About politico.eu
-
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.
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.
-
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.You make neoliberalism sound like fringe when it is the mainstream ideology that dictates how the world works.
-
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). -
I see a lot of politico links in this sub and I'd just like to say:
POLITICO Europe is a subsidiary of Axel Springer SE.
That's a right leaning and pretty unethical publisher and politico has already been caught several times spreading reactionary propaganda. I also suspect they publish undisclosed opinion pieces as news. Like some fossil fuel investor explaining how wind turbines could be hacked by China without providing any compelling evidence. Many articles are well written so it's hard to spot the grift sometimes. Just stay vigilant.
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 🫠
-
You make neoliberalism sound like fringe when it is the mainstream ideology that dictates how the world works.
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”. I’m beating the drum here again so that people wake up and recognise who the centrists really are.
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. True right wing is very rare these days because they were replaced by populists who can’t be even categorised as conservatives. They’re just bullies. Liberals are bullies very often too.
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?
-
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.
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.
-
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.
Axel Springer SE is owned by billionaires, too, and they're obviously far right, too.
-
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?
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.
-
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 🫠
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“.
-
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 🫠
MBFC is run by some dude whose evidence basically is also just "trust me bro".
At the end of the day you won't get around reading multiple sources and trying to understand for yourself what is going on. Also there is issues that are systematically ignored or downplayed by the "center" and "trustworthy" media, in particular when it comes to the consequences of western politics in "poorer" countries or when a government appointed but not official, but still pretty influential guy makes a nazi salute on stage, twice, but it is not declared to be that, despite hundred of millions of people having seen it on video.
-
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.
DW is operated by the German government with the goal to further the "German viewpoint" internationally. It is not a public broadcaster, but explicitly operated by the federal government.
-
I see a lot of politico links in this sub and I'd just like to say:
POLITICO Europe is a subsidiary of Axel Springer SE.
That's a right leaning and pretty unethical publisher and politico has already been caught several times spreading reactionary propaganda. I also suspect they publish undisclosed opinion pieces as news. Like some fossil fuel investor explaining how wind turbines could be hacked by China without providing any compelling evidence. Many articles are well written so it's hard to spot the grift sometimes. Just stay vigilant.
Could be worse
-
System shared this topic on
