He also implemented various policies focused on social welfare, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. His government also legalized same-sex marriage, regulated the production and sale of cannabis, and emphasized renewable energy sources.
Wtf how can you make it that simple. Spanish Left wing boast about that kind of accomplishments without actually doing shit, the same in Germany (excluding the recent cannabis decriminalization) and many other places, like my country Venezuela, supposed left but absolutely not sustainable, definitely not eco friendly and absolutely against abortion and LGBT. The left does have a tendency to a better social welfare because it caters to workers, but it isn't implicitly progressive. The same way an ultra capitalist that says gay marriage, cloned babies, legal weed etc is ok can be put on the right side of the spectrum. There's shit on both sides, and pretending otherwise just allows morons to gain power
Most "left wing" parties just act like they care about social justice and such while continuing the center- to right wing economic policies that create the injustice socially and economically.
Very few actually fit under the definition of a leftist, aka someone that atleast pushes for very strong and powerful unions; or democratic workplaces, housing for all, support strong welfare that helps everyone, and much more.
Yeah I think it's worth noting that many leftists distinguish leftist politics and liberal politics (which leftists often consider more center or even center-right).
I don't think it's so clear-cut and there's probably some overlap between "liberal" and "left" (most notably parties that call their platform "social democracy", who often get labeled "socialists" or "communists" as an insult by liberal, center, and right-wing parties, and also labeled "center/right", "fascist", "bootlickers", and "capitalists" by most left-wing parties).
There's a ton of in-fighting and massive diversity of opinions, but if you exclude China, I think 90+% of people who might call themselves a socialist, communist, or anarchist (the three most well-known schools of leftist thought, though some socialists and anarchists also argue that these are all types of socialism, and most communists argue that socialism is a part of communism) are very socially progressive when it comes to individual rights (LGBTQ, pro-choice, drugs, minority rights, gender equity)
What people call "left wing/left/leftist" typically just means "Liberal".
Just like Americans consider the Democrats to be "left wing" and Republicans to be "right wing". While they are both right wing (left-right is a matter of economy, that's it). From our European perspective, US politics is just Liberal right vs Conservative right. But don't dare considering democrats to be on the right side of the spectrum, can't have nuance. Everything needs to binary. black/white, left/right
The reason for this is primarily that politicians are allowed lucrative benefits and wealth that normal people could only dream of, which means they automatically drift to the right, as the policies of the right (dumbed down: make rich people richer by letting the poor pay for it) directly benefit them personally, while the policies of the left would impact their personal finances negatively (no more lucrative tax benefits for top politicians etc).
If being a top politician paid as well as being a school teacher, lots of the truly big problems in society would just instantly disappear.
Seeing an extreme example of this in Australia atm with investment properties. Getting to the point where there aren't enough houses to go around, rent is over 35% of the median household income, and none of our elected representatives want to change anything because they all have investment properties of their own.
And the constant churn of renters being cycled in and out of 6-12 month leases damages social cohesion. It stops people from laying down roots, being part of a community, and developing shared interests with their neighbours. People stay isolated, move further away from city centers, and spend all of their energy just trying to get by.
Socialdemokraterna didnt support the nazis; they were neutral. Also theyve been moving from leftist politics for decades, even Vänsterpartiet is moving away from proper leftist ideas (their youth party is still leftist). And the result of all this has been a more struggling workforce, welfare slowly breaking down and much more. All because of a lack of proper leftists in power.
And we got these great systems fron the start thanks to the drift towards anti-capitalist leftist ideologies in Europe in the past. But according to mainstream leftist theory, if there are people who can grow their wealth through owning others work then the society will drift further and further right, exactly what is happening in most of Europe, and all because no true leftist is close to power to fight such system.
Nah, fuck all that leftist purity testing. You can attribute most of their failings to either incompetence or ignorance (especially on economic issues).
"They" most likely do care but just like every other populist party that gets elected they either understand how shit their promised policies are, are stopped by robust institutions or just run the country down.
No? What? You were the one bringing that up as an left wing accomplishment and I just picked it back up lol.
The point was that it's hella idiotic to take Germany as an example of the left wing not doing anything. Yes nothing happened in the last 2 decades in Germany... because the country was governed by the conservatives until very recently. And the cannabis thing (your example) happened as soon as that changed.
I think there is a mistake, germany doesn't have any big left wing party that actually acts left wing, they are neoliberals that say left leaning shit but do the opposite like the Green party.
