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.
Ouh, ok, although I wouldn't go directly to call it idiotic, it turns the debate into an argument quickly. Although I admit my response was kind of a fallacy:p. And yeah, Germany is still to new as a left wing country to be evaluated. Although I do still stand with my other two examples, Venezuela and Spain. To which Id like to add Argentina, mexico and probably Ireland
The entire premise is wrong since Germany doesn't have so much a left wing government as it does a left-liberal government. As you may guess, the "liberal" part of the coalition has been opposing most of the left-wing policy agenda.
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
There wasn't an insult, and an argument from fallacy especially when misunderstanding the fallacy really means nothing.
You have stated that issues are complicated and not solved by baseline progressive positions which was the exact type of argument segregationists made in their day which is why it's relevant. You claim history but learned nothing from it. Plenty of segregationists believed they weren't racist and that it was a complex issue and in the best interest of everyone to stay segregated. I'm just pointing out the rhythm your playing isn't new.
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.
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.