This is 100% how the Nazis got into power too. Hitler made all kinds of deals with the center-right, military, conservatives, and Hindenburg himself, by promising to be a bulwark against communism, unions, and the left in general. We all know how that movie ended.
Ended? You mean fled to Argentina, paperclipped to America and stayed quiet for a few decades before getting louder... And Louder... AND LOUDER.... AND LOUDER!!!!!
would someone enlighten the uninformed like me? thanks
The context given in the title: France had an election and the left union is the biggest group but still doesn't have a majority. The president is a liberal and seems to favor the Right over the Left
Would you be able to explain the difference between "left" and "liberal" in this context?
I'm not the same person, but I'll give it a go. It's confusing in part because liberal often means leftish leaning in the US but not elsewhere.
For example Democrat and liberal are pretty much interchangeable in US political discourse, but that's not what the word means. Liberalism is more of an economic strategy. In this sense Democrats and Republicans are both liberals. They are all conservative liberals. Does that sound like a contradiction? Only in modern US politics. One party is just more conservative socially and more economically liberal.
Left or Leftist is generally in conflict with liberal ideology, as a leftist believes in strong social safety nets like universal healthcare, universal basic income, etc. Depending on the type of leftist, this could mean things like a planned economy, workers owning the means of production, or even collectivist anarchy. Examples of leftists are Socialists and Communists.
This is why, to a leftist, it's so damn funny when a republican calls a democrat a radical leftist. No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.
Sorry for all the US centric shit on a thread about France but I think that's where the confusion usually comes from.
You're saying the party socializing healthcare is ideologically opposed to people who want socialized healthcare...?
He is saying:
Left is Bernie Sanders
the democrats are the center (leaning right)
the republican are the right.
From the rest of the world point of view: US politics is center right VS extreme right.
The large majority of democrats want progressive reform, so that's just wrong. There is a reason Bernie only caucuses with the Democrats.
The large majority of Democratic voters absolutely do. However the large majority of Democratic donors do not and are at odds with the voter base of the Democratic party.
User "Keep on Stalin" wants to villainize US Politicians by association, explicitly not vote history.
What? There is some conflicting information. On polls, the donors do poll more liberal, which you can see in the first link. Yet on actual policies, they are less supportive than voters, which you can see in the second link.
Oh I'm sorry, I guess you're changing your argument from Democrats being on the center-rogjt to Democrats being not left enough. Admittedly a much more reasonable argument.
But in order to not admit being wrong you're just shifting the goal post by saying left isn't actually left unless it's as left as your arbitrary placement on the spectrum, which is further than socialized healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, and higher minimum wages. Those are just Centrists.
I apologize for putting you on the spot like that. I'm sure it was very distressing. My bad.
I literally just corrected myself with sources, what do you want dude
No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.
That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.
That's fair. I'm not against strategic voting.
In most countries you need to be a party member to engage in internal party politics. The idea that the heneral public makes direct choices for private political organizations is, honestly, kind of weird.
But also, which states require you to be an actual card-carrying member to participate in the primary? I was under the impression that most merely required that you register with the electoral office as a party supporter.
Being a "registered X" is very different from being "a member of X". Members get to do things like go to convemtions where party policy is discussed and voted on. Members get to vie for party nomination. They're part of the internal machinery of the party.
Yhey're not just voters with a party banner.
OK, if you want to look at it that way, it's still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.
if someone doesn't agree with either party why should they vote? when someone refuses to vote for your party they are simple refusing, this does not mean they are voting for the other side. i really dislike this conflation people make.
here's a fun thought experiment. democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn't vote had actually voted democrats?
Stop thinking about it like you need to vote for someone to represent your views because that's NEVER how it worked. It's a tug of war, everytime you don't vote you're letting your side down.
Just because not everyone pulling with you agrees on where to stop pulling doesn't mean you get to drop the rope.
So third party are okay?
Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.
