Politics How does the left get its political mojo back and win power?

Remove this Banner Ad

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,424
43,349
AFL Club
GWS
The left in the US can't comprehend how cooked the average MAGA is.

The white paranoia about CRT may have swung the election in Virginia.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,709
3,156
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
The left in the US can't comprehend how cooked the average MAGA is.

The white paranoia about CRT may have swung the election in Virginia.

I don't know about CRT but it seems to me like the Democrats have this perception that they've abandoned the working class and focus on identity politics, looking down on working-class and rural Americans who don't live in the blue states.

If I were them, I'd be shutting up about this rhetoric and focusing on healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, and climate action. And the biggest one? Taxes. If you're going to tax asset-owners and carbon, great, but lower income taxes, give working-class people some tax relief or sign you're going to do so or you're not going to get swing votes your way.

For too long, wage earners have been hit the hardest, and it allows scum like Trump to fill in the vacuum and give the illusion that he's got the working classes back.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't know about CRT but it seems to me like the Democrats have this perception that they've abandoned the working class and focus on identity politics, looking down on working-class and rural Americans who don't live in the blue states.

If I were them, I'd be shutting up about this rhetoric and focusing on healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, and climate action. And the biggest one? Taxes. If you're going to tax asset-owners and carbon, great, but lower income taxes, give working-class people some tax relief or sign you're going to do so or you're not going to get swing votes your way.

For too long, wage earners have been hit the hardest, and it allows scum like Trump to fill in the vacuum and give the illusion that he's got the working classes back.
Bingo. Whenever you add in a new tax you have to lower a current one to sweeten the deal. New taxes should not be about increasing the tax base but rearranging it. Only use existing taxes if you want to increase the tax base.

the wealth tax needs to come with income tax declines. Then it will get broad support from the masses. Otherwise republicans can just cry socialism.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Soft Downhill Skier

2008-2010 wasn't me.
Sep 21, 2004
42,424
43,349
AFL Club
GWS
I don't know about CRT but it seems to me like the Democrats have this perception that they've abandoned the working class and focus on identity politics, looking down on working-class and rural Americans who don't live in the blue states.

If I were them, I'd be shutting up about this rhetoric and focusing on healthcare, education, infrastructure, wages, and climate action. And the biggest one? Taxes. If you're going to tax asset-owners and carbon, great, but lower income taxes, give working-class people some tax relief or sign you're going to do so or you're not going to get swing votes your way.

For too long, wage earners have been hit the hardest, and it allows scum like Trump to fill in the vacuum and give the illusion that he's got the working classes back.
I agree. But the white working classes, partcularly in the South, have been objectively ******* insane the past few decades. Qanon an Trump yeah, but they've been easily duped by the race card playing of the GOP. The latest incarnation is CRT.
 

Coolangatta

Premiership Player
Oct 27, 2007
3,709
3,156
Western Australia
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Bingo. Whenever you add in a new tax you have to lower a current one to sweeten the deal. New taxes should not be about increasing the tax base but rearranging it. Only use existing taxes if you want to increase the tax base.

the wealth tax needs to come with income tax declines. Then it will get broad support from the masses. Otherwise republicans can just cry socialism.

And they'd have a point. California has been a liberal stronghold for some time now and it's working-class people leaving there in droves, the people that are supposed to be elevated or liberated from the woes of financial capitalism. We've seen their theory in practice and it's not working.

I agree. But the white working classes, partcularly in the South, have been objectively ******* insane the past few decades. Qanon an Trump yeah, but they've been easily duped by the race card playing of the GOP. The latest incarnation is CRT.

Yeah, I've always taken issue with the religious nutters, conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience coming from the right. Trumpism has made that almost mainstream.

The race politics I think has more to do with the fear of being left behind than hatred or superiority complex over minorities, and that's dialogue left-leaning pundits could do more to improve themselves on.

But again, the rhetoric around race politics and tax plans is something the left/Democrats seriously need to take their head out of their asses and review, which they won't.

This Swiss professor suggests abolishing the income tax and consumption tax, replacing them with a micro tax on payment transactions, arguing they'd collect a hell of a lot more revenue and it'd be harder to evade. They need to offer blue-collar people something like that, rather than the same sh*t, different shovel. But they won't.

