About politico.eu
-
Even in those systems the positions on capitalism are on the horizontal, left to right axis. Because when talking about politics left and right are used to describe positions on capitalism.
Neoliberalism is a pro capitalism ideology therefore it's a right wing ideology.
That people may not hold political ideologies is irrelevant to neoliberalism being a right Wong ideology. Its also not a new phenomenon by any means.
-
Agreed. But it’s one of the more harmless sources people often share here. People share right wing billionaire owned sources all the time. It really ticks me off.
-
So now we have one axis, progressivism. You can have a progressive right wing (Tories legalised gay marriage arguing it’s for families), progressive neoliberals (Democratic party) and progressive left (like Zapatero in Spain). How do we differentiate between them? Their attitude towards wealth inequality, authoritarianism etc. That’s why liberals are distinct from left or right, there’s as much difference between a liberal and a conservative as between a liberal and a leftist, but those are differences on other axis.
-
See my other comment for reply to this. This is much more complex and this oversimplified view is a big factor in why politics are so bad now.
-
I 've seen it. You want to rename the axes. The US Democrats are socially progressive right wingers, Zapatero is socially progressive left winger.
I am also not denying that there different dimensions of politics ideologies and that people can hold different combinations of them.
But neoliberalism is a position in the left-right axis. On the right. If you describe someone as a neoliberal you are describing a right winger. They might be socially progressive or they might not be. I also expect that whatever else they are they will primarily act based on their neoliberal convictions. Just like I expect the US Democrats (at least the high profile officials and politicians) to put neo liberalism before social progress.
-
Yes, it's more complex than an on-off-switch. Congratulations. Different liberal movements focus on different aspects. Neoliberalism is a radical economic movement building hierarchy on wealth and ability. Some liberal movements focus on individual freedoms (and when everyone is to have the same individual freedoms, differences must be compensated).
But this isn't about liberalism, it's about how neoliberalism is a right wing ideology. And that is because it builds and enforces hierarchies. -
I'll start: The Guardian (UK) is self-owned (owned by an organization whose purpose is the long term economic viability and editorial independence of the Guardian).
-
Euronews is even worse: It was bought by some shell company belonging to the Victor Orban circle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euronews#Post-NBC,_Alpac_Capital_ownership,relocation_to_Brussels(2022%E2%80%93present)
-
No, the axis will be there regardless of their names and regardless of whether you choose to recognise them or not. I reject treating politics this reductively because it benefits conservatives and neoliberals primarily.
-
You make neoliberalism sound like fringe when it is the mainstream ideology that dictates how the world works.
-
First, that's your reading. I never commented on the spread of any ideology.
Second, what do you want to argue about? I answered your question about bow neoliberalism is a right wing ideology (that you framed as center-left btw). -
It's a bit exhausting. I use https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ to see biases and credibility of different websites. Anything that's not at least Center-X and High I pretty much dismiss. Rest I take with heaps of salt.
How do I know that site is trustworthy? I don't 🫠
-
I'd like to urge more good-faith argumentation from your side here. Whether or not neoliberalism is "fringe" was not the question.
This discussion was about Politico = Axel Springer = neoliberalism = right-wing.
-
I’m fairly sure you won’t dispute that Christian democracy is a right wing ideology. What commonalities to neoliberalism do you see between both? You probably won’t find much so it makes little sense to group them together as „right wing”.
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
I’m not a conservative by any means but I don’t mind true right wing ideology. It can be a compassionate philosophy that focuses on common good.
Quite honestly -- is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
-
I was confused there and thought you were saying that they were bought by the Shell corporation. But after doing some searching and reading, I see what you mean: a shell corporation.
There’s definitely concern around Victor Orban’s influence. And your own news have had Clickbait headlines for quite awhile already. I prefer DW now myself.
-
Axel Springer SE is owned by billionaires, too, and they're obviously far right, too.
-
Incidentally, all the Christian Democratic parties morphed into fervently neoliberal parties. So there does appear to be a connection between the ideologies, no?
Yes and no. Conservatives lost relevance in a world of meritocracy, most of their points were on a losing side eventually. People who come to power now, on the backs of conservative voters, don’t even try to be factually correct and therefore offer a way to continue ideological left-right war (hence the post-truth moniker used by some people). The hard pill to swallow about this is that maybe extreme meritocracy is not sustainable, or at least not sustainable in a system that doesn’t benefit the largest possible majority in practice. And maybe that politics can’t be means of changing societal norms as those have to happen naturally. A political force attempting such thing would need to have high legitimacy and current elites don’t have it because they usually prioritised interests of the largest businesses.
What I’m trying to say is that no matter which perspective you use to try to look into the future, there’s no positive outcome if neoliberalism is involved. I’m arguing with people online in an effort that sometime in the future they’re not deceived by neoliberals pretending to be right or left wing politician and that’s why I insist on making a distinction.
Quite honestly -- is there a person or historical system to exemplify this?
Christian democrats in Western Europe adapted many things from social democrats, mostly on welfare state which is critical element of societal cohesion. Those parties were since then eaten from the inside by neoliberalism that corrupted both right and left but for a time whole world aspired to European quality of life. We might not agree on societal norms with Christian democrats but things like Catholic social teaching is solid stuff to build upon.
-
The public discourse shifted (/was engineered to shift) so far right in the last 10-20 years, that you have to assume:
Right = extremist
Center = right
Left = center
Radical left = left
Left-leaning media is usually written based on facts. Which, somehow, in these times is accused to be „biased“.