It's your local representative, as in he represents your area and his job is generally to bring more money to your area. They don't represent your political views. For that you need to pull your weight at the election to open up space for views more aligned with yours at the elected body level (example the house or senate for national elections). You might be surprised to hear this but MOST of politics is deciding what money to collect and where to spend it. A TINY percentage is what most people consider "political" stuff. When it comes to that, when you pull your weight you open up space for different views that are better aligned with how you think. It's not about how YOUR representative thinks, it's about how the entire house and Senate think. Your representative will generally be pushed to agree with the overall party position or risk being replaced.
If we all pulled our weight the elections would look like this. How many more progressives and leftists enter the ticket in this world? How many Bernie Sanders, AOCs and Ilhan Omars? Or whatever your political views are (scared to ask honestly)...
Pull your weight today, or drop the rope and be unrepresented for another round of elections.
You edited your comment from "so who represents me" to "third party okay". Third party is like attaching a new rope and pulling to the side. You're not doing much. Maybe better than nothing, but often not.
seems as if the United States electoral system has become systematized where using ones democratic right to not vote or vote third party is now an attack. in the UK where i am based we had a push to spoil ballot papers, this was a democratic protest against an unchanging system which many see as failing them. this election spoke for itself with the lowest voter turn out since 1918. how have we gone the Orwellion rout of framing democracy in such an undemocratic way.
either way good luck in your election i hope the Democrats neither the orange man gets in.
You're playing yourself.
It's almost universal in the west that the higher the voter turnout the more left the government. Just look at France, first round, typical low turnout: far right won. Second round hight turnout massive: leftist win.
Spoiling the ballot is just not voting. When I was young, I used to think that you could make a point by not voting, or by spoiling the ballot. By waiting until the perfect representative showed up. Then I saw elections where the winning party got 43% of the votes with 40% voter turnout. Then I realised that 17% of people just forced us into another garbage right wing government and that spoiling ballots wasn't even reported in the news AT ALL.
Vote EVERY TIME. It's a tug of war, the harder you pull the more the whole thing shifts to your side. Look at the right in the US, this situation was impossible a decade ago, but they kept voting and the window kept shifting. And now it's fucked up.
Don't let your side down just because some of the people pulling don't agree with you on where we should stop. Pull your weight, we can't accept fascism.
Like I said, we had the lowest voter turnout since 1918. We've been under a Conservative government for 17 years, and now we have a Labour government that's sticking to the same austerity measures—removing rent caps on social housing, increasing utility prices. Essentially, nothing has changed, and in some ways, things are getting worse.
I'm not a liberal so there isn't much rope for me to pull.
I want real change, so I organize with a socialist party. I've gone door-to-door with TUSC candidates in the run up to the general election, spoken at counter-demonstrations, shown up at pickets, and helped set up community outreach throughout my local area. Just last month, I attended an international meeting in Germany, so it’s not like I’m some ill-informed internet loony. I'm more than happy for people to vote how they like, and I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing so, but I also won’t use vapid slogans like “not voting is a vote for Trump.”
I never said don't vote for them. In fact in the US right now at the national level the only choice is to vote Democrat even if you hate them. It's harm reduction.
Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don't vote the candidates that you wouldn't have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.
Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.
democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn’t vote had actually voted democrats?
That's a different argument than what I was making. "Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins." related but not the same.
liberalism is a belief in free association / marketplace of ideas and is centrist on a global scale. the usa is generally right-leaning so the two major parties are the liberals (centrists) and the right wing
Think of liberals as centrists
The use of "liberal" has been taken by the right, from the neo-liberal they started with. Now they consider themselves the true liberals. It's the good ole 1984 newspeak strategy of taking the words out of their original meaning to make them lose their meaning, and their ideas behind.
I think that he is referring to "liberal" more in the sense of being in the political spectrum of economic liberal. Usually I see the difference between the US and EU definition of the term liberal: in the US it is a synonym of the left wing party or leaning, in EU is used for being liberal economic leaning and is different from being left party or left wing
Two french parties called "Renaissance Party (RE)" and "The Republicans (LR)" self identify as Liberal Policies as in parties of Personal Freedoms. RE is center and LR is Center-Right on the political spectrum.
all libs right now. The UK is doing the exact same with less party politicking
In the US we're skipping the whole locked up part entirely
Elaborate?
