The political aftermath of financial crises: Going to extremes(voxeu.org)
voxeu.org
The political aftermath of financial crises: Going to extremes
http://www.voxeu.org/article/political-aftermath-financial-crises-going-extremes
3 comments
>3. People turn to these parties because like in the US, the political landscape in Europe has shifted to the right, economically. A blatant example of this is that both the center right and center left are fully supportive of TTIP. The only other notable alternative besides the anti-immigration parties is the Greens but the Greens are highly opinionated about many things that tends to turn people off. Plus they have been there since forever and not achieved much so people do not see them as "change".
The first time this happened, in the Great Depression, there was also a steady move towards far-left parties. This time, the far-left has been doubly crippled: once by the lack of the Soviet Union to point to or turn to for examples and instructions in how socialism can work, and secondly by Western governments equating the far-left with domestic terrorism (which hasn't been true since the '70s-'90s period) and cracking down.
I wonder what our current situation would look like if the political spectrum was allowed to extend sufficiently to the left that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn (bog-standard social democrats) couldn't call themselves revolutionary.
The first time this happened, in the Great Depression, there was also a steady move towards far-left parties. This time, the far-left has been doubly crippled: once by the lack of the Soviet Union to point to or turn to for examples and instructions in how socialism can work, and secondly by Western governments equating the far-left with domestic terrorism (which hasn't been true since the '70s-'90s period) and cracking down.
I wonder what our current situation would look like if the political spectrum was allowed to extend sufficiently to the left that Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn (bog-standard social democrats) couldn't call themselves revolutionary.
more decentralized more democratic government
What decentralization are you talking about? None takes place. Party representation is increased in a central body. That's it.
What decentralization are you talking about? None takes place. Party representation is increased in a central body. That's it.
Your comment is a perfect example of what they mean by 'Far-right' beyond just anti-immigration policies. Libertarianism is a far right ideology.
> Libertarianism is a far right ideology.
No, its not. Libertarianism is an ideology that sometimes coexists with right-wing (including far-right) ideologies, but also sometimes coexists with left-wing (including far-left) ideologies.
People mainly familiar with American politics may be prone to confuse libertarianism with a far-right ideology, since the label is mainly used in the US by and about either the right-libertarian Libertarian Party or by a contingent within the right-wing Republican Party, a party which has more generally adopted, particulary over the last handful of decades, a lot of right-libertarian rhetoric.
No, its not. Libertarianism is an ideology that sometimes coexists with right-wing (including far-right) ideologies, but also sometimes coexists with left-wing (including far-left) ideologies.
People mainly familiar with American politics may be prone to confuse libertarianism with a far-right ideology, since the label is mainly used in the US by and about either the right-libertarian Libertarian Party or by a contingent within the right-wing Republican Party, a party which has more generally adopted, particulary over the last handful of decades, a lot of right-libertarian rhetoric.
> but also sometimes coexists with left-wing (including far-left) ideologies.
What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with? As a far left democratic socialist, I don't see any.
What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with? As a far left democratic socialist, I don't see any.
>What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with?
You might be surprised. Bleeding Heart Libertarians[0] is a good place to start. In the US, libertarianism has traditionally been more closely aligned with the right, but that's more or less an accident of history. There's room for disagreement of course (based mostly on how you define terms), but libertarians find plenty of overlap and disagreement with both the left and the right.
[0] http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
You might be surprised. Bleeding Heart Libertarians[0] is a good place to start. In the US, libertarianism has traditionally been more closely aligned with the right, but that's more or less an accident of history. There's room for disagreement of course (based mostly on how you define terms), but libertarians find plenty of overlap and disagreement with both the left and the right.
[0] http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/
Bleeding Hart Libertarians isn't left wing by any stretch of the imagination. They endorse the same kind of "free market solutions" that are peddled by the republican libertarians: privatize all the things and then hope that the billionaires are generous enough to share their wealth with the peons.
I mean, come on: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/rich-plutocrat-...
I mean, come on: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/08/rich-plutocrat-...
> What left ideologies can libertarianism coexist with?
The general name for ideologies of the left that incorporate libertarianism is libertarian socialism, and there's a lot of far-left libertarian ideologies within that scope of that label (probably the most widely recognizable by name being anarcho-syndicalism.)
The general name for ideologies of the left that incorporate libertarianism is libertarian socialism, and there's a lot of far-left libertarian ideologies within that scope of that label (probably the most widely recognizable by name being anarcho-syndicalism.)
In the 90's when I first became old enough to vote and interested in politics I was on the Libertarian band wagon with what most would consider down right hippies. Admittedly the biggest part of the agenda was legalizing marijuana but there were older, smarter people than me involved who knew exactly who Ron Paul was and what he stood for and fully backed him for president when he ran as a Libertarian against Clinton.
