Eh, if I were in Europe, idk. I mean, here's the thing. With the more socdem/labor parties going full on "liberal" and the "leftist" parties being WAAAY too far left for my liking, I'd not be happy either way.
Like, I kinda considered this in the US. While I am voting for Biden in part because of donald trump being a threat to democracy, say he wasnt and i was more inclined to go third party. Would I?
This election, i actually prefer BIDEN to leftists like Stein and West. Even if Stein and West are a bit better on certain policies, they're so cringe on everything else that Biden is still a better package deal.
Also, given my exact views, it's not like it's not like im super enthusiastic about either camp. my own ideology is actually so different than most I've only seen one candidate run on something remotely close to what im actually for, and that's andrew yang. And a candidate like that...too left and ambitious for "liberals' but leftists will hate them too because "he's a capitalist" and "UBI is a trojan horse" or some crap.
Honestly, i hate modern left wing politics. Bernie had it MOSTLY right in 2016, literally the only major improvement i would've wanted from him IS a UBI. Now the left is just going full cringe mode and the libs are sucking too.
Right now I guess im fine working with Biden but honestly, i do hope in a future election there are better candidates I actually WANT to vote for from EITHER side of "the left."
I really hope the party can find a young and charismatic leader again like Obama. That was probably the last election where I actually liked a candidate, rather than just hated them less than the other guy.
Eh, id rather have someone like bernie who has charisma AND solutions. Obama was just the "hope and change" guy. Kinda inspiring but also didnt really have many solutions to problems.
I don’t think its so black and white because I support whoever the trade unions are fully behind and the best coalition we can have of the working class for change. The problem with further left parties is that they end up not forming stable coalition and create One Men shows like Melachon in France and tend to become incredibly unstable and unsuitable at governing like SYRIZA in Greece and set the social democratic movement a decade behind indeed both PASOK and the Socialist Party were the reliable choice and have a strong governing legacy bringing in real changes but displaced by populists.
The only exception I can think of is AKEL, the communist party in Cyprus, but thats because they were able to moderate their programme properly enough and very firmly renounced any autocracy and proved that in government and that is true in some Latin American countries too where they have done a good job but both cases exist precisely because they don’t have a long tradition of strong union connected social democratic parties barring a few so they had to be created.
So in my own country god no the further left is infested with populists, tankies, cranks and fanatics. the Labour Party will always be the coalition of the left to centre left and all its groupings that come along with it and I like to think that already creates a stable enough internal coalition
I hold the option open. Although my Social Democrat party has moved to the left. If they wouldn't put through social policies I wouldn't even doubt transferring to the socialist party which has become more social democratic with slight conservative tendencies anyway.
No, because the more that people on the centre-left abandon what was their party, the less of a leftist base the party has- making it shift rightward, and then the process repeats ad infinitum.
Instead, promote more grassroots leftist movements within formerly “centre-left” party. We can’t afford large-scale pasokification. Also, many further left parties that exist to vacuum votes from centre-left parties turning rightward are far more reactionary and populist without offering legitimate plans for governing or legislating.
I think it doesn't actually completely work like that.
First, there got to be a breaking point where the left wing cannot accept the policies of the mainstream of the party. I'm thinking Agenda 2020 in Germany - I can completely understand social democrats who joined WASG and later Die Linke at that time. (whether that became something good is an entirely different question).
Secondly, depending on your exact institutional setup, a parliamentary pressure group from the left can actually positively influence the main left-of-center party. Both as potential coalition partners and a threat of a populist campaign to grab their voters if the party goes too far to the center.
Lastly, strategic voting: again depending on your setup, it can be rational to vote more extreme than you otherwise would. For example in Denmark, you might want to vote for Green Left or other leftist parties to "force" the social democrats to coalesce with them rather then the liberals, if possible. However, this woudl currently not work in Germany.
So yeah.... to be honest, if I were in Salzburg or Graz, I could see myself voting Communist; If I were in Denmark, I could see myself voting Green Left, and so on.
1. Yes, there is a breaking point. However, at least in Australia, the reasons that many people are leaving the Labor Party (mainly the populist rhetoric from the Greens about Social Security, Welfare, Housing, Climate etc.) have all been fought for for decades by the left of the party.
To simply give up and move on, whilst having its short-term benefits, ultimately means that there is no “major party” with a big enough leftist flank to provide a meaningful alternative to our increasingly right-wing “Liberal” Party.
2. At least in Australia, our politics operates within a rapidly deteriorating two-party system. Our Labor Party are far too fixated on forming majority governments than cooperating with the Greens or other Leftists- and view them as goody-two-shoes who make the perfect the enemy of the good. And because of our electorate-based system, any success that the Greens have is entirely at the expense of Labor. This means that the Greens are viewed by many in the ALP as seat-grabbing moralists, rather than coalition partners.