Macron is being corrupt by working with the worst of French society.
Macron is corrupted.
See also; British Columbia
Tell me you're from Alberta without telling me you're from Alberta...
Oh yeah, the lions have been out of the cage for a long time out there
Did I miss something in France? Last i checked the center and left-leaning parties formed an alliance to keep the right wing out of power.
The left alliance doesn't have the numbers to govern on their own, and Macron (the liberals) would rather join forces with conservatives.
Do you have a source or examples? I haven't heard anything about the french situation since the left and the liberals actually formed a coalition to stop the FP from winning.
The most voted party in the wide front coalition is LFI, earning more votes than Macron's party. Macron is refusing so far to name a president from the LFI, for the first time in the history of the 5th republic of France.
The Nouveau Front Populaire got 193 seats out of 577 at the national assembly. Despite winning the election, it's not enough to have an absolute majority. As for their alliance with the libs, it was just to prevent the fascist from gaining more seats (actuallyjust a matter of saving face for the presidential party), the libs had no will to take their alliance further than that, and were very clear about their unwillingness to accept any government proposed by NFP. Besides, when the dust settled, the "socialists" resumed their courting of the right, further weakening NFP.
The left leaning parties are liberals and the center are fascists, they're keeping real leftists out. None of the "left wing" parties in France are trying to start a revolution in the streets to take power. They're all too happy sitting there, just being in power... It's pathetic.
That's nothing new, but it's better than the center courting the literal neo fascist party which they are not doing.
I literally just told you how the comic applies.
Let me rephrase, the comic is incorrect in regard to the situation in France. The center and left are not courting the actual fascists in government. The center made a coalition with the leftists.
No they're right. The French Overton window may not be as fucked as the USian's, but their standard reformist left parties are still considered as filthy extremists while their center, Macron's party, is actually borderline fascistic.
That's blatantly wrong. There is a tradition in France for all parties to ally to prevent the fascists from accessing power, but that's only an election alliance. It barely worked for the last election : the left does vote against the fascists every time, but some liberals refused to stand back in favor of some left candidates, and liberal voters largely refused to vote for the left because of the anti-left propaganda. This lead to the fascists making a third of the assemblé nationale.
Now the president must choose a prime minister, but the left arrived first, and he refuses to let them get the power. So he waits for anyone to accept an alliance with the liberals which is not happening yet.
Predictions are going that he will end choosing a PM that is fascist compatible rather than letting the left have any power in the executive.
I am a french living in France, when did the center made a coalition with the leftists ? What are talking about ?? The center coalition has spent the last 7 years claiming "the left is just as bad as the fascist if not worse".
Did I miss a recent news ?
Shh, this is a lefty circle jerk thread.
You lost buddy? You need a grown-up?
I'm kidding of course. The average lefty can't find enough other lefties they agree with to make a circle jerk.
Wat?
All the left seems able to do is call everyone else a fascist and tell them they're all awful for not agreeing with their ideological purity obsessions.
We need to actually appeal to people sometimes, actually talk about difficult subjects that affect people rather than just aay they're horrible for not putting ideology above all else.
A few positive ideas that actually make people think it'll be better for them if the left is in power
many parties are active in this, the party i am a member of are having a push towards "fight bosses not migrants" we do need unity of the working class and calling working class people fascists will only push them deeper into their corners.
the other day i spoke to someone about politics, he complained of housing prices, stagnating wages then exclaimed "its socialism" bottom line: he isn't a fascist but where he gets his information from is fascist.
From the quick reading I did, others aren't willing to work with the left and would just take down the government if they formed it. Not sure if the left is unwilling to work with center, I guess so.
I got downvoted for suggesting the left try and talk about and improve areas people are concerned about, in think that kinda ahows why the left currently has problems getting others to want to work with them.
