The French elections just happened and the far left scored an absolute landslide
YES! Let's hope similar results happen in America next.
36-40, F
View 10 more replies »
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 I have to say yours is the first time I have seen anyone define "neoliberalsim".
Such words are so often bandied about so loosely that determining what they mean - or more accurately what the users mean - is never easy.
The problem with your last paragraph there is that it is self-contradictory and does not allow for a wide spread of ideology. I would define as "extreme", one that allows only its own dogma.
When administering a modern, democratic society the original ideas of doing so merely by Right or Left dogma are increasingly untenable, because such rigidity excludes consensus and choosing the better ideas from each.
This erosion of definite L-R dogma at least in UK politics may be why it is often hard to differentiate between Labour and Conservative now. Also perhaps why many (not all) voters are more likely to pick the party they think will prove the best / least-worst of the bunch, instead of blind loyalty and weak " my ancestors always voted that way" excuses.
In other countries the respective dogma seems developing in both L and R ways, towards more hard-line interpretations. The rise of one probably encourages a corresponding rise in the other; but it is very uneven and will be specific to country.
At least we can be grateful we live in a country that allows such a wide difference of interpretation of ideologies, including agreeing with some aspects of both (all?) "sides" rather than just accepting one and rejecting the other by blind label. In a fairly civilised way, too.
(I don't know how my parents and grand-parents voted. In old-fashioned terms we were a mix of what some might call "middle-class and "working-class" backgrounds, showing the fallibility of such ideas. I regard any "working-class employee" is that by being employed irrespective of work, rank and pay; and campaign slogans like "hard-working families" therefore largely meaningless.)
Such words are so often bandied about so loosely that determining what they mean - or more accurately what the users mean - is never easy.
The problem with your last paragraph there is that it is self-contradictory and does not allow for a wide spread of ideology. I would define as "extreme", one that allows only its own dogma.
When administering a modern, democratic society the original ideas of doing so merely by Right or Left dogma are increasingly untenable, because such rigidity excludes consensus and choosing the better ideas from each.
This erosion of definite L-R dogma at least in UK politics may be why it is often hard to differentiate between Labour and Conservative now. Also perhaps why many (not all) voters are more likely to pick the party they think will prove the best / least-worst of the bunch, instead of blind loyalty and weak " my ancestors always voted that way" excuses.
In other countries the respective dogma seems developing in both L and R ways, towards more hard-line interpretations. The rise of one probably encourages a corresponding rise in the other; but it is very uneven and will be specific to country.
At least we can be grateful we live in a country that allows such a wide difference of interpretation of ideologies, including agreeing with some aspects of both (all?) "sides" rather than just accepting one and rejecting the other by blind label. In a fairly civilised way, too.
(I don't know how my parents and grand-parents voted. In old-fashioned terms we were a mix of what some might call "middle-class and "working-class" backgrounds, showing the fallibility of such ideas. I regard any "working-class employee" is that by being employed irrespective of work, rank and pay; and campaign slogans like "hard-working families" therefore largely meaningless.)
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
@ArishMell I gave you the simple definition of neoliberalism. I can give a detailed one but it would take time. It's not a catch all term for things I don't like but something with specific meaning.
I'm not interested in dogma and I think it's quite right to question people (as you have with me) to see if they can justify opinions with facts and reasoning. I certainly don't hold the views I do out of fashion but because it's logically consistent with the values I have.
I would say that centrism can have its own dogma: The belief that the truth must always lay in the middle of two equal opposites. The overton window changes and is different in different countries. Also, things such as media bias tilt the scales a certain way. It's possible that those in the middle of a given debate might have the right answers but it's certainly not inevitable
I'm not interested in dogma and I think it's quite right to question people (as you have with me) to see if they can justify opinions with facts and reasoning. I certainly don't hold the views I do out of fashion but because it's logically consistent with the values I have.
I would say that centrism can have its own dogma: The belief that the truth must always lay in the middle of two equal opposites. The overton window changes and is different in different countries. Also, things such as media bias tilt the scales a certain way. It's possible that those in the middle of a given debate might have the right answers but it's certainly not inevitable
MartinII · 70-79, M
@Burnley123 There are lots of explanations for that, but here are three. First, there was a general enthusiasm for radical change, after the war and what had gone before, which has never been repeated. Second, Attlee managed to distance himself personally from the most radical actions of his government. Third, and I think most important, Attlee was universally accepted as a patriot, having played a distinguished role in the war cabinet and having an outstanding and patriotic Foreign Secretary in Bevin. Corbyn, by contrast, was regarded by many as a traitor.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
I don't think anyone wants the "far-Left" any more than the "far-Right".
The "landslide" you claim was not for any one party, but for a mixture of parties who all oppose the National Rally although rivals among themselves. It defeated the National Rally but it's still a messy result.