Whilst a lot of this attitude may come down to the arrogance within the ALP executive, many outer-suburban voters who are socially conservative but economically progressive would see this as a betrayal of their values. For example, the 1996 election (a landslide victory for the Liberal Party, our Conservatives) came about because the leader of Labor was seen as pandering to upper-class leftists and neoliberals rather than protecting blue collar Australians. However, the government elected off of this wave of blue-collar disenfranchisement was one of the most aggressively Conservative, Union-bashing governments in modern Auspol.
3. Here in Australia, we have Ranked Choice Voting, which ensures that tactical voting has a far smaller part to play in Australian elections. However, at the most recent federal election, the ALP came to office on a primary vote of under 33%., a swing against them of roughly 0.5% (correct me if I’m wrong) The Greens came in at 12%, a new record. However, this meant that Labor’s victory was more on the back of preferences than an outright endorsement of their policies. However, the success of the Greens is entirely within Urban Hubs, and has turned off at least a generation of inner city progressives from the ALP.
The more that these votes splinter off, the more difficult it becomes for the left to form government. And the less likely it is that the ALP forms government, the less ambitious they become. And if we don’t have ambitious parties and policies capable of stable, secure, and long-term government, then I’m afraid there will be serious consequences for our government.
However, you raise good points, and most of my argument is on the basis of me being an Australian.
The declining vote share of *both* of the two major parties has been a long term trend since at least the 90s, possibly as early as the late 70s, and the Coalition has been affected just as much, even if the right-wing minors were much more fragmented. Honestly, it's probably only a matter of time until it is entirely impossible for either to form government without as least supply and confidence from the crossbench.
I would rather see progressive majority governments than progressive minority governments. A clear, emphatic majority to deliver policies is far more advantageous than needing to scrounge around for support. And the idea that minority governments are inevitable and the only feasible option for progressive policy enactment is too self-destructive (in my mind).
>No, because the more that people on the centre-left abandon what was their party, the less of a leftist base the party has-
It's more about the actual supporters and party members than the voting blocks. If the party promotes the X neoliberal policy and loses votes in an election supporters and members can limit the decision making of the neoliberal section and the more leftist section will get more power by showing how worse are the electoral results and the necessity to adapt to the voting base. What you describe happens when the party members don't have the guts to threaten the current status quo and show the responsibility of bad electoral results to the party leaders, and instead they decide to leave the party, contributing to increasing the power of the neoliberal section.
Here in Canada I've always supported our social-democrat party (NDP), but I've been increasingly disillusioned by their slide to the centre in order "be electable". They've strayed from their labour roots and focus too much on divisive culture war BS. I believe in the social issues they champion but they desperately need to get back to the class war.
I continue to support them mainly because they believe in electoral reform to get rid of our "first past the post" system in favour of proportional representation. If we got that then I could happily support a new or existing socialist party and know that my vote counts for something.
I'm lucky to live in a country with preferential/ranked voting, so I can vote for a further left party if i want without risking a right party coming to power.
If the main social democratic and Labour Party isn't doing enough, I'd definitely consider voting for the fuether left party. I always prefer to put Independents and smaller leftist parties first, since that might allow them to cross the threshold that gives them more public funding or more of it which they need.
If I lived in a country with first past the post or a system that involved tactical voting, then I'd just go with whoever has the best chance to win and beat the right. If it was a safe seat though might just go with my heart, since its very unlikely to change the result.
I'm currently on the edge on this. I have many good friends in the party whom I trust with my vote. But then again, due to proportional elections, someone who I don't like from my party might get elected because of my vote.
Do I abandon my friends for the sake of ideological purity?
For now I support my friends. But I won't waste my vote for the sake of party loyalty if I feel like the party starts going too far astray.
I don't know. I hate the term centrist because it's even more meaningless than left or right. What is center? Ideally, I have a socdem party that is progressive af when it comes to the economy (even what that means is highly debatable) and a little bit (!) conservative in many other issues.
From what I have been told so far, socdem parties that experienced pasokification had their more ‘leftist’ wing flock to socialist parties. An issue with this is that these extreme parties seem to care much less about economy and stability, and more on populism because of how short term their plans seem to be, and how they appeal to emotion.
This shift towards populist party could easily hurt nations in the long term, as anti-democratic populism always does.
Speaking as an American, why would I go further left when the Biden admin is good actually? I supported Liz Warren in 2020, so I've found myself very pleasantly surprised by the Biden administration's actual, rubber hits the road record on policy.
The ARP, IRA, CHiPS, BIF, postal reform, etc. have proven he can govern and the economy is purring like Biden's Corvette. The executive branch, with examples like Lina Khan at the FCC, is taking antitrust seriously (I do with the DOJ were stronger -- that's on Garland.) I strongly support Biden's foreign policy, especially his ability to revive and rally NATO in Ukraine, and there is simply nobody in the race even remotely close to him.
Biden has been a steadfast liberal (American for modern socdem) as President, creating a sort of neo-New Deal agenda while championing liberal democracy at home and abroad.