We need to actually appeal to people sometimes, actually talk about difficult subjects that affect people
One side wants to talk about housing, public pensions, public healthcare, public education, salaries, discrimination against women and minorities, and work/life balance.
The other side wants to talk about immigrants being bad and evil, and about how trans people in films are turning their children gay
So nice to see the anti-liberal rhetoric being turned up here now that Trump looks like he's in trouble.
Funny how all these leftists here magically manage to boost support for fascists by conflating liberals with actual fascists.
Oh fuck off lmao. This post explicitly said France and your immediate response is to pretend that the internet belongs to Americans. Get a grip.
...and maybe consider pressuring your party to consider its own policy of pandering to fascism (Kamala was at AIPAC the other day, despite their known election interference in support of Israel).
Not everything is a Trump conspiracy - mf couldn't even hide his ear for long enough to make it obvious that he was vastly overreacting about how much damage the bullet did.
Yes, she's an awful politician. On balance I really do hope she wins, but no doubt it'll be business as usual for America either way.
Meh, whether it's France or Germany or the US the supposed leftist are going to continue to do their thing to boost Trump. The Internet is global, people in the any of those countries see these posts has the same desired effect of attempting to suppress votes for liberals.
I want what you are smoking
This is a leftist community, if you don't like it join some "progressive" Liberal community where they're so focused on "harm reduction" that genocide becomes an acceptable tradeoff
You mean like "leftists" and Uyghurs?
Fascism and genocide is bad regardless of where it is, yes that includes China
Yeah it's the liberals, ignore the horseshoe
Horseshoe theory isn't real, Hitler and his fascists had to actively pretend to be Socialists to get votes - that's not "horseshoe theory" it's fascists actively lying.
Fascism defends corporations, capitalism, and the wealthy. It's "Capitalism's immune system". Hence it requires deception.
Socialism defends the workers and community, It's the Poor's, working class, and underprivileged's immune system... Then only in later or it's own abusive, incomplete, or corrupted forms can it be weilded as the party/Authoritarian's immune system. Only when it becomes a state based fascism is horseshoe theory credible.
It's the lack of democracy that is the difference. Democratic systems favour the majority, only when they fail is fascism produced. Nothing to do with Socialism (which requires a form of democracy where the proletariat majority is supposed to dictate what is to be done).
"Elite Panic" is an example of this. The wealthy minority are the status quo, the community is the rest of is.
It's when that majority ceases to get a say that socialism is dissolved and a state authoritarianism can take over. But under honest analysis, that's a new elite having taken over, NOT Socialism. It's Socialism in name only, state fascism or authoritarianism in actuality.
From Wikipedia:
**"Elite panic"*** is a term coined by Rutgers University researchers Caron Chess and Lee Clarke to describe the behavior of members of the elite during disaster events,[1] typically characterized by a fear of civil disorder and the shifting of focus away from disaster relief towards implementing measures of "command and control".[2]
Further research from Scott Bonn suggests that a cozy, mutually beneficial relationship between the news media and political elites plays a significant role in moral panic processes. He draws on prior studies to conclude that the news media and political elites ("especially presidents") work in tandem in the generation of moral panics and societal issues, thus constructing and crafting policy and public concern in relation to their own priorities.[3]
Wait, are you sarcastic or serious? Because to antifa it's well known from history that the liberal state is ineffectual in fighting fascism and doesn't mind flirting with fascists.
They're as serious as what you find when you scratch a liberal.
This is 100% how the Nazis got into power too. Hitler made all kinds of deals with the center-right, military, conservatives, and Hindenburg himself, by promising to be a bulwark against communism, unions, and the left in general. We all know how that movie ended.
Ended? You mean fled to Argentina, paperclipped to America and stayed quiet for a few decades before getting louder... And Louder... AND LOUDER.... AND LOUDER!!!!!
would someone enlighten the uninformed like me? thanks
The context given in the title: France had an election and the left union is the biggest group but still doesn't have a majority. The president is a liberal and seems to favor the Right over the Left
Would you be able to explain the difference between "left" and "liberal" in this context?
