is Liberalism, which is no longer useful to the left and must be rejected.
I think the people of Europe, in particular, are ready for change. They are open to leftist economic thought. It just needs to be paired with a rejection of liberalism, which is what they (rightly) blame for the predicament they currently find themselves in.
Isn't Wilders like part Indonesian or something? How do right wing autists go around that?
Jonathan Reed
Perhaps try reading an entire post and understanding it before replying, next time.
I don't know, and frankly, I don't care. The thought process of the Zig Forumsyp does not interest me.
Alexander Reed
They are cucked by Neoliberalism.
A 100% orthodox Bernie should have sperged out after "loosing" primaries, or rather accuse the Democratic Party of voter fraud before that. Why didn't he?
Jason Rogers
Because socdems in Europe have been helping neoliberals destroy everything for the past 20 years in the name of "compromise" and lesser evilism.
Evan Cook
No, he wouldn't. most Labour voters and even many Tories don't support social conservatism. The key to capitalising on populism is by providing a better explanation, i.e. "the reason why there aren't any jobs is because unemployment is an inherent feature of capitalism not because of immigrants" and things of that nature.
it's not compatible. the early Bolsheviks sent support to the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft which did trans surgeries. the first politician to speak out in favor of gay rights was August Bebel, a prominent German Marxist. Support right-deviationism just to win a few more seats in a bourgeois, capitalist government is unnecessary and contrary to the forward-motion of socialism in history.
Joshua Phillips
Because Bernie would have probably beaten Trump in a 1-on-1 election. To the powers that be (corporations, bourgeoisie, etc.) it didn't matter whether Clinton or Trumo won, as long as it wasn't Bernie.
Landon Jackson
What "reactionary social policies" are you even talking about? There may be a number of hardcore reactionaries openly advocating for "white sharia" and fascism but most of the modern right are just neocons and alt-lite types whose main tactic of gaining support is by fearmongering about how reactionary Muslims are. The main "liberal policies" that they obsess over are intersectional bullshit that nobody here likes anyway and are primarily pushed by corporate media.
Jace Richardson
...
Chase Roberts
Cause we cant The reason we dont have falc yet ,is that most leftist are autist that cant talk to the people Also poltards guess what…..nazism is not natural ,so europians would not vote just cause you said kill da jooz
Elijah Kelly
Well the rate changes from time to time I have never live in a poor getto the post Some of them are more educated than you Also are you claiming capitalism doez not create imigration ? tbh most migrant jobs are shit and the locals just dont want them
Jack Bailey
fuck off opportunist. nobody is sacrificing core values for appeasing to brainwashed proles.
Ayden Jackson
Because, people who like to be lied to end up surrounded by liars with secret intents. A willingness to embrace the many caveats of cruelty the right wing populace movement is using to gain political advantage is a stain that won't wash off. Because, so many Republicans and Socialists (strangely) are willing to endorse their merciless desire to persecute undesirables for a political boost they sow their own destruction.
1st) Conservative parties have the lions share of the modern populist (AKA fascist) movements support. It's not enough to give them majority acquiescence and is in fact causing abandomemt of their parties by some of the most reliable parties to the neoliberals.
2nd) The Nazbols whom did emerge and forsook progressives due to a completely misguided thought process that Trump accelerationism and noninterventionalism would lead to a communist revolution by militias only weakened the socialist movement. The progressives seeing they will receive no support from hard leftists join forces with Democrats to stem the tide of populist (AKA fascist) cruelty. They are put in a corner and feel it's more urgent to stop a holocaust-tier cult than to waste time debating through various Nazbol tone arguments, whataboutism and accelerationism memes. In the end they isolate themselves into the tiniest minority whom are farther from majority acquiescance than the neonazis.
3rd) Finally, this strengthens the enemy you've picked to hate. The statists and neoliberals. The left having fully embraced cruel caveats, ludicrous assumptions about Trump, hardline non negotiables, anti alliances with willing potential allies and flirted with Nazism they sacrificed their strongest pieces for weak strategic valued phyrric victories. The only victory was truly one of self righteousness enjoyed among themselves. The right having nothing nothing but cruelties replaced with cruel caveats, and embracing Alex Jonesism destroyed the needle thin majorities which gave them
In the end. The merciless quest for the hegemony against their archenemy the neoliberals… which has been fought by alienating every perceivement a neoliberals ally (whether truly an ally or not) has strengthened neoliberalism and statism 10 fold.
The ring of power you seek has a will of it's own, and moves like the one you described can be compared to Frodo putting on the ring whilst in front of a Nazghul.
Dutch right wingers are not white nationalists. Indo people are from the colonies, hence they are dutch. So too are people who migrated from suriname, the molukkers and people the the dutch Caribbean.
Bentley Wilson
Actually caring about poor workers and vulnerable classes, and pointing out those who actually exploit them such as oligarchs and aristocrats is LITERALLY the best path moving forward over the next 10 years. (as opposed to bitter infighting and purity elitism)
The callous card only works after an extended period of caring too much about issues such as LGBT suicide. Not after an extended period of callousness.
They'll surely make a few more wins off callousness in the next year or two, but they might as well be devestating losses. The novelty of the little Trumps popping up here and there will fade most quickly within their cult ranks. The amount of dark money, natural hostility, and support from decent people pouring into anti-Trump like movements is unprecedented.