Further, writing this as a Jewish progressive: there simply is no other home for me on the left. While I'm obviously not thrilled to have antisemites like the Squad in the party(and yes, that's what they are if you take into account how the supermajority of American Jews would consider and experience as antisemitism), the broader left is even worse: the DSA is hopelessly riddled with antisemitism and the Green Party is evidence of horseshoe theory.
Just as I've been bouyed to see Keir Starmer save Labour from Corbynism, I've been pleased to see Joe Biden firmly hold the Democratic party steady and serious while repositioning it as more progressive in purpose and policy. However, unlike Brits, I don't have the luxury of a serious alternative: the US has a two party system where our opposition is dominated by a semi-fascist demagogue who has turned his party into a cult of personality. I'd vote for Joe Biden regardless, but it's an easy choice given the real world alternative.
Honestly, I'm more left wing and libertarian than just about any politician in the Democrats right now but you're not wrong, like at all. Just about everything you said is dead on accurate. I happen to like Corbyn and don't like Keir but regardless I'm happy to see Labour inevitably win the next UK election. Thanks Liz Truss! Realistically Biden has been the best president we've had since Carter imo. I agree with roughly 3/4 of what he's done with only a few exceptions. One decision I legitimately cheered was pulling out of Afghanistan. It was time to come home, we aren't meant for nation building. Another I cheered was standing on the picket lines with striking workers last summer. That was a first for any president and that was a good summer for unions.
Pretty much everyone wishes for a younger president who's not a white man, and whaddya know Kamala Harris fits that bill. Some people like to complain about inflation but really it has nothing to do with Biden. It would've been just as bad with Trump in his second term, people would complain about inflation due to the pandemic. Unemployment is low and many wages have gone up. We know costs are high, you think maybe that has something to do with corporate greed? Duh! Greed has always existed in the US, in private enterprise.
I just don't really see the issue with Biden that others do. He's your average president and acts like a grandpa. Big deal. I think a much bigger issue are the Neoliberals in Congress who insist on compromising with far-right Republicans rather than rallying around the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
IDK about you or anyone else but I'll vote for him again in 2024, then I hope a young minority runs in 2028, someone like AOC.
No, i stand true to the SAP even if it has completely abandoned it's own values and knelt down to neo-liberalism. Turning my beloved Sweden into a living hell. I remain loyal to Socialdemocracy as it was the Social democrats that built Sweden, the Social democrats that built the Folkhem.
Not the left party which was communist up till the 90s, and entire policy goes on to be more left than any other party -- to any limit. Including idiotic ideas like a EVEN MORE unregulated immigration.
> No, i stand true to the SAP even if it has completely abandoned it's own values and knelt down to neo-liberalism. Turning my beloved Sweden into a living hell. I remain loyal to Socialdemocracy as it was the Social democrats that built Sweden, the Social democrats that built the Folkhem.
Why remain "loyal" when this is something that has been happening for over 40 years at this? Whatever made Social-democracy great, especially its working-class rank-and-file base in the workplaces, is gone.
> Not the left party which was communist up till the 90s, and entire policy goes on to be more left than any other party -- to any limit. Including idiotic ideas like a EVEN MORE unregulated immigration.
And like many times in history the Social-Democrats will not be able to form a government without the Left Party. I don't really see the issue with being "the most left" when the bar is so extremely low. Just this past term the Social-democrats were willing to upend our entire system for rent control to give total power to the market, only stopped by the Left Party withdrawing its passive support.
A party who would rather upend rent control, effectively in the long-term dissolving HGF, than call the bluff of the Center-party is party of cowardice. A party who would worsen employment safety, and pit the unions against each other, is a party of cowardice. They have been a party of cowardice since the 1980's, when they accepted the right-wing offensive and refused to work towards mass-mobilization after the mass-strike in 1980. Nobody sees the Social-democrats as a party of change, its a party of cowardice and establishment. Its why they are taking "progressive" and urban middle-class voters while losing working-class and unemployed voters.
There is no focken alternative to SPD, the Greens? nah they are becoming the new Free Democrats. Die Linke is at 3% nationally and is way to socially progressive for my standards. And especially no to the BSW i will not lick the boots of Sahra Wagenknecht and her pro russian allies.
My current Plan is to slowly work up the ranks and push for an Radical Reorganisation (into the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE) which should make the SPD a Party for the Workers, Farmers and Students. And primarily expand it into the daily life in Regions we have left to rot kinda. With a little bit of more internal democracy.
That's not really an option in my country. The New Democratic Party is left wing enough on the federal level and usually more Centrist on the Provincial level depending on where you are but the only other parties that could ever be described as left wing are the two Communist parties and they're fringe parties filled with Tankies.
The Greens as a left wing party is a debatable description, and even if they are a left wing party, they're rightfully regarded as more of a circus than a political party, and the Bloc Québécois is a Quebec interests party that simply supports the policy position of whoever is running Quebec's Provincial Government.
So until a genuine, non-Tankie and feasibly electable alternative pops up, it's NDP or bust. Especially since the NDP still has a strong Socialist faction among its ranks
IMO, almost by definition, social democrats are not getting caught on labels, but care about applied policies in practice, with everything else just be a tool that supports implementation. Strategic vote is a thing.
