I’m speaking from an anglocene perspective I admit.
The “left” in the UK and US has had power. But they didn’t contradict right wing economic policy from the 80s when they had the chance.
We’ll see what they do next time they get a chance but looking at the UK we haven’t had a left wing government that would help since the 70s and it’s hard to start a conversation about who to vote for by talking about things that happened before someone was born.
The track record of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US is not good enough in the living memory of the voters they want to turn out for them.
But they didn’t contradict right wing economic policy from the 80s when they had the chance.
So how are they left if they don’t actually enable core leftist ideas?
Democrats in the USA would be a rather conservative (when it comes to economics ) party in most social market economy countries. Which is my point - it’s not that the left does not have solutions for social inequality problems. It’s just that there are no politicians in power (in the USA and UK) who are interested in bringing those to life.
They’re “left” because we live in a 2 party system and they did spend money on healthcare and education.
I get what you’re saying. Essentially I’m saying the same thing,the left aren’t left enough to ensure their policies help everyone instead of a select few.
But they are the left under FPTP voting where most votes get disenfranchised.
I’m saying if the left in those countries wants to win votes they have to gain voters by offering them something. That’s what moves the Overton window, a party trying to appeal to a broad base.
We don’t have a system which encourages a left, right, and centre leading to coalition governments.
We have a FPTP system which encourages 2 major parties to try and form coalitions within themselves to win an absolute majority in government. With outsiders getting disenfranchised.
Which coalition will the young male voter join? The one offering them something.
In a FPTP system what you seem to identify as “the left” are not the left. They are outsiders, detached and not pulling the government one way or the other.
They are involuntarily neutral voters except when they vote for one of the major 2 parties.
I disagree with the disenfranchisement in the system. I identify it as an additional problem. But the core problem is a lack of appeal to that demographic.
So again, you clearly see that the US-American political system is absolutely broken and bonkers, but blame the left for it. Which in USA (at least economical left) did not have any power to beginn with.
The right have what they want. Often with a minority of the voters.
Who else to blame for the failing of the left but the left.
They’re disadvantaged by the system but don’t make changes to fix it.
Given the system in place the left do not unite. While the only way to win is a party of a broad coalition.
The last republican to win the popular vote without being an incumbent was 35 years ago. Yet given close results and chances to turn elections in their favour the left have lost multiple times and have a 6-3 loss on the supreme court.
In the UK we’ve not had a united left wing party since the Iraq war in government or in opposition.
We’ll see what happens in the elections this year.
But yes. I blame “the left” as a disorganised majority for losing to an organised majority.
If electoral reform has been put through while the left had power I’d have more sympathy. But it wasn’t. Either the left is willing to empower the majority of it isn’t. It’s either going to try and win democratically or win with its own minority. Disenfranchised people like the right does.
Ok, so you are making the left responsible for being not more successful in implementing their ideas and reforming the political system? Which is fair, I guess - but also seems trivial.
I think the political system and the disenfranchisement of voters has been the clear difference in the second half of the 20th century between social democracies which have succeeded in reducing inequality and those which have failed.
Ultimately the way we vote for people and the governments we end up with as a result are the least trivial aspect of politics.
Who cares about discussing issues like the economy or immigration, or equality, or any number of foreign policy decisions.
Ultimately only a third of the population are getting their choice in power at any given time under FPTP. There’s a winning minority, a losing minority, and a minority with no chance of someone to vote for gaining any power.
Divide and rule by those wishing to suppress democracy. Usually for monetary gain in corruption or avoiding taxation.
I’m afraid “the left” hasn’t had a clear meaning for many decades now.
The meaning of what is left and right shifts over time and whatever method you choose to place the middle is where biases appear.
If no party to the left of A has a chance of government and no party to the left of B has a chance of government, you’ve placed “middle” in the wrong place.
Ignoring political reality by starting a history lesson isn’t going to create changes.