They'll go after some guy working his ass off to make 400k a year, falsely equating that with someone making 20 million a year off their portfolio. One is very different from the other. And even then, it might be better to only tax the loans the ultra-wealthy take out, rather than unrealised/realised capital gains. This Elon Musk stock selling experiment is going to shed light on the flaws the likes of Bernie and AOC have in their wealth redistribution plans. I'm no expert but that's my impression of the situation. It might not hurt Elon but it's going to potentially hurt many others underneath him.
 

Zarrix

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 15, 2008
5,878
2,210
Perth
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Everton
The problem with most ostensibly 'left' parties nowadays is that they are only left wing on fluffy social issues (or woke as some would say). Most western left parties have simply embraced a diet version of neoliberalism, thus not improving the lives of the working class in any substantial way. Then the right wing sweep in with their fear induced rhetoric based on some manufactured bogeyman, such as immigrants, terrorists...

Also, the whole media system and the oligarchic control of the political system is obviously rigged against the left. Thus playing its game won't make any real gains.

And if there is a rare case of a left/democratic socialist politician gaining traction in this environment, they are politically taken out by the establishment/corporations (e.g. Sanders and Corbyn).

Then the media and establishment figures blame losses on 'going too far left' , thus shifting the Overton window even further right. With the final result being milquetoast lite neolib parties like the Democrats and Labor in both the US and the UK.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,679
8,289
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Question for the op Seeds

Were the left (or the right for that matter) ever really in power?

What I consider 'left' in this country at least, is someone like Bandt or SHY. I'd hardly consider they'd EVER get mojo to begin with in order to win power, just wouldn't have the electorate support.

Same as the 'right', who on here would like Hanson or Christensen in Power? Doubt you'd find anyone.

If either of those extremes were in power we'd either be an all white anglo population only speaking english, which means zero liberalism.

Or a disorganized free for all and then an epiphany there is no possible way to have a 'free for all', hierarchy would be diminished and anarchy would prevail. Even though the idea would be one big happy population singing kumbaya around the camp fire.

This is a valid question, I can't recall a time when any government with minority views as opposed to the majority views have had power in any liberal western democratic society.

Can anyone think of one to correct me?

Further, if this is the 'left' you have in mind, would the majority really want that? I doubt it.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,679
8,289
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I don't know either
What is wrong with these people


Not sure how this is relevant, unless you're suggesting the left is already in power and you're pointing out the incompetency of one person and not the whole 'left'.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,679
8,289
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Question for the op Seeds

Were the left (or the right for that matter) ever really in power?

What I consider 'left' in this country at least, is someone like Bandt or SHY. I'd hardly consider they'd EVER get mojo to begin with in order to win power, just wouldn't have the electorate support.

Same as the 'right', who on here would like Hanson or Christensen in Power? Doubt you'd find anyone.

If either of those extremes were in power we'd either be an all white anglo population only speaking english, which means zero liberalism.

Or a disorganized free for all and then an epiphany there is no possible way to have a 'free for all', hierarchy would be diminished and anarchy would prevail. Even though the idea would be one big happy population singing kumbaya around the camp fire.

This is a valid question, I can't recall a time when any government with minority views as opposed to the majority views have had power in any liberal western democratic society.

Can anyone think of one to correct me?

Further, if this is the 'left' you have in mind, would the majority really want that? I doubt it.

So I'll ask this question again Seeds Would wider society want a 'left' power?
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
So I'll ask this question again Seeds Would wider society want a 'left' power?
Your definition of left is not the definition i was referring to in the op. Left in this regard is a relative term. Not an objective term. The labour party is the left party in our country compared to the liberal party which is the right. The others are just fringes with no real power.
 

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,679
8,289
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
Your definition of left is not the definition i was referring to in the op. Left in this regard is a relative term. Not an objective term. The labour party is the left party in our country compared to the liberal party which is the right. The others are just fringes with no real power.

You didn't refer to any definition in the op, just the left. Seems you've answered the question, wider society doesn't really want the 'left' or the 'right' in power.