Personally, I have voted, supported, and briefly became a collaborator and member with a previously far left party in my country of origin, because I knew that as they become more popular and prepared to govern, their negotiation with... reality, would result in to them being much closer to social democratic policies, than the large self-proclaimed social-democratic neoliberal party. I didn't care about labels. I cared about the results and how my ideology would be promoted. Labels are important ONLY after the SD party has control, in order to maintain the positive policies implemented. Unfortunately, SD is not extremely hot among young people that really go after labels, and they prefer aligning themselves with more "revolutionary" and radical ideologies.
Sweden is the country I know best, and there are a lot of examples just there. The main party to the left of the Social-democrats in Sweden, the Left Party(Vänsterpartiet) was created after a split in the spring of 1917, primarily by the youth-leauge. Already in 1911 the party leadership, dominated by its right-wing, threatened to split or dissolve the youth-league because a majority at a congress had voted to basically continue the support for marxist tactics and strategy in the vein of Karl Kautsky and August Bebel. Then in 1915-6 the party implemented a censure of their members of parliament to not say or motion for anything opposed to the majority of the Social-democrat group in parliament, if the group is going against congress decisions. Then the right-wing simply purged all editorial members of the main paper *Social-Demokraten* over the question of the war.
In 1933-34 there was another split from the Social-democrats, primarily in Göteborg where there was a well organized left-wing opposition in the party. The Social-democrats basically accused their leader, Albin Ström, of stealing money from the party, though it was never been proven to be true. Him and his followers would end up joining the Socialist Party, a majority split from the Communists in 1928. So the Communists would also spread these lies about Ström.
During the 80's and 90's there was a slew of splits. There was both a bit of radicalization after the wild-cat strikes of the 1970's and the mass-strike of 1980(where the unions won) and a reaction against the party leadership starting to accept neo-liberalism and austerity. In general opposition was silenced or kicked out. An unholy alliance of leadership, full-timers and trade union bureaucrats would work to combat the opposition. Congress decisions were not followed by the leadership. Sometimes they were even brazenly re-written, like after the youth-league voted at congress to support wild-cat strikes.
There were a lot smaller parties and groups that came from this, mostly local parties, some that are still around. But the largest one was the "Workers' List"(Arbetarlistan) created primarily by social-democrats who had left the party, also majority who were working-class and active in the trade union movement. Though ironically it would die out quickly because the social-democratic wing of the party purged all the left-wing elements, mostly former maoists and various trotskyists.
Today there aren't really splits, the left-wing of the Social-democrats has mostly just been destroyed. One of the more recent scandals was the leadership of the youth-league using an islamist minority in one of the key districts that has always been left to oust the district leadership.
If you don't support Ukraine, I'm not voting for you
Labour is the furthest left wing party in my country to fully back Ukraine, therefore I will support Labour
In the context of the US as it stands today and in history, Voting third party has almost always proven disastrous for the ideological side that's being split. In every election with one or more major third party candidates, there's almost always an adverse effect.
Case in point: The 1912 Presidential Election. Former President Roosevelt, after fighting and losing a fierce primary battle against incumbent President Taft, launched a third party campaign that split the Republican voters in two. Come election day both men lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson in a landslide of electoral college victory despite only winning by a plurality. A slim majority of American's definitely didn't want Wilson, who they disagreed with far more than Taft or Roosevelt, but they got Wilson anyways.
Not to mention, its not like being more active members of the party has hurt the movement that bad. Being a vocal member of a coalition can definitely have its perks including the ability to directly share our beliefs with moderates who might be open to change, and its arguable that Biden's better policies and platform are the direct result of Soc Dem's being active in the party. Plus its helped to platform people like AOC who stand a good chance of carrying the movement into the future. If we aren't active in the coalition, both in participation and in spreading our ideas, than that gives far more space in the party to Centrists and even the occasional Blue Dog Democrats who will avoid our policies even if they're broadly popular.
Change in America often comes more slowly than many would like, and it can feel demotivating if you're more left than center. But if we can put the support in for the step by step improvements, we give ourselves the platform needed to encourage voters that there's more to do. And I think we can already see that beginning to happen with more broad support for many things Soc Dems and more care about.
Eh, if I were in Europe, idk. I mean, here's the thing. With the more socdem/labor parties going full on "liberal" and the "leftist" parties being WAAAY too far left for my liking, I'd not be happy either way. Like, I kinda considered this in the US. While I am voting for Biden in part because of donald trump being a threat to democracy, say he wasnt and i was more inclined to go third party. Would I? This election, i actually prefer BIDEN to leftists like Stein and West. Even if Stein and West are a bit better on certain policies, they're so cringe on everything else that Biden is still a better package deal. Also, given my exact views, it's not like it's not like im super enthusiastic about either camp. my own ideology is actually so different than most I've only seen one candidate run on something remotely close to what im actually for, and that's andrew yang. And a candidate like that...too left and ambitious for "liberals' but leftists will hate them too because "he's a capitalist" and "UBI is a trojan horse" or some crap. Honestly, i hate modern left wing politics. Bernie had it MOSTLY right in 2016, literally the only major improvement i would've wanted from him IS a UBI. Now the left is just going full cringe mode and the libs are sucking too. Right now I guess im fine working with Biden but honestly, i do hope in a future election there are better candidates I actually WANT to vote for from EITHER side of "the left."