It’s likely to lead to voters involuntarily disenfranchising themselves and not having any effect on the duopoly the system encourages.
The left is not relative, nor has the meaning shifted in all this time.
The left is the same communists and anarchists it has been for over a hundred years world wide now.
Political party popularity does not change political ideological meaning.
And the American system doesn’t encourage duopoly, it literally enforces it. So yes, of course many leftists are going to feel disenfranchised after close to a century of being villainised and neglected by their “representatives”. The solution to that is for a party to adopt leftist ideals, but that goes against the interests of the ruling class who’s money and influence runs the game.
The left is relative. Otherwise we still believe in the solutions of 50 years ago now.
Try nationalising manufacturing and farms. See how well that works. That was left wing once. Now it’s not. Even if there are still things you would nationalise.
You’re trying to create absolutes to argue easily against. That’s often the way political discourse goes but it’s wrong.
By all means build a straw man and totem of the left and right but it’s far more interesting to find the nuance and use your intelligence rather than treating the debate like a team sport to be won and lost.
Some do. Plenty on the left don’t because studies and examples since have shown where public ownership falls flat on its face and where it’s the only efficient way of doing things. As well as the grey area in between.
The track record of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US is not good enough in the living memory of the voters they want to turn out for them.
it’s not enough that the left has to rescue the fucking economy every time, now it’s the left’s job to fix everything else? ooh boo hoo won’t the left help poor white men…
I’m speaking from an anglocene perspective I admit.
The “left” in the UK and US has had power. But they didn’t contradict right wing economic policy from the 80s when they had the chance.
We’ll see what they do next time they get a chance but looking at the UK we haven’t had a left wing government that would help since the 70s and it’s hard to start a conversation about who to vote for by talking about things that happened before someone was born.
The track record of Labour in the UK and the Democrats in the US is not good enough in the living memory of the voters they want to turn out for them.
So how are they left if they don’t actually enable core leftist ideas?
Democrats in the USA would be a rather conservative (when it comes to economics ) party in most social market economy countries. Which is my point - it’s not that the left does not have solutions for social inequality problems. It’s just that there are no politicians in power (in the USA and UK) who are interested in bringing those to life.
They’re “left” because we live in a 2 party system and they did spend money on healthcare and education.
I get what you’re saying. Essentially I’m saying the same thing,the left aren’t left enough to ensure their policies help everyone instead of a select few.
But they are the left under FPTP voting where most votes get disenfranchised.
So you kind of identified the problem in the political system as of itself but still you are blaming the left?
You’re identifying “the left” how exactly.
I’m saying if the left in those countries wants to win votes they have to gain voters by offering them something. That’s what moves the Overton window, a party trying to appeal to a broad base.
We don’t have a system which encourages a left, right, and centre leading to coalition governments.
We have a FPTP system which encourages 2 major parties to try and form coalitions within themselves to win an absolute majority in government. With outsiders getting disenfranchised.
Which coalition will the young male voter join? The one offering them something.
In a FPTP system what you seem to identify as “the left” are not the left. They are outsiders, detached and not pulling the government one way or the other.
They are involuntarily neutral voters except when they vote for one of the major 2 parties.
I disagree with the disenfranchisement in the system. I identify it as an additional problem. But the core problem is a lack of appeal to that demographic.
People who try to put leftist idea into work?
So again, you clearly see that the US-American political system is absolutely broken and bonkers, but blame the left for it. Which in USA (at least economical left) did not have any power to beginn with.
Maybe I’m not getting your message.
The right have what they want. Often with a minority of the voters.
Who else to blame for the failing of the left but the left.
They’re disadvantaged by the system but don’t make changes to fix it.
Given the system in place the left do not unite. While the only way to win is a party of a broad coalition.
The last republican to win the popular vote without being an incumbent was 35 years ago. Yet given close results and chances to turn elections in their favour the left have lost multiple times and have a 6-3 loss on the supreme court.