I'm not the same person, but I'll give it a go. It's confusing in part because liberal often means leftish leaning in the US but not elsewhere.
For example Democrat and liberal are pretty much interchangeable in US political discourse, but that's not what the word means. Liberalism is more of an economic strategy. In this sense Democrats and Republicans are both liberals. They are all conservative liberals. Does that sound like a contradiction? Only in modern US politics. One party is just more conservative socially and more economically liberal.
Left or Leftist is generally in conflict with liberal ideology, as a leftist believes in strong social safety nets like universal healthcare, universal basic income, etc. Depending on the type of leftist, this could mean things like a planned economy, workers owning the means of production, or even collectivist anarchy. Examples of leftists are Socialists and Communists.
This is why, to a leftist, it's so damn funny when a republican calls a democrat a radical leftist. No self respecting leftist would be a member of the democratic party.
Sorry for all the US centric shit on a thread about France but I think that's where the confusion usually comes from.
You're saying the party socializing healthcare is ideologically opposed to people who want socialized healthcare...?
He is saying:
Left is Bernie Sanders
the democrats are the center (leaning right)
the republican are the right.
From the rest of the world point of view: US politics is center right VS extreme right.
The large majority of democrats want progressive reform, so that's just wrong. There is a reason Bernie only caucuses with the Democrats.
The large majority of Democratic voters absolutely do. However the large majority of Democratic donors do not and are at odds with the voter base of the Democratic party.
User "Keep on Stalin" wants to villainize US Politicians by association, explicitly not vote history.
What? There is some conflicting information. On polls, the donors do poll more liberal, which you can see in the first link. Yet on actual policies, they are less supportive than voters, which you can see in the second link.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa001
https://www.demos.org/research/whose-voice-whose-choice-distorting-influence-political-donor-class-our-big-money
Oh I'm sorry, I guess you're changing your argument from Democrats being on the center-rogjt to Democrats being not left enough. Admittedly a much more reasonable argument.
But in order to not admit being wrong you're just shifting the goal post by saying left isn't actually left unless it's as left as your arbitrary placement on the spectrum, which is further than socialized healthcare, higher taxes on the rich, and higher minimum wages. Those are just Centrists.
I apologize for putting you on the spot like that. I'm sure it was very distressing. My bad.
I literally just corrected myself with sources, what do you want dude
What party is socializing healthcare?
That is such a stupid mindset. In many states you have to be a member of the party to vote in their primary. If you are not voting in any primary then you are letting people that you disagree with decide who will be in the candidate in the election. And considering that not voting is effectively voting for the candidate that you most disagree with, all the leftists that refuse to associate with the democratic party are effectively voting for the people they disagree with.
That's fair. I'm not against strategic voting.
In most countries you need to be a party member to engage in internal party politics. The idea that the heneral public makes direct choices for private political organizations is, honestly, kind of weird.
But also, which states require you to be an actual card-carrying member to participate in the primary? I was under the impression that most merely required that you register with the electoral office as a party supporter.
Being a "registered X" is very different from being "a member of X". Members get to do things like go to convemtions where party policy is discussed and voted on. Members get to vie for party nomination. They're part of the internal machinery of the party.
Yhey're not just voters with a party banner.
OK, if you want to look at it that way, it's still the same basic argument, refusing to participate in the party just effectively increases the representation of the people you disagree with.
if someone doesn't agree with either party why should they vote? when someone refuses to vote for your party they are simple refusing, this does not mean they are voting for the other side. i really dislike this conflation people make.
here's a fun thought experiment. democrats win this upcoming election, does this mean all the people who didn't vote had actually voted democrats?
Stop thinking about it like you need to vote for someone to represent your views because that's NEVER how it worked. It's a tug of war, everytime you don't vote you're letting your side down.
Just because not everyone pulling with you agrees on where to stop pulling doesn't mean you get to drop the rope.