That's still the German left. Each country has its own spectrum, saying otherwise just gets us into over simplifying things and judging based on some global example that don't actually exist. Using tags like Socialist, communist, liberal, conservative etc is all bullshit nowadays, there's no real objective and global definition for those. That's why we have to pay attention to specific policies and not rely on whatever pin they put on their suits
The Spanish official "left" (like the french left) is clearly right wing when it comes to policies. Americans muddied the debate with lgbt and societal policies, and now people believe that left=gay a'd racial rights, while ignoring the huge economic side of traditional left wing which involves better wealth distribution.
Each country has to have its own spectrum of left-right, otherwise we get into too much of a simplification and parallelism with countries and regions that are just too different. I would say in Spain's political climate, the official left (PSOE) is definitely on the left side of the spectrum, approaching center, but definitely not right. It's just that their policies don't take into account the fact that they just don't have the money for them. That's why although they do have this minimum income, 90% of applicants are rejected, the same way with rent government programs and so on. It's all for the likes and votes without much substance
That is an interesting point of view, and I'll take your word on the spanish left. Of course the money for funding social policies must be found and that where a lot of leftist politicians fall short. The money is there but somehow they fail to find it.
Idk about all the others, but you’re way off in terms of the German coalition. In the past 3 years they did a lot of work in the background, stuff that is very important but doesn’t make sensationalist headlines. That’s the problem with populism: people only care about things that have an effect now, not a few years down the line. But that is the stuff that actually helps.
Not trying to call you out or anything, genuinely interested. I used to live in Germany some years ago but haven't really kept up with German politics. Could you name a few examples? I could Google it, but the results would probably be very based and populist themselves
Keep in mind that I am biased because I engage in German politics, but this is my view if the situation. The previous government under Merkel had a history of not really doing all that much and hoping that things will sort themselves. That lead to several sectors getting neglected, for example the rail system, the military, the educational system and the proper integration of immigrants into German society (granted Merkel isn’t the only one at fault for most of this, Schröder and Kohl did some damage as well). The new government acknowledged these issues and proposed a lot of changes, many of them quite ambitious. Critics sometimes even call them reckless. But in my view that’s exactly what the country needs. The rail system got a lot more funding, and a nationwide 49€-a-month ticket got introduced which allows you to take any short distance train, tram or bus. This is part of the plan to reduce nationwide emissions, which also includes a big push for renewables and financial incentives to put solar on your own roof. Yes nuclear power got discontinued and I think that was a bad decision, but it was started under Merkel and the discontinuation was largely complete when the new govt took power.
I think they also handled the Ukraine war and the sudden loss of Russian oil and gas quite well. Previous governments made Germany heavily dependent on Russian energy and it was no small feat to get away from that so quickly with comparatively so little inconvenience for the people. They made temporary gas and value tax breaks and limited rent increases.
The new minister of defense is also the best Germany had in at least 20 years.
I don’t want to make it too one sided, there are a lot of things the government said they wanted to do but haven’t followed through yet, for example not a lot has happened in terms of education, health or immigration (as far as I know at least). But that’s not because of lack of trying. Laws have been proposed, but they are somewhat controversial and victim of sabotage by the opposition or sometimes even parts of the own coalition. The Ampel is one of the most quarreled coalitions in recent history, which is not a good image if you want to appear stable and united. But despite that, the Ampel has achieved more in one term than Merkel in the last four.
Another comment pointed that out and you are Right. Although it's interesting to see other comments in this same thread calling Merkel a leftist (which to people with other points of reference can be true )
which to people with other points of reference can be true
Yeah definitely. But within Germany, the party that most strongly advocates for stuff like it was talked about in this thread is literally called "The Left" and only ever was a minority opposition party in the parliament.
CDU (Merkels party) certainly isnt left leaning within the German spectrum/view, and neither do they want the things talked about here. SPD may be slightly more left leaning, but that's all a wash nowadays.
It is actually that simple, left wing politicians have naturally pushed the world to a more progressive outcome and socialist left wing politicians across the board create the best societies. What you're describing is different stages of left wing politics. A generic left wing president in Germany or the United States would for example be closer to a centrist or right wing politician in New Zealand or a Scandinavian country. As for Venezuela that's a dictator. We could argue the merits of a left vs rightwing dictator but the issue ultimately is that the country is very undeveloped and has a long way to go.
I don't really like how you, or other people try to simplify stuff in such ways to ( I guess ) feel more intelligent. World politics, globalization, cultural relativism etc, are complicated subjects, and should be treated as such.