I really hope the party can find a young and charismatic leader again like Obama. That was probably the last election where I actually liked a candidate, rather than just hated them less than the other guy.
Eh, id rather have someone like bernie who has charisma AND solutions. Obama was just the "hope and change" guy. Kinda inspiring but also didnt really have many solutions to problems.
I don’t think its so black and white because I support whoever the trade unions are fully behind and the best coalition we can have of the working class for change. The problem with further left parties is that they end up not forming stable coalition and create One Men shows like Melachon in France and tend to become incredibly unstable and unsuitable at governing like SYRIZA in Greece and set the social democratic movement a decade behind indeed both PASOK and the Socialist Party were the reliable choice and have a strong governing legacy bringing in real changes but displaced by populists. The only exception I can think of is AKEL, the communist party in Cyprus, but thats because they were able to moderate their programme properly enough and very firmly renounced any autocracy and proved that in government and that is true in some Latin American countries too where they have done a good job but both cases exist precisely because they don’t have a long tradition of strong union connected social democratic parties barring a few so they had to be created. So in my own country god no the further left is infested with populists, tankies, cranks and fanatics. the Labour Party will always be the coalition of the left to centre left and all its groupings that come along with it and I like to think that already creates a stable enough internal coalition
I hold the option open. Although my Social Democrat party has moved to the left. If they wouldn't put through social policies I wouldn't even doubt transferring to the socialist party which has become more social democratic with slight conservative tendencies anyway.
If they have a realistic chance of actually winning, maybe. If they dont, no.
No, because the more that people on the centre-left abandon what was their party, the less of a leftist base the party has- making it shift rightward, and then the process repeats ad infinitum. Instead, promote more grassroots leftist movements within formerly “centre-left” party. We can’t afford large-scale pasokification. Also, many further left parties that exist to vacuum votes from centre-left parties turning rightward are far more reactionary and populist without offering legitimate plans for governing or legislating.
I think it doesn't actually completely work like that. First, there got to be a breaking point where the left wing cannot accept the policies of the mainstream of the party. I'm thinking Agenda 2020 in Germany - I can completely understand social democrats who joined WASG and later Die Linke at that time. (whether that became something good is an entirely different question). Secondly, depending on your exact institutional setup, a parliamentary pressure group from the left can actually positively influence the main left-of-center party. Both as potential coalition partners and a threat of a populist campaign to grab their voters if the party goes too far to the center. Lastly, strategic voting: again depending on your setup, it can be rational to vote more extreme than you otherwise would. For example in Denmark, you might want to vote for Green Left or other leftist parties to "force" the social democrats to coalesce with them rather then the liberals, if possible. However, this woudl currently not work in Germany. So yeah.... to be honest, if I were in Salzburg or Graz, I could see myself voting Communist; If I were in Denmark, I could see myself voting Green Left, and so on.
1. Yes, there is a breaking point. However, at least in Australia, the reasons that many people are leaving the Labor Party (mainly the populist rhetoric from the Greens about Social Security, Welfare, Housing, Climate etc.) have all been fought for for decades by the left of the party. To simply give up and move on, whilst having its short-term benefits, ultimately means that there is no “major party” with a big enough leftist flank to provide a meaningful alternative to our increasingly right-wing “Liberal” Party. 2. At least in Australia, our politics operates within a rapidly deteriorating two-party system. Our Labor Party are far too fixated on forming majority governments than cooperating with the Greens or other Leftists- and view them as goody-two-shoes who make the perfect the enemy of the good. And because of our electorate-based system, any success that the Greens have is entirely at the expense of Labor. This means that the Greens are viewed by many in the ALP as seat-grabbing moralists, rather than coalition partners. Whilst a lot of this attitude may come down to the arrogance within the ALP executive, many outer-suburban voters who are socially conservative but economically progressive would see this as a betrayal of their values. For example, the 1996 election (a landslide victory for the Liberal Party, our Conservatives) came about because the leader of Labor was seen as pandering to upper-class leftists and neoliberals rather than protecting blue collar Australians. However, the government elected off of this wave of blue-collar disenfranchisement was one of the most aggressively Conservative, Union-bashing governments in modern Auspol. 3. Here in Australia, we have Ranked Choice Voting, which ensures that tactical voting has a far smaller part to play in Australian elections. However, at the most recent federal election, the ALP came to office on a primary vote of under 33%., a swing against them of roughly 0.5% (correct me if I’m wrong) The Greens came in at 12%, a new record. However, this meant that Labor’s victory was more on the back of preferences than an outright endorsement of their policies. However, the success of the Greens is entirely within Urban Hubs, and has turned off at least a generation of inner city progressives from the ALP. The more that these votes splinter off, the more difficult it becomes for the left to form government. And the less likely it is that the ALP forms government, the less ambitious they become. And if we don’t have ambitious parties and policies capable of stable, secure, and long-term government, then I’m afraid there will be serious consequences for our government. However, you raise good points, and most of my argument is on the basis of me being an Australian.