So third party are okay?
Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.
It's your local representative, as in he represents your area and his job is generally to bring more money to your area. They don't represent your political views. For that you need to pull your weight at the election to open up space for views more aligned with yours at the elected body level (example the house or senate for national elections). You might be surprised to hear this but MOST of politics is deciding what money to collect and where to spend it. A TINY percentage is what most people consider "political" stuff. When it comes to that, when you pull your weight you open up space for different views that are better aligned with how you think. It's not about how YOUR representative thinks, it's about how the entire house and Senate think. Your representative will generally be pushed to agree with the overall party position or risk being replaced.
If we all pulled our weight the elections would look like this. How many more progressives and leftists enter the ticket in this world? How many Bernie Sanders, AOCs and Ilhan Omars? Or whatever your political views are (scared to ask honestly)...
Pull your weight today, or drop the rope and be unrepresented for another round of elections.
You edited your comment from "so who represents me" to "third party okay". Third party is like attaching a new rope and pulling to the side. You're not doing much. Maybe better than nothing, but often not.
seems as if the United States electoral system has become systematized where using ones democratic right to not vote or vote third party is now an attack. in the UK where i am based we had a push to spoil ballot papers, this was a democratic protest against an unchanging system which many see as failing them. this election spoke for itself with the lowest voter turn out since 1918. how have we gone the Orwellion rout of framing democracy in such an undemocratic way.
either way good luck in your election i hope the Democrats neither the orange man gets in.
You're playing yourself.
It's almost universal in the west that the higher the voter turnout the more left the government. Just look at France, first round, typical low turnout: far right won. Second round hight turnout massive: leftist win.
Spoiling the ballot is just not voting. When I was young, I used to think that you could make a point by not voting, or by spoiling the ballot. By waiting until the perfect representative showed up. Then I saw elections where the winning party got 43% of the votes with 40% voter turnout. Then I realised that 17% of people just forced us into another garbage right wing government and that spoiling ballots wasn't even reported in the news AT ALL.
Vote EVERY TIME. It's a tug of war, the harder you pull the more the whole thing shifts to your side. Look at the right in the US, this situation was impossible a decade ago, but they kept voting and the window kept shifting. And now it's fucked up.
Don't let your side down just because some of the people pulling don't agree with you on where we should stop. Pull your weight, we can't accept fascism.
Like I said, we had the lowest voter turnout since 1918. We've been under a Conservative government for 17 years, and now we have a Labour government that's sticking to the same austerity measures—removing rent caps on social housing, increasing utility prices. Essentially, nothing has changed, and in some ways, things are getting worse.
I'm not a liberal so there isn't much rope for me to pull.
I want real change, so I organize with a socialist party. I've gone door-to-door with TUSC candidates in the run up to the general election, spoken at counter-demonstrations, shown up at pickets, and helped set up community outreach throughout my local area. Just last month, I attended an international meeting in Germany, so it’s not like I’m some ill-informed internet loony. I'm more than happy for people to vote how they like, and I wouldn’t discourage anyone from doing so, but I also won’t use vapid slogans like “not voting is a vote for Trump.”
I never said don't vote for them. In fact in the US right now at the national level the only choice is to vote Democrat even if you hate them. It's harm reduction.
Consider two scenarios: one where you vote, one where you do not, all else is the same. In the scenario where you vote, the candidate that you vote for, that you least disagree with, has a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario. In the scenario where you don't vote the candidates that you wouldn't have voted for, the ones you most disagree with, have a higher percentage of votes than in the other scenario.
Not voting is effectively voting for the people you most disagree with.
That's a different argument than what I was making. "Not voting is effectively approval of whoever wins." related but not the same.
liberalism is a belief in free association / marketplace of ideas and is centrist on a global scale. the usa is generally right-leaning so the two major parties are the liberals (centrists) and the right wing
Think of liberals as centrists
The use of "liberal" has been taken by the right, from the neo-liberal they started with. Now they consider themselves the true liberals. It's the good ole 1984 newspeak strategy of taking the words out of their original meaning to make them lose their meaning, and their ideas behind.