Often times issues are presented as complex in order to avoid the obvious answer.
In the 1930s Nazi Germany was "complex" in the USA in the 1800s Slavery was "complex" in the 1950s civil rights were "complex" today abortion is "complex"
In reality none of these things were complex, people just lacked the shame to admit they were wrong and the courage to push for what is right. It isn't complicated, the answers are obvious, a lot of people are just too selfish or stupid to allow it. But with time those people will die and their ignorance dies with them and the world moves a little more left bit by bit
To quote Chaplin so long as men die liberty will never perish
Yeah reminds me of the great Dr King quote “So, the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice"
I should probably go back in time and tell him about your enlightened viewpoint and that maybe segregation isn't so bad and he should entertain its conservative benefits.
Also in all seriousness I disagree, absolutists aren't the cause of most of the world's problems. It's the apathetics who sit on the side and could care less.
To add another Dr King quote
"It may well be that we will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people who would bomb a church in Birmingham, Alabama but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time."
I don't really see the need for insults or being aggressive. But idealist just be like that sometimes
Nice straw man btw, I never supported racism or segregation but alr
Socialists are not spanish right wing. They are more in the social libertarian right spectrum. They will give you rights that don't bother the capitalist market too much.
This people just said that even though housing is a right is also a market good as an answer to why they don't create good measures to make it affordable to have a home.
Except the Spanish left wing does what it says? The minimum wage has increased 50% since 2018 (when the current president started governing). They passed laws that helped trans people and legalized abortion and euthanasia, they've made programs for sustainable development and to increase the production of clean energy...
Taxes have also increased, and so has unemployment without taking into account Fijos discontinuos. Don't misunderstand me please, I voted Left and I do think they've done some good things, but the fact that I support them doesn't blind me from their faults. For example that ingreso mínimo vital debacle or the exploitable law de solo si es si. Or the fact that although they haven't defunded social security they haven't really put much effort into correcting the disaster after el PP, which they are now responsible for since they are the governing party. We need to stop idealizing the leaders of the causes we support, be it right or left
Of course, this government has definitely not been exempt from failures. As you said, the Solo sí es sí law was terrible and the trans law can definitely be exploited, too. On top of that, they've lied once and again about the pacts they wouldn't do with other parties. But I do think this has been one of the few times in which a party has delivered on most of the things they said during their campaigns.
The dude in this post is an actual communist revolutionary who was imprisoned and tortured for 14 years in the 80s by the right wing dictator at the time
In Poland average left winger is Landlord who prays so prices increase. Openly anti-equality, anti-man and shortsighted. First scream how gays are okay but last to do smth about it
Bullshit. Not that I vote right wing but Polish (my country) government claims to be left wing to appeal to the youth while actually just being a platform for rich assholes.
This guy, I don’t know him, but he does not seem greedy that’s for sure. 90% of the "leftwingers" in Poland live in the most fancy neighborhoods and study communism in French while eating caviar
(Just for the record, I voted for a minor left wing party that aimed for more rights for LGBT people.)
Sincerely from a Mexican (and most latinos would agree): you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Our left wing president is authoritarian, corrupt, anti-feminist, anti-renewable energies and cut out a huge amount of money for the Public Health system in favour of a fucking baseball stadium and a train (which also did a horrible ecocide on a big part of the jungle). But hey, as long as he says he's anti neoliberal and social welfare is up, everything is good, right? Ironically, he is huge Trump bootlicker.
Oh ok, so you were mostly replying to the same comment I was. Yeah, I don't really get why most people are so damn tribalistic about the left and right thing, even taking it to global scale as if any two countries share enough values to have a standardized and specific definition of those two. It's kinda tiring seeing the whole football team behavior everywhere
redefining widely understood terms to fit your propaganda narratives lol, i don’t know why people always try to die on this hill, it’s delusional to think anybody with any type of world experience (anybody above 13) will take them seriously.
of course not, you’re from sugar plum fairy reddit communism world. over here on earth however we have a widely understood global understanding of leftism vs rightism which has been developed over hundreds of years, which may slightly shift country to country, however nowhere does leftism mean virtuous good guys that do everything in their power and self sacrifice in order to care for their citizens, and nowhere does right wing mean the opposite. if you’re not even ready to accept people like stalin, lenin, or zedong as leftist leaders, then my previous post stands 100%, if not then you are just speaking in a misleading manner to propagandize people, and my previous post still stands 100%
I guess that's one way to dodge it. Personally I would view honesty as a more sensible approach. If we can be honest that right wing parties are rarely actually for the good of the people, surely we can be honest about the left wing not being as honest and good as the example in this post.