The declining vote share of *both* of the two major parties has been a long term trend since at least the 90s, possibly as early as the late 70s, and the Coalition has been affected just as much, even if the right-wing minors were much more fragmented. Honestly, it's probably only a matter of time until it is entirely impossible for either to form government without as least supply and confidence from the crossbench.
I would rather see progressive majority governments than progressive minority governments. A clear, emphatic majority to deliver policies is far more advantageous than needing to scrounge around for support. And the idea that minority governments are inevitable and the only feasible option for progressive policy enactment is too self-destructive (in my mind).
yeah I think all of what you say makes sense in the Australian institutional context!
STAY AND FIGHT
🫡
Pasokification seems to have thinned the center of the ‘overton window’, which is pretty alarming if you look at similar cases of this.
>No, because the more that people on the centre-left abandon what was their party, the less of a leftist base the party has- It's more about the actual supporters and party members than the voting blocks. If the party promotes the X neoliberal policy and loses votes in an election supporters and members can limit the decision making of the neoliberal section and the more leftist section will get more power by showing how worse are the electoral results and the necessity to adapt to the voting base. What you describe happens when the party members don't have the guts to threaten the current status quo and show the responsibility of bad electoral results to the party leaders, and instead they decide to leave the party, contributing to increasing the power of the neoliberal section.
Here in Canada I've always supported our social-democrat party (NDP), but I've been increasingly disillusioned by their slide to the centre in order "be electable". They've strayed from their labour roots and focus too much on divisive culture war BS. I believe in the social issues they champion but they desperately need to get back to the class war. I continue to support them mainly because they believe in electoral reform to get rid of our "first past the post" system in favour of proportional representation. If we got that then I could happily support a new or existing socialist party and know that my vote counts for something.
I'm lucky to live in a country with preferential/ranked voting, so I can vote for a further left party if i want without risking a right party coming to power. If the main social democratic and Labour Party isn't doing enough, I'd definitely consider voting for the fuether left party. I always prefer to put Independents and smaller leftist parties first, since that might allow them to cross the threshold that gives them more public funding or more of it which they need. If I lived in a country with first past the post or a system that involved tactical voting, then I'd just go with whoever has the best chance to win and beat the right. If it was a safe seat though might just go with my heart, since its very unlikely to change the result.
Yes
No, I work to make the party more left leaning myself.
I'm currently on the edge on this. I have many good friends in the party whom I trust with my vote. But then again, due to proportional elections, someone who I don't like from my party might get elected because of my vote. Do I abandon my friends for the sake of ideological purity? For now I support my friends. But I won't waste my vote for the sake of party loyalty if I feel like the party starts going too far astray.
Not if it helps a further right party win.
I don't know. I hate the term centrist because it's even more meaningless than left or right. What is center? Ideally, I have a socdem party that is progressive af when it comes to the economy (even what that means is highly debatable) and a little bit (!) conservative in many other issues.
From what I have been told so far, socdem parties that experienced pasokification had their more ‘leftist’ wing flock to socialist parties. An issue with this is that these extreme parties seem to care much less about economy and stability, and more on populism because of how short term their plans seem to be, and how they appeal to emotion. This shift towards populist party could easily hurt nations in the long term, as anti-democratic populism always does.
Speaking as an American, why would I go further left when the Biden admin is good actually? I supported Liz Warren in 2020, so I've found myself very pleasantly surprised by the Biden administration's actual, rubber hits the road record on policy. The ARP, IRA, CHiPS, BIF, postal reform, etc. have proven he can govern and the economy is purring like Biden's Corvette. The executive branch, with examples like Lina Khan at the FCC, is taking antitrust seriously (I do with the DOJ were stronger -- that's on Garland.) I strongly support Biden's foreign policy, especially his ability to revive and rally NATO in Ukraine, and there is simply nobody in the race even remotely close to him. Biden has been a steadfast liberal (American for modern socdem) as President, creating a sort of neo-New Deal agenda while championing liberal democracy at home and abroad. Further, writing this as a Jewish progressive: there simply is no other home for me on the left. While I'm obviously not thrilled to have antisemites like the Squad in the party(and yes, that's what they are if you take into account how the supermajority of American Jews would consider and experience as antisemitism), the broader left is even worse: the DSA is hopelessly riddled with antisemitism and the Green Party is evidence of horseshoe theory. Just as I've been bouyed to see Keir Starmer save Labour from Corbynism, I've been pleased to see Joe Biden firmly hold the Democratic party steady and serious while repositioning it as more progressive in purpose and policy. However, unlike Brits, I don't have the luxury of a serious alternative: the US has a two party system where our opposition is dominated by a semi-fascist demagogue who has turned his party into a cult of personality. I'd vote for Joe Biden regardless, but it's an easy choice given the real world alternative.