America does not have a "far-Left" in any significant way. There may be a few candidates or minor parties who are strongly socialist but generally that country's left-Right spectrum seems more like the Centre - Right spectrum in Europe. It's as if many Americans are still as frightened as the McArthy era was, of anything thought the slightest bit "socialist".
Though it is very hard to define just where anyone is these days, in democracies that have the luxury of choice. The "Centre" seems continually sliding about, and some parties are hard to differentiate from those who were originally almost polar opposites- like the Conservatives and Labour in the UK
.
What is clear is that the so-called "far-Right" parties (if that description is anything more than a cliche of convenience) like France's National Rally, are gaining a lot of support. That tends to lead to more support for their opponents of similar strength of feeling, so encouraging both "far" ends of the spectrum.
If the "far-Left" has not been as popular in Europe as its "far-Right" perhaps it is due to more recent memories of the former rather than latter at its extreme.
What is less clear is why the main parties, Left or Right, seem not to address what it is that leads to the more extreme parties, of either wing, gaining votes.
The "landslide" you claim was not for any one party, but for a mixture of parties who all oppose the National Rally although rivals among themselves. It defeated the National Rally but it's still a messy result.
America does not have a "far-Left" in any significant way. There may be a few candidates or minor parties who are strongly socialist but generally that country's left-Right spectrum seems more like the Centre - Right spectrum in Europe. It's as if many Americans are still as frightened as the McArthy era was, of anything thought the slightest bit "socialist".
Though it is very hard to define just where anyone is these days, in democracies that have the luxury of choice. The "Centre" seems continually sliding about, and some parties are hard to differentiate from those who were originally almost polar opposites- like the Conservatives and Labour in the UK
.
What is clear is that the so-called "far-Right" parties (if that description is anything more than a cliche of convenience) like France's National Rally, are gaining a lot of support. That tends to lead to more support for their opponents of similar strength of feeling, so encouraging both "far" ends of the spectrum.
If the "far-Left" has not been as popular in Europe as its "far-Right" perhaps it is due to more recent memories of the former rather than latter at its extreme.
What is less clear is why the main parties, Left or Right, seem not to address what it is that leads to the more extreme parties, of either wing, gaining votes.
OldBrit · 61-69, M
It's interesting the use of "socialist" in 2024.
My grandad was a true 1930s and 40s socialist. He would not recognise the current UK Labour Party as socialist at all. Slight right of Central by his old definition I'd place it. Look at the manifesto pledges most old Conservative stuff. It's just that in the UK the Conservative Party has moved more right in the last 25 years. Labour has too to fill where they were. Our Liberal Democrats are more left than Labour now and the Green party possibly closest to a mainstream socialist party.
Funny that actually if you look at USA it is more socialist in government action than UK governments have been since the 70s. Biden is giving out over $1.5 trillion to boost the economy in a state interventionist way you'd never see here in the UK under our Labour government. That's much more "socialist" by the Engels etc definitions.
My grandad was a true 1930s and 40s socialist. He would not recognise the current UK Labour Party as socialist at all. Slight right of Central by his old definition I'd place it. Look at the manifesto pledges most old Conservative stuff. It's just that in the UK the Conservative Party has moved more right in the last 25 years. Labour has too to fill where they were. Our Liberal Democrats are more left than Labour now and the Green party possibly closest to a mainstream socialist party.
Funny that actually if you look at USA it is more socialist in government action than UK governments have been since the 70s. Biden is giving out over $1.5 trillion to boost the economy in a state interventionist way you'd never see here in the UK under our Labour government. That's much more "socialist" by the Engels etc definitions.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
I mean I would love for that to be true. The thing is the "victory" in France is not really what it seems. Sure the left won but we are talking about a coalition of leftist parties many of which can't agree on anything except "No to Le Pen." From an American perspective we are talking a group that includes everyone from the likes of Jill Stein, AOC, all the way to revolutionary communists.
Also they don't have enough seats to do anything without an alliance with the Macron neo liberal centrists. Interestingly a similar alliance in the 70-80s led to the French Communist Party going from a serious political force to being rendered largely irrelevant and replaced by left of centre liberals of the Socialist Party.
I mean I would love to see serious changes to the left but that also means being realistic about what happened here.
Also they don't have enough seats to do anything without an alliance with the Macron neo liberal centrists. Interestingly a similar alliance in the 70-80s led to the French Communist Party going from a serious political force to being rendered largely irrelevant and replaced by left of centre liberals of the Socialist Party.
I mean I would love to see serious changes to the left but that also means being realistic about what happened here.
Burnley123 · 41-45, M
It's a great result.
The New Popular Front is actually a coalition between the radical left and the centre left. Because the French socialist (centre left) had seen their support collapse in recent years, they needed this coalition to make themselves relevant.
The biggest group in the popular front is France Unbowed, led by Jean-Luc Melenchon. He's kind of like the French Bernie Sanders and I would support him if I lived there .