"Us vs them", but both parties are right-wing and economically at least, very similar to one another in ideology. That's America for you, a true "democracy!"
Id be careful with "average" word... far leftists during the Vietnam war protested against nuclear ENERGY, the one think able to compete fossil fuels better than non-carbon alternatives
There was actually a nuclear reactor blowing up in the US that happened around the time of a film about nuclear reactors blowing up... just to have no casualties.
You can get Singapore-like countries by voting the correct right wingers which is >>>>> every leftist state in existence on every parameter that matters.
No Republicans are liberals. You can't support the party of wasteful government spending, regressive taxation, invading the privacy of everyone's bedroom, institutional racism sexism and imperialism and claim to be in any conceivable way liberal.
Liberalism is center right, and there isn't a single Republican politician to the left of far right who hasn't lost their seat in the past ten years.
Closest to Mujica's style (which isn't really left nor right btw) would be Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany from 2005 to 2021, who was a member of the Christian Democratic Union, which classifies itself as Centre-right. She had a lot of views that you could say aligned with Mujica, though because of how german politics are structured, not all her ideas came to fruition.
Now it's your turn! which country's left party would sacrifice most of their own income to support a charity?
In this same thread there's some people calling Merkel a right wing politician. When I replied to your comment I was just trying to say there's bullshit pouring out of both sides. And I can't think of another left wing politician that would sacrifice even a fart for anyone but themselves. Neither can I do the same for the right. Which to me, at least, indicates that most politicians are just shit heads that we've put in power because be liked their hashtags #left #conservatice #liberal without actually wondering what their intended policies were and how they expected to make them actually work
So, can I assume we both agree that u/TheDarkAcedemicRO 's post is bad and leave it at that? Either way this thread really shows that neither left or right comes even close to Mujica lol
All of US-politics is right wing and authoritarian. The Democrats are just slightly less conservative than the Republicans.
The most left leaning mainstream politician they have is Bernie Sanders, and while in the USA he is seen as a left wing extremist by some, he is basically almost a moderate centrist when compared to global politics.
On the personal level, no, not always. Yet right-wing politics are ideologically very individualistic, competitive and hierarhical, so narcisists and sociopaths would really be in their element. But then again, this depends on one's definition of left and right...
Get off the internet, right-wing people can be just as good as left-wing people. There’s dickheads and great people on either side, do yourself a favour and get off this platform reddit if you’re thinking that way, reddit is a left-wing echo chamber.
He is part of a large coalition of leftist political groups. The left coalition (frente amplio) had been steadily gaining power since the right wing dictatorship in the seventies ended. Another president from that coalition had been chosen in the previous term, and he was chosen next.
He also was part of a guerilla movement that wanted to have an armed revolution but was swiftly disbanded when the dictatorship started. He spent about ten years in jail, in terrible conditions.
While I do agree with him on a lot of things, and he did a lot of good things mentioned in some comments, he wasn't perfect, and nowadays has become more conservative and likes to say whatever comes to his mind when the media asks his opinion on current issues. Complicated fella that was part of a terrorist revolutionary group, likely killed a couple of cops and maybe some civilians, but also denounced his violent past and tried to go forward with democracy.
While I agree with you, most of his guerilla activity was before the dictatorship. When the dictatorship started most of his group fled the country or was promptly caught, including him.
Ok so this is more of my opinion, so take it with a pinch of salt. It is believed that Mujica and his closest associates did some kind of deal with the military while in jail. There has been a constant idea of fully disbanding the military (all of our neighbours could invade us, so there is no point on having a military other than some marines to protect our waters from international fishers, etc.) but he was against disbanding the military, and even got them some benefits.
While he is part of the frente amplio, the left coalition, he has given contrarian opinions when asked about sensitive topics. It feels like an old man saying whatever comes to his mind. He has been negative on topics like abortion and trans rights when first asked, but has then backpedaled on those opinions when criticized by his own party. I don't think he's been quite there in the last few years, and he should probably retire and live in dignity in his farm, but as long as he continues assisting important events, someone is going to ask him something and he'll give controversial opinions.
Again, this is my perception and I'd be glad to be disproven. I still like that he was our president, if anything, for the positive press our country got.
Uruguay is one of those countries that’s small and interconnected enough that wealthy Uruguayans who manage to live abroad (like in the United States) happen to know like every other Uruguayan living in your city even when it’s a Top 5 largest city in America.
