Great take, many issues, among which their ahistorical approaches, and further the fact that few and far between of these parties seldom speak to the people they claim to represent, just for a change. NB Wagenknecht also was spotted taking pics with regime change agents against Syria.... a few years back. So in conclusion to trust any politician within the West , one must have lost all sense of self determination and understanding of people's power.
That's something increasingly evident: political parties (thinking of the Greens and Labour) which pursue policies diametrically opposite to the long-term interests of their middle-class constituencies. They simply have no sense of the impact their decisions will have; the leadership lives in a bubble. Shameful!
I feel that the reduction left populism = anti-nationalism is too strong. Indeed most left movements advocate for internationalism instead of nationalism. Again this is the standard left-right distinction, just like poor-rich, peace-war or solidarity-competition paradigms. There is a lot to say for and against each of these, but in reality we live in a complex world and therefore in between. For example, I consider that the French state is legitimate to collect taxes, protect citizens and build infrastructure. However I dont like when the leader of the nation allows himself to attack another country or support dangerous industries. In other words I would like more internationalism, but acknowledge that nations also provide for their citizens positively.
I disagree on the topic of immigration. In my view, as a bunch of foreigners come in the country and contribute to the national pot (eg pay taxes, work, clean their neighborhood, ...) why cant they be part of the nation ? All data I know prove that immigration improves national well-being, economic returns, open-mindedness, security and innovation. Factual negative consequences of immigration are non-existent. This is where the right, from center to far, needs to manufacture its claims on why they cant get in : they are too poor, too dark, too Muslim, too many, or whatever. Indeed these claims are motivated by egoism, xenophoby, fear and jealousy. I am not judging just saying humans have many flaws. In the post-truth, fake news era these lies can be broadcasted by the media without consequences. Meanwhile thousands of foreigners could have entered Europe and make it a better place. Instead they and their children drowned in the sea. We lost the benefits of their presence and they suffered or died because we believed a lie. Does this make any sense ?
Thanks for commenting. The contradiction is not between nationalism and internationalism -- the two are dialectically related as Lenin says -- but between the nation-state (or some other model of self-determination) and the actively anti-democratic technocratic superstate, of which the EU is probably the most egregious example.
As for immigration, it is probably useful and for some countries facing demographic challenges a necessity. The issue is how it is weaponized to undermine national identity.
its kind of funny, that rejecting nationalism but propping internationalism, at its core, makes no sense; the terms are mutually dependant, you cannot have internationalism without nationalism if you want to have any language left to describe 'someone from a different country' because you do not by def believe in countries. (But still pay your taxes?) One big world, ok, but by default in this belief of 'one big world' then there can be no countries at all. And there are still definitely countries, which i see as a human tendency springing from smaller groups historically forming small protected areas. I see countries like I see our interal bodies, without our interal delineations, (veins, layers, membranes) we are just a bag of goo. A permeable border is not the same thing as no border, or an impermeable wall. Anyway, time for more coffee! best Olivier from OR
As I point out in my other reply above, the issue is nationalism vs globalism, the latter being the project to establish technocratic world governments beyond popular control. The recent attempted power-grab by the WHO is a good example of this.
Great take, many issues, among which their ahistorical approaches, and further the fact that few and far between of these parties seldom speak to the people they claim to represent, just for a change. NB Wagenknecht also was spotted taking pics with regime change agents against Syria.... a few years back. So in conclusion to trust any politician within the West , one must have lost all sense of self determination and understanding of people's power.
That's something increasingly evident: political parties (thinking of the Greens and Labour) which pursue policies diametrically opposite to the long-term interests of their middle-class constituencies. They simply have no sense of the impact their decisions will have; the leadership lives in a bubble. Shameful!
I feel that the reduction left populism = anti-nationalism is too strong. Indeed most left movements advocate for internationalism instead of nationalism. Again this is the standard left-right distinction, just like poor-rich, peace-war or solidarity-competition paradigms. There is a lot to say for and against each of these, but in reality we live in a complex world and therefore in between. For example, I consider that the French state is legitimate to collect taxes, protect citizens and build infrastructure. However I dont like when the leader of the nation allows himself to attack another country or support dangerous industries. In other words I would like more internationalism, but acknowledge that nations also provide for their citizens positively.
I disagree on the topic of immigration. In my view, as a bunch of foreigners come in the country and contribute to the national pot (eg pay taxes, work, clean their neighborhood, ...) why cant they be part of the nation ? All data I know prove that immigration improves national well-being, economic returns, open-mindedness, security and innovation. Factual negative consequences of immigration are non-existent. This is where the right, from center to far, needs to manufacture its claims on why they cant get in : they are too poor, too dark, too Muslim, too many, or whatever. Indeed these claims are motivated by egoism, xenophoby, fear and jealousy. I am not judging just saying humans have many flaws. In the post-truth, fake news era these lies can be broadcasted by the media without consequences. Meanwhile thousands of foreigners could have entered Europe and make it a better place. Instead they and their children drowned in the sea. We lost the benefits of their presence and they suffered or died because we believed a lie. Does this make any sense ?
Thanks for commenting. The contradiction is not between nationalism and internationalism -- the two are dialectically related as Lenin says -- but between the nation-state (or some other model of self-determination) and the actively anti-democratic technocratic superstate, of which the EU is probably the most egregious example.
As for immigration, it is probably useful and for some countries facing demographic challenges a necessity. The issue is how it is weaponized to undermine national identity.
its kind of funny, that rejecting nationalism but propping internationalism, at its core, makes no sense; the terms are mutually dependant, you cannot have internationalism without nationalism if you want to have any language left to describe 'someone from a different country' because you do not by def believe in countries. (But still pay your taxes?) One big world, ok, but by default in this belief of 'one big world' then there can be no countries at all. And there are still definitely countries, which i see as a human tendency springing from smaller groups historically forming small protected areas. I see countries like I see our interal bodies, without our interal delineations, (veins, layers, membranes) we are just a bag of goo. A permeable border is not the same thing as no border, or an impermeable wall. Anyway, time for more coffee! best Olivier from OR
As I point out in my other reply above, the issue is nationalism vs globalism, the latter being the project to establish technocratic world governments beyond popular control. The recent attempted power-grab by the WHO is a good example of this.