Elsewhere in Europe, the picture for the outright left is not great so I really hope the French are able to make this count.
The New Popular Front is actually a coalition between the radical left and the centre left. Because the French socialist (centre left) had seen their support collapse in recent years, they needed this coalition to make themselves relevant.
The biggest group in the popular front is France Unbowed, led by Jean-Luc Melenchon. He's kind of like the French Bernie Sanders and I would support him if I lived there .
Elsewhere in Europe, the picture for the outright left is not great so I really hope the French are able to make this count.
Picklebobble2 · 61-69, M
The French love a protest vote.
Which probably explains the round 1 decision.
But in general they know they have a pretty decent lifestyle and wouldn't want an extreme from either end of the political spectrum as a way of life.
Which probably explains the round 1 decision.
But in general they know they have a pretty decent lifestyle and wouldn't want an extreme from either end of the political spectrum as a way of life.
MartinII · 70-79, M
No they didn't! They got the largest share of seats, but far off a majority. No-one knows what will happen next, but insofar as it was a victory for the left I think you will find it was a Pyrrhic one.
senghenydd · M
I honestly believe when the French Government raised the retirement age they signed themselves out of office, there was rioting all over France the outcome was obvious.
In Britain we just accepted it, like we always do.
In Britain we just accepted it, like we always do.
Cierzo · M
Actually Le Pen's party got more votes than Macron and the far left, and the result of the elections was a hung parliament, so I wonder where you see the 'landslide'.
Too bad you cannot vote for far left in America, but you can always migrate to France to enjoy its policies. Just don't complain if you are robbed or molested,
Too bad you cannot vote for far left in America, but you can always migrate to France to enjoy its policies. Just don't complain if you are robbed or molested,
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
And then they did what the left-right always does: Riot.
Typical and predictable!
Typical and predictable!
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@ArishMell I posit- and the proof is demonstrably historical - that there is no fundamental difference between the left and the right. Both stand for absolutist, anarchist, tyrannical ideas. Their methods converge; their aims may be nominally different but the end results are the same. Hence "left-right".
in which country, and is it typical?
Name any country at any time in history where either the left or the right has come to power without violence.
Apparently the French authorities feared trouble, but I don't think it happened.
Paris was a battle ground. My colleague had to cut short his business trip and return. With difficulty.
The hazard of openly talking about the possibility, raises the risk of it being a self-fulfilling prophesy, by raising fear.
I'm talking about a certainty. And fear in this case is natural, and even essential.
in which country, and is it typical?
Name any country at any time in history where either the left or the right has come to power without violence.
Apparently the French authorities feared trouble, but I don't think it happened.
Paris was a battle ground. My colleague had to cut short his business trip and return. With difficulty.
The hazard of openly talking about the possibility, raises the risk of it being a self-fulfilling prophesy, by raising fear.
I'm talking about a certainty. And fear in this case is natural, and even essential.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@chilloutab2 Extreme and anti-democratic expressions of either ideology, yes, but that is not the case here.
This is not a matter of coups or revolutions but democratic elections between very different parties, in civilised ways. The worry is that a more strong-arm party might come to power on popular appeal, then increase its power by exagerrating and feeding on popular fears. This we see with ones like Orban and Erdogan; both exploiting feelings common among their citizens, but in bad ways for their own ends.
Your last paragraph rather reinforces my point.
This is not a matter of coups or revolutions but democratic elections between very different parties, in civilised ways. The worry is that a more strong-arm party might come to power on popular appeal, then increase its power by exagerrating and feeding on popular fears. This we see with ones like Orban and Erdogan; both exploiting feelings common among their citizens, but in bad ways for their own ends.
Your last paragraph rather reinforces my point.
chilloutab2 · 46-50, M
@ArishMell
The worry is that a more strong-arm party might come to power on popular appeal, then increase its power by exagerrating and feeding on popular fears. This we see with ones like Orban and Erdogan; both exploiting feelings common among their citizens, but in bad ways for their own ends.
This goes for both Le Pen and Mélenchon. Both are populist, pandering to, exploiting and exaggerating popular fears... and so ultimately potentially dangerous.
The worry is that a more strong-arm party might come to power on popular appeal, then increase its power by exagerrating and feeding on popular fears. This we see with ones like Orban and Erdogan; both exploiting feelings common among their citizens, but in bad ways for their own ends.
This goes for both Le Pen and Mélenchon. Both are populist, pandering to, exploiting and exaggerating popular fears... and so ultimately potentially dangerous.
lailaayelet · 26-30, F
"Let's hope similar results happen in America next."
Why?
Why?
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Far? Get real. Most people are leftists and there's nothing far from average going on when we win elections. But murkans and the British can't do politics.
GerOttman · 70-79, M
Ewww... Why? Can't you just move to France??