In the UK we’ve not had a united left wing party since the Iraq war in government or in opposition.
We’ll see what happens in the elections this year.
But yes. I blame “the left” as a disorganised majority for losing to an organised majority.
If electoral reform has been put through while the left had power I’d have more sympathy. But it wasn’t. Either the left is willing to empower the majority of it isn’t. It’s either going to try and win democratically or win with its own minority. Disenfranchised people like the right does.
Ok, so you are making the left responsible for being not more successful in implementing their ideas and reforming the political system? Which is fair, I guess - but also seems trivial.
I think the political system and the disenfranchisement of voters has been the clear difference in the second half of the 20th century between social democracies which have succeeded in reducing inequality and those which have failed.
Ultimately the way we vote for people and the governments we end up with as a result are the least trivial aspect of politics.
Who cares about discussing issues like the economy or immigration, or equality, or any number of foreign policy decisions.
Ultimately only a third of the population are getting their choice in power at any given time under FPTP. There’s a winning minority, a losing minority, and a minority with no chance of someone to vote for gaining any power.
Divide and rule by those wishing to suppress democracy. Usually for monetary gain in corruption or avoiding taxation.
When has the left ever had power in the US? Labour in the UK had a bit post war, but they’ve since stopped being left.
You cant just call neolibs the left and complain that the left didnt do anything.
Gatekeeping what’s left and right makes no sense. There is an Ovrrton window and two parties either side of that centre.
FPTP voting is about disenfranchising voters. Ensuring they don’t vote is one way of doing that.
You have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils until you get to the point of electoral reform being possible.
And you make electoral reform possible by organising and pressuring the most likely party to do it.
No. The left has a very clear political meaning, it does not simply mean “Whats less to the right”.
When leftists talk about leftist policies as solutions to issues, we dont mean “oh right wing policies but just not super right”.
Left —————| Middle |—A——B— Right
Tell me, what side of that spectrum do you think A is?
I’m afraid “the left” hasn’t had a clear meaning for many decades now.
The meaning of what is left and right shifts over time and whatever method you choose to place the middle is where biases appear.
If no party to the left of A has a chance of government and no party to the left of B has a chance of government, you’ve placed “middle” in the wrong place.
Ignoring political reality by starting a history lesson isn’t going to create changes.
It’s likely to lead to voters involuntarily disenfranchising themselves and not having any effect on the duopoly the system encourages.
The left is not relative, nor has the meaning shifted in all this time.
The left is the same communists and anarchists it has been for over a hundred years world wide now.
Political party popularity does not change political ideological meaning.
And the American system doesn’t encourage duopoly, it literally enforces it. So yes, of course many leftists are going to feel disenfranchised after close to a century of being villainised and neglected by their “representatives”. The solution to that is for a party to adopt leftist ideals, but that goes against the interests of the ruling class who’s money and influence runs the game.
The left is relative. Otherwise we still believe in the solutions of 50 years ago now.
Try nationalising manufacturing and farms. See how well that works. That was left wing once. Now it’s not. Even if there are still things you would nationalise.
You’re trying to create absolutes to argue easily against. That’s often the way political discourse goes but it’s wrong.
By all means build a straw man and totem of the left and right but it’s far more interesting to find the nuance and use your intelligence rather than treating the debate like a team sport to be won and lost.
We do still believe in those solutions?
Some do. Plenty on the left don’t because studies and examples since have shown where public ownership falls flat on its face and where it’s the only efficient way of doing things. As well as the grey area in between.
it’s not enough that the left has to rescue the fucking economy every time, now it’s the left’s job to fix everything else? ooh boo hoo won’t the left help poor white men…
Well that attitude is my point.
A workers party that isn’t helping a large portion of voters is missing out on a lot of votes.
you’re never going to support left causes anyway! bye felicia.
Funnily enough I almost exclusively support left causes. I actually vote too!
sure thing buddy. I believe you.
lol