Charles Reyes
Kek she left the AfD like stright after the election. Also we are, pic related.
centrism is more popular, it is a sign of disinterest in politics just as much as populism is
Justin Rivera
no.
Adam Bennett
As a euro I really want this meme to die. American pundits think they're clever for using the word. You know what Zizek said about Macron and Le Pen being two sides of the same coin? I'd say it goes even further than some neoliberal-reactionary dialectic. Neoliberals enable these reactionaries ""on purpose"". They give exposure, concessions and legitimacy and coin the term "populism" for the reactionaries who are just one inch to the right of the neoliberal establishment. I'm pretty sure these reactionaries didn't even refer to themselves as "populists" before neoliberals did. Neoliberals intentionally present reactionaries as their main opponent and themselves as the only alternative to them. Even the most lukewarm socdem gets excluded in this model of "moderates vs populists".
on purpose was supposed to be bold but I forget how 8ch formatting works
Adam Foster
Maybe Thierry Baudet would've been a better choice. I feel like, if Wilders represents a "traditional" far-right, Baudet is the equivalent of the alt-right. Lmao. don't forget to sage when posting ITT
What's the point? Nobody cares about gays, abortion, euthanasia, etc. anymore. Those battles have been fought and won by the "progressives" society wide, no votes to be gotten there. Though I suppose what you really meant to say was throw a bone to the racists out there.
Would prefer not to.
Nathan Fisher
Corbyn couldn't keep his current support base amongst the young, ethnic minority voters & middle aged liberals who hate the Tories because of Brexit if he started using UKIP-lite rhetoric. It's also unclear why exactly those voters would opt for a party which obviously doesn't believe in social conservatism compared to one that does (i.e. the Tories or UKIP).
Lincoln Miller
Very true. The left should learn to present itself as the alternative to this dynamic. The neoliberal establishment is hypocritical as fuck, and while the "populists" are correct in identifying this, their solutions are backwards as fuck. A lot of people would be receptive to that message.
You have to use a triple ' on both sides. Like this.
Nathaniel King
Because they haven't read ( or understand) Cockshott.
Gabriel Jones
no nobody cares. Liberals, reactionries, conservatives and all the others keep jerking themselves off with their dumbass social policies of "kill the gays lol" "no don't kill the gays jej" non fucking stop, because that's the only thing that sets them apart. When it comes to economic and foreign policy they think like a fucking hivemind, progressively making the world a worse and worse place to live in. The left should keep their focus on sound economic policy. Whining about immigrants and gay people gets you votes, actually discussing econmics and presenting an alternative to neoliberalism, on the other hand creates a concious working class who will actually stand up to protect themselves.
None of these "populists" will change anything because they don't want to. That's not their end goal. Their end goal is to fill their own pockets by whatever means necessary. They'll cry about "muh immigrants" until they get in power, than they'll hand out tax cuts to their supporters and fill the pockets of their porky friends who will feed them for the rest of their lives. You'll fucking see, the new italian governent will do fucking nothing to disrupt the status quo, because it's not profitable. Mark my fucking words.
Aaron Lewis
You're mostly correct. I'm certainly not indifferent to these social themes but they're really fucking minor compared to the economic / structural problems of our society. Nevertheless, I believe there's value in using these topics as a stepping-stone towards real discussion. You feel strongly about helping the migrants? Realize then that they are the privileged minority that could spare the money to migrate. You want to keep migrants out of the west? Then consider what's causing these people to migrate, and what we can do to end that.
Julian Butler
because populism is fickle as fuck, and is always chasing after the latest flight of fancy.
Joshua Allen
No he wouldn't? He would lose his original base. Even if he out-UKIP UKIP, that is like 14% of the votes
Adrian Allen
why hello fellow leftist
William Clark
You're the CPGb ML autist, aren't you?
Oliver Flores
Yes, it can work, contrary to what some lolbert market fetishist may say, but that doesn't mean it should be done. It's self-defeating, ignorant of historical context (the USSR was only brutal because the de facto feudal monarchy was much worse), and in North Korea's case, a wanton disregard for basic facts, since they have renounced communist ideology and their "socialism" is founded on Korean ethnonationalism.
Reactionary populism is self-defeating because, at the very least, most populist voters are lumpens that only care about their identity politics and fear-driven mob mentality. They will immediately stop giving a shit about you as soon as they get their iron borders and deportations.
Christopher Reed
Also, you ignored the question of why he completely sold out to neoliberal dems after getting buttfucked by them.
Blake Walker
hey sup pol would you mind fucking off to whatever hole you oozed out of tia
Nathan Taylor
Because most leftists can't speak arabic
Jeremiah Nguyen
you're the liberal newfag retard, aren't you?
Nolan Lee
Dutch used to own Indonesia.
Charles Wright
Also I've been around since before bookchin was the hot thing, fight me faggot.
James Jones
a never ending flow of hostile low Autism Level shitskins has no impact on job availability or wages, nor do they burden social services
The data says they don't.Go ahead and blame them for shitty wages and crappy social services though.
Carter Diaz
he does, my dude
the difference is that right wing populism directly appeals to white identity, which is fundamentally incompatible with left wing populism for obvious reasons
Noah Perry
I'MMA LET YOU FINISH BUT WE NEED TO CHANGE OUR ENTIRE PLATFORM TO BE NOTHING BUT UNDISCIPLINED IDPOL AND CONFUSED SUPPORT FOR OPEN BORDERS/THE EU t. every succdem party in Europe (except maybe Labour)