My view at the time was that Libertarians were fiscally conservative and critical of large government while at the same time leftist in their view of individual rights and freedoms. Kind of a "stay out of my wallet and my bedroom" attitude.
But that's not really the mainstream view anymore and as many center oriented Republicans have stated I think a lot of 90's Libertarians feeling is that they didn't leave the Libertarian party so much as it left them.
My view at the time was that Libertarians were fiscally conservative and critical of large government while at the same time leftist in their view of individual rights and freedoms. Kind of a "stay out of my wallet and my bedroom" attitude.
But that's not really the mainstream view anymore and as many center oriented Republicans have stated I think a lot of 90's Libertarians feeling is that they didn't leave the Libertarian party so much as it left them.
Traditional anarchism was also called "libertarian socialism".
There's also Georgism, admittedly.
There's also Georgism, admittedly.
It depends on what you mean by "libertarian". Here's what Noam Chomsky has to say about that word:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
See Flexicurity in Denmark.
[deleted]
My main takeaway is that financial crises affect everybody (ex: oil recessions from low cost tend to limit damage to oil producers and economy of cities reliant on them, whereas everybody depends on money and the availability of credit) and at greater levels than other kinds of recessions. When credit crunches, people who were on the margins or even comfortably in debt end up in precarious positions where there is little help available, and the only bailout beneficiaries are big banks.
I suppose the reason far-right political groups benefit is because when people lose their possessions, all they are left with is their identity, and a lot of anger. This can feed resentment at any "other" group responsible for their travesty, whether it be a foreign power (WWI victors), internal distinct subgroup (Jews in Germany; Muslims in America/Europe; welfare recipients), or even religion (Arab Spring and ISIS being correlated with the global recession and rise in food prices).
History shows that any extreme cannot last forever, but it can do damage that lasts for generations. The extreme right may be wrong, but the conditions make them attractive. And dangerous.
I suppose the reason far-right political groups benefit is because when people lose their possessions, all they are left with is their identity, and a lot of anger. This can feed resentment at any "other" group responsible for their travesty, whether it be a foreign power (WWI victors), internal distinct subgroup (Jews in Germany; Muslims in America/Europe; welfare recipients), or even religion (Arab Spring and ISIS being correlated with the global recession and rise in food prices).
History shows that any extreme cannot last forever, but it can do damage that lasts for generations. The extreme right may be wrong, but the conditions make them attractive. And dangerous.
"the only bailout beneficiaries are big banks" is patently false.
if the banks were the only parties to benefit, there'd be zero political will to aid. banks hold the nation's savings, and allowing them to fail meant multiples of pain for average people.
if this crisis proved anything, it's that friedman was right (printing can stall a deflationary spiral). what remains to be seen is how the next act plays.
if the banks were the only parties to benefit, there'd be zero political will to aid. banks hold the nation's savings, and allowing them to fail meant multiples of pain for average people.
if this crisis proved anything, it's that friedman was right (printing can stall a deflationary spiral). what remains to be seen is how the next act plays.
I'd be interested in understanding what they mean by 'far-right groups'.
When ignorance and subjectivity comes in, people wrongly take Hitler, Mussolini and even Trump as far-right.
When ignorance and subjectivity comes in, people wrongly take Hitler, Mussolini and even Trump as far-right.
"Right" is a subjective weasel word that has no meaning. You have to draw it out from context in every different piece you read. In my experience any definition of it that doesn't include those three you named is purely academic and detached from reality and the way people use the word to the point of absurdity. Those are the essence of what it means to be "right", alongside say Rand, Nixon, and Joseph McCarthy. Though your experience is clearly quite different.
The point is it doesn't mean anything.
The point is it doesn't mean anything.
What is your definition of 'far-right'?
"far" anything politically usually means totalitarian.
Or revolutionary when applied to the left..
1. "aftermath"? We are not post crises yet. Look at the economic performance of the Netherlands or Finland during the last year. And of course the south is still unable to employ a lot of the youth and Greece is worst than ever.
2. "Far-right" is not a good description of these parties. They are anti-immigration. That is the only thing they have in common. They disagree on other issues.
3. People turn to these parties because like in the US, the political landscape in Europe has shifted to the right, economically. A blatant example of this is that both the center right and center left are fully supportive of TTIP. The only other notable alternative besides the anti-immigration parties is the Greens but the Greens are highly opinionated about many things that tends to turn people off. Plus they have been there since forever and not achieved much so people do not see them as "change".
4. "The typical political reaction to financial crises is as follows: votes for far-right parties increase strongly, government majorities shrink, the fractionalisation of parliaments rises and the overall number of parties represented in parliament jumps. These developments likely hinder crisis resolution and contribute to political gridlock. The resulting policy uncertainty may contribute to the much-debated slow economic recoveries from financial crises."
Way to spin that into a bad thing! A more decentralized more democratic government is a good thing. Less incompetent and corrupt members of the central parties that contributed to the crises through their mismanagement is also a good thing.