London Blasts!

Kharn said:
John; fer Chrissakes, "socialist" is a word commonly used in a lot of countries to indicate social democrats. I'm quite surprised there are any hardcore socialists in there.
There are a lot of hardened, nostalgic socialists in ex-socialist countries. In fact, I had a beer with a few just yesterday.
 
I know, they're still quite popular in a lot of ex-USSR countries, including Russia. But, sadly, ex-USSR is not the majority of the world, so you don't really count.

Again, sorry.

Socialist does just mean social democrat in most places

PS: John, for all clarity, the Democrat party in the US are NOT social democrats
 
PS: John, for all clarity, the Democrat party in the US are NOT social democrats
Now that is not entirely true and I think you know it: the Democratic party, being a big tent, has pleanty of people who in Europe would be close to Socdems or Demsocs.

Also, what is the diffirence between Socdems and Demsocs? I'm still really, really confused.
 
John Uskglass said:
Also, what is the diffirence between Socdems and Demsocs? I'm still really, really confused.
Socdem - A social democrat.

Demsoc - An abbrevation of "Damn sock!", a popular outraged shout a retarded person lets out when unsuccessfully attemtping to put on a sock.
 
John Uskglass said:
Now that is not entirely true and I think you know it: the Democratic party, being a big tent, has pleanty of people who in Europe would be close to Socdems or Demsocs.

That does not make the party a social democratic party. The Dutch Labour party also had a guy hanging around who was as left wing as the Socialist Party, two parties to the left, didn't make Labour party any less centralist social democrats than they were.

From an international view point, you don't have a left wing. You just have hard right and a less right sorta centrist party.

John Uskglass said:
Also, what is the diffirence between Socdems and Demsocs? I'm still really, really confused.

The terms used to be pretty interchangeable.

Officially, according to the International, Democratic Socialism is an ideal, where Social Democracy is the political result of it.

By another definition, Social Democracy supports capitalism and is only social in the preservation of the wellfare state, whereas Democratic Socialism works as an evolutionary system, democratic but anti-capitalist.

That definition doesn't work with reality, though. Labour calls itself a Democratic Socialist party, as does the SPD, neither are against capitalism.

Really, some people use Social Democracy as a term, some Democratic Socialism. Some think the term Democratic in there is redundant and just says Socialism. It all ends up exactly the same, as Social Democrats. Even Third-Way Socialists like Schröder and Blair and some would even argue Clinton (not me, though) belong to that group.
 
From an international view point, you don't have a left wing. You just have hard right and a less right sorta centrist party.
Wow, that's shit. The world is pretty right wing right now, considering the Islamofacsists, the Chinese and Japanese Neoconservatives, the rise of Putin and the death of Socialism.

I'd say America is pretty close to the center internationally, Europe is just kind of to the left.
 
John Uskglass said:
Wow, that's shit. The world is pretty right wing right now, considering the Islamofacsists, the Chinese and Japanese Neoconservatives, the rise of Putin and the death of Socialism.

China is rightwing?

Riiiiight. 'cause, y'know, communists often are

Right wing.

PS: also, non-democracies don't...really...count
 
The ruling Chinese government is called the 'neoconservatives' because they read Burke more often then Mao.

Then I guess America is a little to the right, if not that much more so then India and parts of Latin America. The Republican Party is not 'far-right' though by any standard. They are not fascists.
 
Bradylama said:
Would it be gouche to point out that Fascism isn't Right-Wing?

Yes it is. Depends on who you ask, though. Wikipedia:
Fascism was typified by attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life. Many scholars consider "fascism" to be part of, or in coalition with, extreme right politics, however the definitional debates and arguments by academics over the nature of fascism fill entire bookshelves.

John said:
The Republican Party is not 'far-right' though by any standard. They are not fascists.

"Far-right" is not the same as "extreme right". "Far-right" just means "further to the right than other right-wing parties". The Dutch VVD could be argued to fall into that category, and they're not fascists.
 
Kharn said:
Yes it is. Depends on who you ask, though.

It doesn't really matter what Fascism is, since in the Authoritarian Nature of Fascism, it can appeal to whatever political idealogue it pleases (save those that lean more towards Libertarianism).

Communism and Fascism are a stone's throw away from each other. The end result of Fascism resembles Communism in the sense that all things are owned and regulated by the State. The only difference, it seems, is that Fascism is honest about itself.

VVD is a very, very Liberal party, it's not even to the Right.

By American or European standards?
 
John Uskglass said:
VVD is a very, very Liberal party, it's not even to the Right.

It's the most right-wing party we have, apart from the fringe-groups LPF and SGP. CU sits to the right of it, but they're wrongly seated Social Christians. D66 is to the left of it because of their policies on education. CDA, PvdA, GroenLinks and SP are all to the left of it.

Frith, man, VVD is the party that's pushed through all kinds of disastrous liberalizations under Paars, all of which have turned out to lower the quality and raise the prizes of the services offered, and is currently trying to make the economic crisis in Holland go away by, pay attention, NOT SPENDING ANY MONEY ON ANYTHING. And despite the fact that the Dutch economy is plummeting, I'm sure a lot of people will still argue that actually works
 
Ehehe, great fun, this. Methinks the problems here are due to a rather poor definittion of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'. I still adhere to the much more accurate way of defining something on a political cross, instead of an a single left-to-right scale, because with the latter way you could be talking about economical left and right-wing, and social left and right-wing. Which usually means that anarchists and communists are put into the same corner, as are liberals (European liberals) and fascists, all of whom have rather opposing politics on a lot of points.
 
Back
Top