So in relevance to the thread, the answer is the left can't (nor the right) because neither the left or the right have the support of the electorate to gain power
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
Actual leftists, not moderate neoliberals like the ALP, won in Chile. Yet another rich country goes progressive.
Chile has a gdp per capita of 13000 us dollars. Developed countries are over 30 thousand. It's not rich. But it is the richest of Latin America. And that's largely because it embraced capitalism more than any other Latin American country.

Probably don't want to bring up Latin American countries when advocating the benefits of socialism. It doesn't help.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
You didn't refer to any definition in the op, just the left. Seems you've answered the question, wider society doesn't really want the 'left' or the 'right' in power.

So in relevance to the thread, the answer is the left can't (nor the right) because neither the left or the right have the support of the electorate to gain power
I may not of. But that was what I was referring to. I've told you that now. Left and right is always relative terms compared to the very centre and the magnitudes don't matter. Labour party is always left. Liberals are always right.
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
9,332
12,516
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Chile has a gdp per capita of 13000 us dollars. Developed countries are over 30 thousand. It's not rich.
More like $24 000, but who's counting? PPP is the only fair way to compare prosperity among different nations, because they don't all operate in exactly the same markets. And it's in the OECD, a club of wealthy nations. And it ranks in the very high category for HDI. It's a rich country.

But it is the richest of Latin America. And that's largely because it embraced capitalism more than any other Latin American country.
At what cost? Were all the murders, rapes and tortured people worth it for a slightly higher GDP figure? And I can assure you other Latin American countries embraced rabid capitalism wholeheartedly at various times with mixed results. Brazil in the 80s is a good example, as was Peru in the Fujishock era. Both of them also involved great suffering and human rights abuses.

Probably don't want to bring up Latin American countries when advocating the benefits of socialism. It doesn't help.
Thing is Seeds, I want to have a proper debate with you, but it's hard when you start from a position that's either a very shallow understanding of the real world, or deliberately disingenuous. You're making it seem as though there's a binary choice between rabid capitalism and outright socialism, when no real-world nation has either of those systems, they're all mixed economies. Chile has public enterprises and government intervention in the economy, and Cuba has had a private sector for decades (and greatly expanded it this year).

There are a million shades of grey between laissez-faire and a command economy, and modern leftists' demands all fit within those bounds. They are almost all advocating for either a) social democratic policies around taxation, welfare and public investment that can work within a mostly private sector-led economy, as seen in Nordic countries, or b) democratic socialist policies in sectors like housing and energy that they feel are essential to human needs and shouldn't be treated as investments first, while leaving the remainder of the economy to the private sector with sufficient oversight and regulations.

Don't pretend "socialism" is a monolithic set of policies that can't be implemented alongside market-based economic frameworks. They can, and have been. And that is what Chile's new President proposes.
 

Seeds

Hall of Famer
Sep 15, 2007
45,188
40,942
I don't know
AFL Club
Geelong
More like $24 000, but who's counting? PPP is the only fair way to compare prosperity among different nations, because they don't all operate in exactly the same markets. And it's in the OECD, a club of wealthy nations. And it ranks in the very high category for HDI. It's a rich country.


At what cost? Were all the murders, rapes and tortured people worth it for a slightly higher GDP figure? And I can assure you other Latin American countries embraced rabid capitalism wholeheartedly at various times with mixed results. Brazil in the 80s is a good example, as was Peru in the Fujishock era. Both of them also involved great suffering and human rights abuses.


Thing is Seeds, I want to have a proper debate with you, but it's hard when you start from a position that's either a very shallow understanding of the real world, or deliberately disingenuous. You're making it seem as though there's a binary choice between rabid capitalism and outright socialism, when no real-world nation has either of those systems, they're all mixed economies. Chile has public enterprises and government intervention in the economy, and Cuba has had a private sector for decades (and greatly expanded it this year).

There are a million shades of grey between laissez-faire and a command economy, and modern leftists' demands all fit within those bounds. They are almost all advocating for either a) social democratic policies around taxation, welfare and public investment that can work within a mostly private sector-led economy, as seen in Nordic countries, or b) democratic socialist policies in sectors like housing and energy that they feel are essential to human needs and shouldn't be treated as investments first, while leaving the remainder of the economy to the private sector with sufficient oversight and regulations.