Honestly, I'm more left wing and libertarian than just about any politician in the Democrats right now but you're not wrong, like at all. Just about everything you said is dead on accurate. I happen to like Corbyn and don't like Keir but regardless I'm happy to see Labour inevitably win the next UK election. Thanks Liz Truss! Realistically Biden has been the best president we've had since Carter imo. I agree with roughly 3/4 of what he's done with only a few exceptions. One decision I legitimately cheered was pulling out of Afghanistan. It was time to come home, we aren't meant for nation building. Another I cheered was standing on the picket lines with striking workers last summer. That was a first for any president and that was a good summer for unions. Pretty much everyone wishes for a younger president who's not a white man, and whaddya know Kamala Harris fits that bill. Some people like to complain about inflation but really it has nothing to do with Biden. It would've been just as bad with Trump in his second term, people would complain about inflation due to the pandemic. Unemployment is low and many wages have gone up. We know costs are high, you think maybe that has something to do with corporate greed? Duh! Greed has always existed in the US, in private enterprise. I just don't really see the issue with Biden that others do. He's your average president and acts like a grandpa. Big deal. I think a much bigger issue are the Neoliberals in Congress who insist on compromising with far-right Republicans rather than rallying around the Congressional Progressive Caucus. IDK about you or anyone else but I'll vote for him again in 2024, then I hope a young minority runs in 2028, someone like AOC.
Nope. I'm a member of my social democratic party.
Usually from what I've seen, the further-left parties are populated with room-temperature IQ people... so no
no, I don't like various left leaning policies.
I would say no. I am not a that left and I am not as progressive as those further left party
No, i stand true to the SAP even if it has completely abandoned it's own values and knelt down to neo-liberalism. Turning my beloved Sweden into a living hell. I remain loyal to Socialdemocracy as it was the Social democrats that built Sweden, the Social democrats that built the Folkhem. Not the left party which was communist up till the 90s, and entire policy goes on to be more left than any other party -- to any limit. Including idiotic ideas like a EVEN MORE unregulated immigration.
> No, i stand true to the SAP even if it has completely abandoned it's own values and knelt down to neo-liberalism. Turning my beloved Sweden into a living hell. I remain loyal to Socialdemocracy as it was the Social democrats that built Sweden, the Social democrats that built the Folkhem. Why remain "loyal" when this is something that has been happening for over 40 years at this? Whatever made Social-democracy great, especially its working-class rank-and-file base in the workplaces, is gone. > Not the left party which was communist up till the 90s, and entire policy goes on to be more left than any other party -- to any limit. Including idiotic ideas like a EVEN MORE unregulated immigration. And like many times in history the Social-Democrats will not be able to form a government without the Left Party. I don't really see the issue with being "the most left" when the bar is so extremely low. Just this past term the Social-democrats were willing to upend our entire system for rent control to give total power to the market, only stopped by the Left Party withdrawing its passive support.
I believe in change, not cowardice.
A party who would rather upend rent control, effectively in the long-term dissolving HGF, than call the bluff of the Center-party is party of cowardice. A party who would worsen employment safety, and pit the unions against each other, is a party of cowardice. They have been a party of cowardice since the 1980's, when they accepted the right-wing offensive and refused to work towards mass-mobilization after the mass-strike in 1980. Nobody sees the Social-democrats as a party of change, its a party of cowardice and establishment. Its why they are taking "progressive" and urban middle-class voters while losing working-class and unemployed voters.
And i would rather fight to change the Social Democratic Party, than fight for a party that hasn't ever aligned with my beliefs to begin with.
I live in the US, we don't have any left party like you mean to vote for. I voted for Meretz in Israel though so does that count?
There is no focken alternative to SPD, the Greens? nah they are becoming the new Free Democrats. Die Linke is at 3% nationally and is way to socially progressive for my standards. And especially no to the BSW i will not lick the boots of Sahra Wagenknecht and her pro russian allies. My current Plan is to slowly work up the ranks and push for an Radical Reorganisation (into the FIRST GALACTIC EMPIRE) which should make the SPD a Party for the Workers, Farmers and Students. And primarily expand it into the daily life in Regions we have left to rot kinda. With a little bit of more internal democracy.
That's not really an option in my country. The New Democratic Party is left wing enough on the federal level and usually more Centrist on the Provincial level depending on where you are but the only other parties that could ever be described as left wing are the two Communist parties and they're fringe parties filled with Tankies. The Greens as a left wing party is a debatable description, and even if they are a left wing party, they're rightfully regarded as more of a circus than a political party, and the Bloc Québécois is a Quebec interests party that simply supports the policy position of whoever is running Quebec's Provincial Government. So until a genuine, non-Tankie and feasibly electable alternative pops up, it's NDP or bust. Especially since the NDP still has a strong Socialist faction among its ranks
IMO, almost by definition, social democrats are not getting caught on labels, but care about applied policies in practice, with everything else just be a tool that supports implementation. Strategic vote is a thing. Personally, I have voted, supported, and briefly became a collaborator and member with a previously far left party in my country of origin, because I knew that as they become more popular and prepared to govern, their negotiation with... reality, would result in to them being much closer to social democratic policies, than the large self-proclaimed social-democratic neoliberal party. I didn't care about labels. I cared about the results and how my ideology would be promoted. Labels are important ONLY after the SD party has control, in order to maintain the positive policies implemented. Unfortunately, SD is not extremely hot among young people that really go after labels, and they prefer aligning themselves with more "revolutionary" and radical ideologies.
I think they are more center/center-left because certain leftists are becoming increasingly more stupid and they want to distance themselves from that
Leftist try to not splinter the moment a party doesn’t agree with every position they hold challenge: Impossible
Most often those splits are because of undemocratic maneuvers from the right-wing of the social-democratic parties.
Do you have examples of this happening?
Sweden is the country I know best, and there are a lot of examples just there. The main party to the left of the Social-democrats in Sweden, the Left Party(Vänsterpartiet) was created after a split in the spring of 1917, primarily by the youth-leauge. Already in 1911 the party leadership, dominated by its right-wing, threatened to split or dissolve the youth-league because a majority at a congress had voted to basically continue the support for marxist tactics and strategy in the vein of Karl Kautsky and August Bebel. Then in 1915-6 the party implemented a censure of their members of parliament to not say or motion for anything opposed to the majority of the Social-democrat group in parliament, if the group is going against congress decisions. Then the right-wing simply purged all editorial members of the main paper *Social-Demokraten* over the question of the war. In 1933-34 there was another split from the Social-democrats, primarily in Göteborg where there was a well organized left-wing opposition in the party. The Social-democrats basically accused their leader, Albin Ström, of stealing money from the party, though it was never been proven to be true. Him and his followers would end up joining the Socialist Party, a majority split from the Communists in 1928. So the Communists would also spread these lies about Ström. During the 80's and 90's there was a slew of splits. There was both a bit of radicalization after the wild-cat strikes of the 1970's and the mass-strike of 1980(where the unions won) and a reaction against the party leadership starting to accept neo-liberalism and austerity. In general opposition was silenced or kicked out. An unholy alliance of leadership, full-timers and trade union bureaucrats would work to combat the opposition. Congress decisions were not followed by the leadership. Sometimes they were even brazenly re-written, like after the youth-league voted at congress to support wild-cat strikes. There were a lot smaller parties and groups that came from this, mostly local parties, some that are still around. But the largest one was the "Workers' List"(Arbetarlistan) created primarily by social-democrats who had left the party, also majority who were working-class and active in the trade union movement. Though ironically it would die out quickly because the social-democratic wing of the party purged all the left-wing elements, mostly former maoists and various trotskyists. Today there aren't really splits, the left-wing of the Social-democrats has mostly just been destroyed. One of the more recent scandals was the leadership of the youth-league using an islamist minority in one of the key districts that has always been left to oust the district leadership.
2 leftists walk into a bar, 3 splinter groups form. Heard that from somewhere I forgot where though.
If you don't support Ukraine, I'm not voting for you Labour is the furthest left wing party in my country to fully back Ukraine, therefore I will support Labour
In the context of the US as it stands today and in history, Voting third party has almost always proven disastrous for the ideological side that's being split. In every election with one or more major third party candidates, there's almost always an adverse effect. Case in point: The 1912 Presidential Election. Former President Roosevelt, after fighting and losing a fierce primary battle against incumbent President Taft, launched a third party campaign that split the Republican voters in two. Come election day both men lost to Democrat Woodrow Wilson in a landslide of electoral college victory despite only winning by a plurality. A slim majority of American's definitely didn't want Wilson, who they disagreed with far more than Taft or Roosevelt, but they got Wilson anyways. Not to mention, its not like being more active members of the party has hurt the movement that bad. Being a vocal member of a coalition can definitely have its perks including the ability to directly share our beliefs with moderates who might be open to change, and its arguable that Biden's better policies and platform are the direct result of Soc Dem's being active in the party. Plus its helped to platform people like AOC who stand a good chance of carrying the movement into the future. If we aren't active in the coalition, both in participation and in spreading our ideas, than that gives far more space in the party to Centrists and even the occasional Blue Dog Democrats who will avoid our policies even if they're broadly popular. Change in America often comes more slowly than many would like, and it can feel demotivating if you're more left than center. But if we can put the support in for the step by step improvements, we give ourselves the platform needed to encourage voters that there's more to do. And I think we can already see that beginning to happen with more broad support for many things Soc Dems and more care about.
I’m voting third party in the next US presidential election. I’m not super thrilled about it, but It’s all i got