I think that he is referring to "liberal" more in the sense of being in the political spectrum of economic liberal. Usually I see the difference between the US and EU definition of the term liberal: in the US it is a synonym of the left wing party or leaning, in EU is used for being liberal economic leaning and is different from being left party or left wing
Two french parties called "Renaissance Party (RE)" and "The Republicans (LR)" self identify as Liberal Policies as in parties of Personal Freedoms. RE is center and LR is Center-Right on the political spectrum.
Liberals tend to make alliances with fascists in the interest of keeping the peace.
Ftfy
Words mean nothing anymore and terms that always were are now not
all libs right now. The UK is doing the exact same with less party politicking
In the US we're skipping the whole locked up part entirely
Elaborate?
Macron is being corrupt by working with the worst of French society.
Macron is corrupted.
See also; British Columbia
Tell me you're from Alberta without telling me you're from Alberta...
Oh yeah, the lions have been out of the cage for a long time out there
Did I miss something in France? Last i checked the center and left-leaning parties formed an alliance to keep the right wing out of power.
The left alliance doesn't have the numbers to govern on their own, and Macron (the liberals) would rather join forces with conservatives.
Do you have a source or examples? I haven't heard anything about the french situation since the left and the liberals actually formed a coalition to stop the FP from winning.
The most voted party in the wide front coalition is LFI, earning more votes than Macron's party. Macron is refusing so far to name a president from the LFI, for the first time in the history of the 5th republic of France.
Source as well: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-far-right-oppose-leftist-prime-minister-complicating-calculus-macron-2024-08-26/
The Nouveau Front Populaire got 193 seats out of 577 at the national assembly. Despite winning the election, it's not enough to have an absolute majority. As for their alliance with the libs, it was just to prevent the fascist from gaining more seats (actuallyjust a matter of saving face for the presidential party), the libs had no will to take their alliance further than that, and were very clear about their unwillingness to accept any government proposed by NFP. Besides, when the dust settled, the "socialists" resumed their courting of the right, further weakening NFP.
The left leaning parties are liberals and the center are fascists, they're keeping real leftists out. None of the "left wing" parties in France are trying to start a revolution in the streets to take power. They're all too happy sitting there, just being in power... It's pathetic.
That's nothing new, but it's better than the center courting the literal neo fascist party which they are not doing.
I literally just told you how the comic applies.
Let me rephrase, the comic is incorrect in regard to the situation in France. The center and left are not courting the actual fascists in government. The center made a coalition with the leftists.
No they're right. The French Overton window may not be as fucked as the USian's, but their standard reformist left parties are still considered as filthy extremists while their center, Macron's party, is actually borderline fascistic.
That's blatantly wrong. There is a tradition in France for all parties to ally to prevent the fascists from accessing power, but that's only an election alliance. It barely worked for the last election : the left does vote against the fascists every time, but some liberals refused to stand back in favor of some left candidates, and liberal voters largely refused to vote for the left because of the anti-left propaganda. This lead to the fascists making a third of the assemblé nationale.
Now the president must choose a prime minister, but the left arrived first, and he refuses to let them get the power. So he waits for anyone to accept an alliance with the liberals which is not happening yet.
Predictions are going that he will end choosing a PM that is fascist compatible rather than letting the left have any power in the executive.
I am a french living in France, when did the center made a coalition with the leftists ? What are talking about ?? The center coalition has spent the last 7 years claiming "the left is just as bad as the fascist if not worse".
Did I miss a recent news ?
Shh, this is a lefty circle jerk thread.
You lost buddy? You need a grown-up?
I'm kidding of course. The average lefty can't find enough other lefties they agree with to make a circle jerk.
Wat?
All the left seems able to do is call everyone else a fascist and tell them they're all awful for not agreeing with their ideological purity obsessions.
We need to actually appeal to people sometimes, actually talk about difficult subjects that affect people rather than just aay they're horrible for not putting ideology above all else.
A few positive ideas that actually make people think it'll be better for them if the left is in power
many parties are active in this, the party i am a member of are having a push towards "fight bosses not migrants" we do need unity of the working class and calling working class people fascists will only push them deeper into their corners.
the other day i spoke to someone about politics, he complained of housing prices, stagnating wages then exclaimed "its socialism" bottom line: he isn't a fascist but where he gets his information from is fascist.
From the quick reading I did, others aren't willing to work with the left and would just take down the government if they formed it. Not sure if the left is unwilling to work with center, I guess so.
I got downvoted for suggesting the left try and talk about and improve areas people are concerned about, in think that kinda ahows why the left currently has problems getting others to want to work with them.
One side wants to talk about housing, public pensions, public healthcare, public education, salaries, discrimination against women and minorities, and work/life balance.
The other side wants to talk about immigrants being bad and evil, and about how trans people in films are turning their children gay
So nice to see the anti-liberal rhetoric being turned up here now that Trump looks like he's in trouble.
Funny how all these leftists here magically manage to boost support for fascists by conflating liberals with actual fascists.
Oh fuck off lmao. This post explicitly said France and your immediate response is to pretend that the internet belongs to Americans. Get a grip.
...and maybe consider pressuring your party to consider its own policy of pandering to fascism (Kamala was at AIPAC the other day, despite their known election interference in support of Israel).
Not everything is a Trump conspiracy - mf couldn't even hide his ear for long enough to make it obvious that he was vastly overreacting about how much damage the bullet did.
Yes, she's an awful politician. On balance I really do hope she wins, but no doubt it'll be business as usual for America either way.
Meh, whether it's France or Germany or the US the supposed leftist are going to continue to do their thing to boost Trump. The Internet is global, people in the any of those countries see these posts has the same desired effect of attempting to suppress votes for liberals.
I want what you are smoking
This is a leftist community, if you don't like it join some "progressive" Liberal community where they're so focused on "harm reduction" that genocide becomes an acceptable tradeoff
You mean like "leftists" and Uyghurs?
Fascism and genocide is bad regardless of where it is, yes that includes China
Yeah it's the liberals, ignore the horseshoe
Horseshoe theory isn't real, Hitler and his fascists had to actively pretend to be Socialists to get votes - that's not "horseshoe theory" it's fascists actively lying.
Fascism defends corporations, capitalism, and the wealthy. It's "Capitalism's immune system". Hence it requires deception.
Socialism defends the workers and community, It's the Poor's, working class, and underprivileged's immune system... Then only in later or it's own abusive, incomplete, or corrupted forms can it be weilded as the party/Authoritarian's immune system. Only when it becomes a state based fascism is horseshoe theory credible.
It's the lack of democracy that is the difference. Democratic systems favour the majority, only when they fail is fascism produced. Nothing to do with Socialism (which requires a form of democracy where the proletariat majority is supposed to dictate what is to be done).
"Elite Panic" is an example of this. The wealthy minority are the status quo, the community is the rest of is.
It's when that majority ceases to get a say that socialism is dissolved and a state authoritarianism can take over. But under honest analysis, that's a new elite having taken over, NOT Socialism. It's Socialism in name only, state fascism or authoritarianism in actuality.
From Wikipedia:
Wait, are you sarcastic or serious? Because to antifa it's well known from history that the liberal state is ineffectual in fighting fascism and doesn't mind flirting with fascists.
They're as serious as what you find when you scratch a liberal.
Which is a communist, according to horseshoe.
::: spoiler This horseshoe?
:::
Yes that's the puppy. And why I despise liberals as much as fascists. Liberals smile as they stab you in the front.
I can't tell if your sarcastic or seriois, because this meme is about as absurd as horshoe theory. Distributism on the right? Really?
Strangely, socialism being at the center and liberalism at the far-left doesn't make you bat an eye 😂
It's not the centre, it's the high point.
How would you classify macron?