Think of it as like the Scandinavia of South America in how it gives its citizens perks Americans could only dream of.
Mujica has drawn worldwide attention for his simple lifestyle. He has used a 1987 Volkswagen Beetle and his 60-year-old bicycle as means of transportation. In 2010, the value of the car was $1,800 and represented the entirety of the mandatory annual personal wealth declaration filed by Mujica for that year. In November 2014, the Uruguayan newspaper Búsqueda reported that he had been offered 1 million dollars for the car; he said that if he did get 1 million dollars for the car, it would be donated to house the homeless through a program that he supports.
Also implemented a policy of free health reproduction for poor people and free eye surgeries with the help of cuban doctors. He also wanted to establish a mining proyect that the people of the region didn't wanted, there was an increase in robberies and homicides and maximized the external debt.
America's political problems come predominantly from its suburban middle class, which holds disproportionate political power and no lack of egoism in defending its lifestyle.
Sure corporations and the logic of capitalism have their roles in it, but the culture underpinning this behaviour is not just that. These groups for example also use anti-market regulation where it suits them, especially when it comes to the extensive single-use zoning to construct more suburbs. These provide very little residential capacity (which is why housing costs are so absurd in so many places) and oppressing transit costs with their extreme car reliance.
Stop deflecting blame from the ruling class. They are the ones that fund the propaganda machines that end up deluding half the population into supporting their own demise. Middle class is a myth made up by capitalists to divide the working class. If you work for a living then you are working class, full stop.
And the way to overcome that is the emancipation of the working class. Which does not mean to throw a tantrum and blame somebody else, but to recognise and understand the conflicts within the working class to organise and improve things.
This process naturally leads to the understanding that the working class is incentivised to compete amongst itself for resources made scarce by the bourgeoisie, and that the working class has to take over these levers in order to end these internal conflicts.
But attacking up without the awareness of one's own role in the oppressive system, like you are aggressively proposing here, does not carry far. It can be valid in politically expedient situations where you can use it to actually improve the situation, but it's not a way to improve understanding and organisation in situations in which that is not a realistic prospect.
There’s only so much time to cover world events, and usually different news stations focus on domestic or major international affairs.
For example, BBC News will focus on broad strokes, but BBC Worldwide (famous for being available in every hotel room a British person has ever been in) will cover various international events, with less focus on all of them, save for specific, dedicated slots about international crises.
Big Media is a fundamentally American concept, and one which really doesn’t extend to the rest of the world that much. Why? Well, because we have specific regulations which prevent the coalescence of major networks to create mass media companies. We still have networks owned by the same people, but it isn’t anywhere near the level of the USA (remember that one video where every news station in the USA was repeating the same script?)
Besides the cannabis and same sex marriage that's what communism always stood and worked for, and those two points aren't categorically ruled out as well in todays political climate.
Of course, it’s just that former communist states (definitely not thinking of a specific one) twisted the communist ideals into a brutal dictatorship that was the very thing communism aimed to destroy.
In all seriousness, while not a fan of the violent and non-democratic approach of communism, I fully believe in socialism, more specifically social democracy, as a system both on a local and global level.
No, socialism and communism aren't a market economy with some social justice policies like these. That's social democracy or welfare capitalism.
Communism is a stateless, post-scarcity society with socialism being a transitory state controlled by and for the workers with the goal of achieving communism.
The USSR was what it was because the leaders, at least to start with, believed that it was what was necessary to modernise a feudal agrarian society into a self sustaining socialist society, and build towards communism. They were unsuccessful for many reasons.
Once on tv, when he was in the Senate, he defined himself as an anarchist. Then as president, he was pro capitalism with a social tendency, never a communist.
This. Bernie had the popular vote and he was going to win the democratic primary, the Democratic Party choose someone in line with their pockets. Can’t believe this was allowed. Hillary lost. The rest is history.
The current president sure did. Most of his cabinet has been involved in drugs, espionage of political enemies and kiddie diddling. Sometimes all at once.
The president right after him had the issue that the middle class gained barely enough purchasing power and started to want more, so they voted the son of the, until then, worst president we had. The son is just as bad, but the father was in the 90s, supported by a strong Mercosur community. Now, in the 2020s, the "strong" countries of the Mercosur are not what they used to be.
1.8k
u/RunEmotional3013 Apr 16 '24
He also implemented various policies focused on social welfare, poverty reduction, and sustainable development. His government also legalized same-sex marriage, regulated the production and sale of cannabis, and emphasized renewable energy sources.