Don't pretend "socialism" is a monolithic set of policies that can't be implemented alongside market-based economic frameworks. They can, and have been. And that is what Chile's new President proposes.
MER probably understimates prosperity but ppp overestimates it. true value probably lies in between the two measures.

in any case chile tends to be just left off most developed economy lists with the exception of the oecd because the oecd is a bit broader to encourage membership. mexico is in the oecd too and almost everyone leaves them out of developed economy lists, except the oecd.

This is all a bit semantic though. they are either the poorest rich economies of the richest poor economies.

i agree im very simplistic in my discussion about socialism and capitalism and economic systems on this board. Rarely is anyone interested in going into depth. I'm, however, less interested in the labels of what socialism and capitalism are and more just interested in discussing whst good economic policy And systems are. Everyone gets too wrapped up into the name. I.e. is this socialism or is it welfare capitalism and in the end the label doesnt matter.

the excess murders and capitalism in chile arent really causal. more just a correlation. Plenty or murders in venezuela with a very different system. inequality is a problem in chile and i like some of the policies of the new chile government. but will they address inequality in a way that does or doesnt harm economic growth cos they still have catchup to go there as well. We will see.
 
Last edited:

Carringbush2010

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 6, 2016
13,679
8,289
Perth
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Pines Football Club
I may not of. But that was what I was referring to. I've told you that now. Left and right is always relative terms compared to the very centre and the magnitudes don't matter. Labour party is always left. Liberals are always right.

Either either, both the major parties here are both pretty much centred (although the lnp currently you could argue are leaning further right) during the majority of their existence, same for any liberal western democratic society. Neither have wildly exclusive or impractically progressive policies.

Certainly Labor at the minute, no one could argue they're a 'lefty' party, left leaning sure but hardly to the point of impractical policy that hard left types would or policies that would alienate the majority of the electorate.

Again, that answers the question, the 'left' i:e left but not centred do not have the support of the majority of the electorate . Same with the 'right'. (thank god)

Which I gather is the premise of the question.
 

Johnny Bananas

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 10, 2010
9,332
12,516
A sugar refinery
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
mexico is in the oecd too and almost everyone leaves them out of developed economy lists, except the oecd.
Well they're silly. Mexico is a developed country. It has the infrastructure.

I'm, however, less interested in the labels of what socialism and capitalism are and more just interested in discussing whst good economic policy And systems are.
And what do you believe those are?

the excess murders and capitalism in chile arent really causal. more just a correlation.
I'm specifically referring to Pinochet overthrowing a democratically elected government and his goons embarking on a campaign of mass murder, rape and torture of anyone dissenting. Funnily enough, the guy who Boric defeated wanted to pardon everyone involved in that, probably because he thought the ends justified the means. I find that attitude abhorrent.

inequality is a problem in chile and i like some of the policies of the new chile government. but will they address inequality in a way that does or doesnt harm economic growth cos they still have catchup to go there as well. We will see.
What use is growth if it only enriches a select few and the majority are struggling? Growth has to benefit the majority in a way better than trapping them into wage slavery. This hasn't happened for the past 48 years, or else people wouldn't have taken to the streets last year over something as seemingly minor as a public transport fare increase. But it was simply the straw that broke the camel's back, the issues had been building up the whole time.
 

Osho

By God and the mauser.
Jul 9, 2021
765
766
AFL Club
GWS
Do what Marx didn't, visit, or better, get more and more people working at a factory or assembly line or on a farm for a couple of years. Then, get a 100% scholarship in a humanities / social science degree.

By all measures, avoid hard sciences, apprenticeships, entrepreneurship.

Voila!
 

Eagle Wrath

Club Legend
Oct 22, 2017
2,906
3,605
AFL Club
West Coast
Did everyone see the democrats and their media are trying to promote Hillary again for President. FMD. Might as well hand the election straight to Trump. Shows how poorly Biden and Kumula are viewed by the country.

They need to find some new blood fast or face a republican landslide.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad