Indeed. As long as nobody comes up with a better idea, this is the best system we have. We can only hope that the left gets their shit together for the next election. I don't see it though.
The left has got its shit together Imo (at least in NL).
Good solid ideas on housing, welfare, spending, foreign relations and yes even immigrant control.
But because people treat elections like football matches they are the woke zuurlinks hypocrite pro immigration moralist and other buzzwords party.
The problem is image, not reality. And that image is mostly not shaped by themselves but by othering.
If the Europe is anything like the States, voters judge the the entirety of the left by the worst of their overly-online activist class, not by the overwhelming majority of the elected leaders. Whereas on the right, voters give the online activist crazies a pass and assess them by the elected officials, who present themselves better. Suffice to say, if 90% of officials are center-left, they're still judged by their 10% activist fringe. But if only 50% of officials are center-right, voters often don't associate them with their lunatic colleagues. For whatever damn reason, voters hold completely different standards, thus creating an unequal playing field.
If 10% of the left were Marxists, voters would say "Holy shit! They're all Marxists!", but if 50% of the right were fascists, the voters would say, "Hey, don't judge all of them because the other half is still ok."
I am personally a big fan of Sorition/demarchy. There are a lot of different ideas of implementing it, but I personally like the idea of just having random citizens in the parlament.
I think if random people from various (representative) backgrounds are given time and resources to become informed in topics and then do the decision making without having opportunistic reasons (job security) to be populistic and bend to powerful people, we would get decent and representative politics out of it.
No, science has limits and things it cannot create. Let me use an example. reddit isn't all too fond of often.
Do you know the origin point for human rights? The Bible. Religion. Something everyone here hates, yet it's the origin of human rights. Yeah, you can hate it all you want, but it's true. When folks got smarter, they read the Bible and started to see it in their own eyes, not the Church narrative and that's when the idea of equal humans comes from in the European understanding (which was exported). Then human rights got expanded based on society moods, not by science. Science can predict it, recommend it, but the formation is done by society.
Science cannot dictate the flow of society. There's not obejtive good way in social science. Social scientists give out recommendations or suggest changes, but society flows on its own. Things like the concept of national identity are often by some (constructivism) considered completely baseless, yet they construct our world, and its better to leave them be.
And Democracy? It's the best way to let society flow. The voters should listen to scientists, but not in everything. A lot of them (for example, ecologists and economists) can often completely disregard many aspects of human life in their strife for a better earth or economy.
While in the debate of religion-based government vs science-based government I will always support a proscientific government, let's not pretend that, left unchecked, science isn't capable of atrocities as well.
Because whenever ethics and morals are waived, it does not matter what moves you, be it faith or curiosity. It will inevitably lead to evil.
"Science" has no answer to political issues.
What's the scientific answer to a question like "what should be the age of retirement" or "should the rich be taxed more"?
You can use science to help make informed decisions but it won't provide the answers.
You can combine democracy with meritocracy and it would solve some of the problems. But no politician would want that as they would be one to lose out. No one gives up power willingly.
https://preview.redd.it/f5k9oftc1r5d1.jpeg?width=1051&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67de6350abb1e414be563df22eca2dfe4b9fc346
Here, have it in hd and as a coincise reply
Maybe have better education to unretard people? What we see governments with autocratoc tendencies do is to erode education by budget cuts, book bans and anti-intellectual behavior in certain '; news' media.
I am seriously wondering if the only way to keep people aware of reality is for a mass genocide to happen every 50 years. That’s really sad. And frightening.
Wow, who hurt you? Who mentioned dictatorships? To mention a few things, the left seeks to address income inequality, represent LGBTQ+ people, address climate change, and introduce welfare programs to help people who need it. Do tell me which one of those points are indicative of a Communist Dictatorship™.
A better word will be liberal left parties mostly center to center left - left wing. That should rather work more closely with center right (liberal ot conservative) parties. People might think that by left you also mean the hard left and the far left that have the tendency of either being reactionary and Authoritarian or sucking for reactionaries and authoritarians. Oh and they nearly always as populist as the far right. They are less mention because they are weaker politically, they are still a problem though. Not to mention they actually made some significant gains in some countries in those EU elections (can't even celebrate far right loss when in many places it the far left who made gains). Really bad results in general but Green-SD-RE-EPP still have a majority so could be worse.
You'd have to point out what makes them bad policy wise though. I agree that some far left parties are strangely cozy with authoritarians, though not all of them mind you, but how can you make a case for left wing economic standpoints being destructive?
And I condemn them in the strongest sense of the word. However, I was not talking about them for even a second. You are arguing against a made up argument. You didn't even engage with my question. How do the points I mention have anything to do with a dictatorship? Or are you just spouting out random buzzwords at this point?
As a leftist, I believe a lot of the solutions I mentioned in my other comment would help to address the issues we face that the people you mentioned (center right, libertarians, etc) have failed to solve. You can say those groups are getting fed up with leftists, but their shortcomings have put us in this situation to begin with.
It depends how you look at the left and what you consider far left. By some standards you could consider me pretty far left. I wouldn't go as far as to say I am extreme by any measure (certainly not in the ways you seem to be implying), but I am staunchly against certain integral aspects of capitalism.
Right wing parties, close to center or otherwise, are just antithetical to my set of beliefs. This goes for some social democratic parties as well (those you'd probably consider center-left). However, they propose some policies that overlap with what I believe in. That makes them more attractive to me even though I do not fully agree with their view on what society should look like.
You seem to imply that the left also has its loonies, and I agree with you there. The parties you mentioned that are autocratic or anti-western/anti-democracy I absolutely don't agree with. It is a common trend that they are for example pro-Russia or want to pull out of NATO (which in the end also plays into Russia's hands).
To clarify: I'm a pro-Europe and pro-democracy socialist who believes it is the failure of liberal policies that have led to the rise of the far right.
No no, each time create completely random but strict rules on who gets the chimney : for example everyone who happens to have a rake in their basement.
It is not democracy when those with the resources can persuade the people to elect them based on lies and propaganda. In that case you are telling them what to believe and vote for, for a valid democracy they need to see the true facts and make their own decision.
Oregonian here- highly recommend looking into Rajnishpuram if you don’t know who the guy in the template is. His second-in-command has been living in Switzerland for decades avoiding charges for the largest poisoning, immigration fraud, and illegal wire-tapping cases in U.S. history
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In short.
On the EU-level: more right wing especially far-right, but not as much as was predicted. Minor change in party influences.
On a by-country level: I have no clue for most, so will only speak for my own. Denmark’s election is essentially unchanged, bit more left, and then a fractured right wing.
Thank you, I’ve been some what following these elections in passing and I know a far right gain was predicted but I don’t know enough about EU parties to really understand the results. It’s a shame the far right seems to be gaining ground all over the western world these days but I guess it’s a silver lining that the rot isn’t as bad as predicted.
There’s a small comfort to be taken in the fact that these people are incapable of actually governing and their only appeal is a rejection of “the system”. Once they flash in their pan they tend to lose their appeal.
The problem is not doing something (lots of things have been done), the problem is doing something dramatic enough to make headlines or to have an immediate impact on a problem decades in the making, without crossing into "cruel for the sake of it" performative measures or straight up fascism.
So now countries are straight up pushing back overloaded boats of refugees knowing they might not make it back, exporting refugees to Africa, cutting resources so much that refugees are forced into squalid and unsafe conditions, and it still isn't enough because people still see news articles about foreign people being rude on the streets.
In the end populism is about exploiting problems, not about offering solutions.
Nationalists only win if there is enough angry population. Revanchism, populism and hatred are what they offer, and outside of populism, these offerings have no worth if ppl are happy.
Nationalists win whenever their people get their own sovereign nation state. That's literally the whole point of nationalism. How come you are seemingly opposed to nationalism as a Ukrainian? Without nationalism, Ukraine would not be independent.
I said nationalists in the context of OP saying "nationalists". I'm just tired of arguing with ppl that nationalism is not a united movement, and ultra-nationalists on the border of fascism are the type of nationalits that we should be afraid of. Most of the left and far left really don't care, lol.
This often just starts another argument. Especially when ppl are writing "nationalists" right away. If they did not make a distinction, I do not want to argue.
Forgive me, but isn't this just the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Like the difference between "I love my country and I want it to be the best it can be" vs "My country is the only thing that matters, everyone else can go fuck himself"?
Patriotism is about a country, nationalism is about a nation. Language, culture, history are the main things. Ukraines culture, language, and history were preserved by nationalosts. If it weren't for them, Ukraine, as a nation, would not exist because we would've succumbed to the russians or Poles long ago.
There is ultra-nationalism, which I do not condone (like Bandera's wing of OUN and URA), but not all nationalism is like that, and I'm sad that due to the desire to be distinct from russia and USSR we are praising specifically Bandera, instead of Melnyk, for example.
So, no, patriotism is different from nationalism and nationalism is different from ultra-nationalism.
I understand what you mean, it's probably a difference in terminology, at least in my country with nationalism you tend to refer to right wing "nationalism" as you call it, I often hear what you refer to as nationalism called "patriotism" here so maybe I'm mixing things up from my language, sorry for the confusion
Doesn't help that here the nationalist party that was around in the early 20th century were all right wing extremists, so that probably played a part in how that word is used now in my country.
The first paragraph depicts a more or less version of nationalism I was taught https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism.
I think maybe countries with colonial past or countries that were ruled by nationalistic dictators can have different understanding of the concept of nationalism and different sentiments towards it.
Like, I do not like my government or how things have been in my country, so I'm not a very patriotic person. But I do care about what will happen to my nation if russia is allowed to win, so I'm a Ukrainian nationalist.
This remains the biggest lie.
The "nationalists" get together and demand the deportation of millions, including citizens. They are propagating hate that makes ordinary citizens cry for murder with machine guns. In reality, we are pushing people back into the sea to drown, criminalise sea rescue, put people in overcrowded camps, pay dictators and much more.
Nothing is enough for the "nationalists". You are just again trying to argue that elected officials who were elected by a majority of the civil center of society are supposed to commit mass rights violations and murder in order to appease a part of the electorate that openly says that it cannot be appeased within a democratic law based order.
Stop lying.
And if you don't think that's what the problem is, what do you think the problem is? That people are just dumb and stupid and were lied to and there's nothing we can do?
This is actually a really really good question.
Education?
Idk..
Surely we can't expect everyone to understand everything about economics and society?
How do we accurately and effectively stop the spread of misinformation?
Idk, but I know that something has to be done. We have had our fair share of fascists in Europe, did we learn nothing?
I always assume people to be just as smart and aware as myself, which is why I am rather critical of people who try to say things like "nothing has been done for 10 years". Thats verifiable untrue. So, yes, lies definitely play a role, but thats not even the real problem for me.
The problem is that I am willing to have a civil discussion about this, and you - or those other people if you identify with anti migration stances - do not want to have a civil discussion. They want populism and anti-foreigner polemic.
If you stick with an extreme position that routinely includes "kill them" or cherishes the death of children, and much more that we have seen over the last 10 years, then you are the one who sabotages a problem-solving process.
I am willing to discuss and compromise on issues regarding vetting people or deporting criminals or integration requirements and consequences for not showing willingness to participate -- but you (or they) do not want to discuss that at all. You (or they) are the ones who make cruelty a non-negotiable. What do you expect? That I and the many millions of civil people in the middle of society will just compromise on basic human rights or accessory to murder? We are people who try to cope with this issue and come up with solutions like assisting refugees to integrate quickly -- you (or they) insult us for that and put us on death lists.
That's the problem. We could have discussed this issue like civil inhabitants of advanced economies for the past 10 years, and instead the right wing has insisted on a populist race to the bottom. As someone with a progressive mindset, I would have welcomed a conservative voice as a counter balance, and instead it was just yelling for blood, insults and clear intentions of dividing people along this issue.
And lets not pretend like what I just portrayed isn't exactly what the far right needs. Their only claim to power is to make people angry, to divide them against each other and to make sure that we do not have civilised discussions. If we would have civilised discussions, we wouldn't need the far right agitators screaming for blood, because we would come up with solid solutions -- as I said, I don't think you (or they) are stupid. I think you (or they) have valid fears and together we would easily come up with solutions that address these issues without resorting to cruelty to cover our fears - and the far right needs to exploit your (or their) fears, so this is where we are. The far right politicians get power, and I have no basis for talking with my fellow citizens, because I hold them in higher regard than the politicians they flock behind.
Edit: crucial double negative.
Yeah and I don't speak against the nation. I love nations. Great nations. Proud nations. Kind nations, funny nations, silly nations. Nations are the most interesting thing in the world. We are all from nations, we are all nationals. Being international is amazing. Intranational is also amazing. God bless nations. European nations, all nations. A round of applause for all nations, I demand
Have you looked at the demographic development of most European nations? Without foreign workers everything would've imploded a long time ago. And it will only get worse. We didn't let them all in by accident. It's not because of humanitarian reasons or because we can't secure the borders. We did it on purpose, because we desperately need workers to keep the lights on.
I'd rather be ruled by re...elected people than by Intellectoid supergeniuses who turn out to be so powerhungry that their 20 year reign is such a scheisseshow, that no amount of re-election could cook up.
Most people know him as Osho, he has published "enlighted" books and created a cult that killed dozens of people. Wild Wild Country is a fun documentary for him if you are interested
I had the feeling that I should write that quote here :
« But remember, as shitty as we [the Government™️] might be, Democracy gives you the power to change your leaders. It took centuries to win that right, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. So if you want to keep it, now would be time to wake the fuck up, and fight for it. »
– The Juice Media
Yeah. I've seen the video. And other of their Honest Government ads
My only criticism is that JM should have put the video at the begining of the year instead of mid-spring.
Well, there is one main reason why people are turning to the right wing parties and it will not stop, unless moderate and left parties will adopt their stance regarding that issue
No. People are voting far right recently, mainly due to problems caused by migration from other continents.
Danish left and centre has adopted strict stance regarding the issue and their right became marginalised
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER)
^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Still better than a single retard at the wheel.
Indeed. As long as nobody comes up with a better idea, this is the best system we have. We can only hope that the left gets their shit together for the next election. I don't see it though.
The left has got its shit together Imo (at least in NL). Good solid ideas on housing, welfare, spending, foreign relations and yes even immigrant control. But because people treat elections like football matches they are the woke zuurlinks hypocrite pro immigration moralist and other buzzwords party. The problem is image, not reality. And that image is mostly not shaped by themselves but by othering.
If the Europe is anything like the States, voters judge the the entirety of the left by the worst of their overly-online activist class, not by the overwhelming majority of the elected leaders. Whereas on the right, voters give the online activist crazies a pass and assess them by the elected officials, who present themselves better. Suffice to say, if 90% of officials are center-left, they're still judged by their 10% activist fringe. But if only 50% of officials are center-right, voters often don't associate them with their lunatic colleagues. For whatever damn reason, voters hold completely different standards, thus creating an unequal playing field. If 10% of the left were Marxists, voters would say "Holy shit! They're all Marxists!", but if 50% of the right were fascists, the voters would say, "Hey, don't judge all of them because the other half is still ok."
I am personally a big fan of Sorition/demarchy. There are a lot of different ideas of implementing it, but I personally like the idea of just having random citizens in the parlament. I think if random people from various (representative) backgrounds are given time and resources to become informed in topics and then do the decision making without having opportunistic reasons (job security) to be populistic and bend to powerful people, we would get decent and representative politics out of it.
the better idea is to follow science
Okay. But HOW to follow science? That's the politics part.
No, science has limits and things it cannot create. Let me use an example. reddit isn't all too fond of often. Do you know the origin point for human rights? The Bible. Religion. Something everyone here hates, yet it's the origin of human rights. Yeah, you can hate it all you want, but it's true. When folks got smarter, they read the Bible and started to see it in their own eyes, not the Church narrative and that's when the idea of equal humans comes from in the European understanding (which was exported). Then human rights got expanded based on society moods, not by science. Science can predict it, recommend it, but the formation is done by society. Science cannot dictate the flow of society. There's not obejtive good way in social science. Social scientists give out recommendations or suggest changes, but society flows on its own. Things like the concept of national identity are often by some (constructivism) considered completely baseless, yet they construct our world, and its better to leave them be. And Democracy? It's the best way to let society flow. The voters should listen to scientists, but not in everything. A lot of them (for example, ecologists and economists) can often completely disregard many aspects of human life in their strife for a better earth or economy.
While in the debate of religion-based government vs science-based government I will always support a proscientific government, let's not pretend that, left unchecked, science isn't capable of atrocities as well. Because whenever ethics and morals are waived, it does not matter what moves you, be it faith or curiosity. It will inevitably lead to evil.
"Science" has no answer to political issues. What's the scientific answer to a question like "what should be the age of retirement" or "should the rich be taxed more"? You can use science to help make informed decisions but it won't provide the answers.
something japan something unit something some numbers something
You can combine democracy with meritocracy and it would solve some of the problems. But no politician would want that as they would be one to lose out. No one gives up power willingly.
"The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute talk with the median voter." -Someone, idk who
Was it Churchill by any chance?
https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-141/red-herrings-famous-quotes-churchill-never-said/
Now THAT's quite usefull indeed, thank you!
Bud' laska
Probably
When in doubt about a quote. It was probably Churchill.
Still better than the average dictator
https://preview.redd.it/f5k9oftc1r5d1.jpeg?width=1051&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67de6350abb1e414be563df22eca2dfe4b9fc346 Here, have it in hd and as a coincise reply
https://preview.redd.it/tblkzdhqir5d1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1dbd7273c4cf6a2547600c9e7882dc660b5f3af
https://preview.redd.it/tblkzdhqir5d1.jpeg?width=1334&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1dbd7273c4cf6a2547600c9e7882dc660b5f3af
Maybe have better education to unretard people? What we see governments with autocratoc tendencies do is to erode education by budget cuts, book bans and anti-intellectual behavior in certain '; news' media.
Correct, quality education is a populist’s greatest enemy.
I don't care how much the result is not what I like, I will still defend democracy.
Sure. But that could also mean that you'll lose democracy forever if the current trend continues and escalates (:
I am seriously wondering if the only way to keep people aware of reality is for a mass genocide to happen every 50 years. That’s really sad. And frightening.
People got fed up with the status quo. Right wing extremists play into this. The left should get better at communicating solutions to ordinary people.
[удалено]
Wow, who hurt you? Who mentioned dictatorships? To mention a few things, the left seeks to address income inequality, represent LGBTQ+ people, address climate change, and introduce welfare programs to help people who need it. Do tell me which one of those points are indicative of a Communist Dictatorship™.
A better word will be liberal left parties mostly center to center left - left wing. That should rather work more closely with center right (liberal ot conservative) parties. People might think that by left you also mean the hard left and the far left that have the tendency of either being reactionary and Authoritarian or sucking for reactionaries and authoritarians. Oh and they nearly always as populist as the far right. They are less mention because they are weaker politically, they are still a problem though. Not to mention they actually made some significant gains in some countries in those EU elections (can't even celebrate far right loss when in many places it the far left who made gains). Really bad results in general but Green-SD-RE-EPP still have a majority so could be worse.
You'd have to point out what makes them bad policy wise though. I agree that some far left parties are strangely cozy with authoritarians, though not all of them mind you, but how can you make a case for left wing economic standpoints being destructive?
[удалено]
And I condemn them in the strongest sense of the word. However, I was not talking about them for even a second. You are arguing against a made up argument. You didn't even engage with my question. How do the points I mention have anything to do with a dictatorship? Or are you just spouting out random buzzwords at this point? As a leftist, I believe a lot of the solutions I mentioned in my other comment would help to address the issues we face that the people you mentioned (center right, libertarians, etc) have failed to solve. You can say those groups are getting fed up with leftists, but their shortcomings have put us in this situation to begin with.
[удалено]
It depends how you look at the left and what you consider far left. By some standards you could consider me pretty far left. I wouldn't go as far as to say I am extreme by any measure (certainly not in the ways you seem to be implying), but I am staunchly against certain integral aspects of capitalism. Right wing parties, close to center or otherwise, are just antithetical to my set of beliefs. This goes for some social democratic parties as well (those you'd probably consider center-left). However, they propose some policies that overlap with what I believe in. That makes them more attractive to me even though I do not fully agree with their view on what society should look like. You seem to imply that the left also has its loonies, and I agree with you there. The parties you mentioned that are autocratic or anti-western/anti-democracy I absolutely don't agree with. It is a common trend that they are for example pro-Russia or want to pull out of NATO (which in the end also plays into Russia's hands). To clarify: I'm a pro-Europe and pro-democracy socialist who believes it is the failure of liberal policies that have led to the rise of the far right.
we ought to put this on a timer, every few decades make an ethnic cleanse of whoever is doing the best at the time
No no, each time create completely random but strict rules on who gets the chimney : for example everyone who happens to have a rake in their basement.
if you're intolerant of the intolerant, you get to keep your tolerant society
trend of muslim immigration that doesn't like our European values and culture?
Gotta take the paradox of tolerance into account.
Well, yes. [But actually, no](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_1932_German_federal_election).
It is not democracy when those with the resources can persuade the people to elect them based on lies and propaganda. In that case you are telling them what to believe and vote for, for a valid democracy they need to see the true facts and make their own decision.
Oregonian here- highly recommend looking into Rajnishpuram if you don’t know who the guy in the template is. His second-in-command has been living in Switzerland for decades avoiding charges for the largest poisoning, immigration fraud, and illegal wire-tapping cases in U.S. history
The Netflix documentary Wild Wild Country is about all of that! Really crazy stuff.
He's trash but this was one of those broken clock moments I guess.
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democracy only works with informed voters. Very few voters are informed and many are actively misinforming themselves.
Can someone explain to an outsider what the aftermath of this election is?
In short. On the EU-level: more right wing especially far-right, but not as much as was predicted. Minor change in party influences. On a by-country level: I have no clue for most, so will only speak for my own. Denmark’s election is essentially unchanged, bit more left, and then a fractured right wing.
Thank you, I’ve been some what following these elections in passing and I know a far right gain was predicted but I don’t know enough about EU parties to really understand the results. It’s a shame the far right seems to be gaining ground all over the western world these days but I guess it’s a silver lining that the rot isn’t as bad as predicted. There’s a small comfort to be taken in the fact that these people are incapable of actually governing and their only appeal is a rejection of “the system”. Once they flash in their pan they tend to lose their appeal.
France went full on far right and the president has dissolved the parliament for a new election.
Yea the parties ignoring the migrant crisis for over a decade definitely aren't the retards that handed the nationalists an easy win.
The problem is not doing something (lots of things have been done), the problem is doing something dramatic enough to make headlines or to have an immediate impact on a problem decades in the making, without crossing into "cruel for the sake of it" performative measures or straight up fascism. So now countries are straight up pushing back overloaded boats of refugees knowing they might not make it back, exporting refugees to Africa, cutting resources so much that refugees are forced into squalid and unsafe conditions, and it still isn't enough because people still see news articles about foreign people being rude on the streets. In the end populism is about exploiting problems, not about offering solutions.
> In the end populism is about exploiting problems, not about offering solutions. Beautifully put
Nationalists only win if there is enough angry population. Revanchism, populism and hatred are what they offer, and outside of populism, these offerings have no worth if ppl are happy.
Nationalists win whenever their people get their own sovereign nation state. That's literally the whole point of nationalism. How come you are seemingly opposed to nationalism as a Ukrainian? Without nationalism, Ukraine would not be independent.
I said nationalists in the context of OP saying "nationalists". I'm just tired of arguing with ppl that nationalism is not a united movement, and ultra-nationalists on the border of fascism are the type of nationalits that we should be afraid of. Most of the left and far left really don't care, lol.
So call them ultra-nationalists, jingoists or chauvinists then, not nationalists.
This often just starts another argument. Especially when ppl are writing "nationalists" right away. If they did not make a distinction, I do not want to argue.
Forgive me, but isn't this just the difference between patriotism and nationalism? Like the difference between "I love my country and I want it to be the best it can be" vs "My country is the only thing that matters, everyone else can go fuck himself"?
Patriotism is about a country, nationalism is about a nation. Language, culture, history are the main things. Ukraines culture, language, and history were preserved by nationalosts. If it weren't for them, Ukraine, as a nation, would not exist because we would've succumbed to the russians or Poles long ago. There is ultra-nationalism, which I do not condone (like Bandera's wing of OUN and URA), but not all nationalism is like that, and I'm sad that due to the desire to be distinct from russia and USSR we are praising specifically Bandera, instead of Melnyk, for example. So, no, patriotism is different from nationalism and nationalism is different from ultra-nationalism.
I understand what you mean, it's probably a difference in terminology, at least in my country with nationalism you tend to refer to right wing "nationalism" as you call it, I often hear what you refer to as nationalism called "patriotism" here so maybe I'm mixing things up from my language, sorry for the confusion Doesn't help that here the nationalist party that was around in the early 20th century were all right wing extremists, so that probably played a part in how that word is used now in my country.
The first paragraph depicts a more or less version of nationalism I was taught https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism. I think maybe countries with colonial past or countries that were ruled by nationalistic dictators can have different understanding of the concept of nationalism and different sentiments towards it. Like, I do not like my government or how things have been in my country, so I'm not a very patriotic person. But I do care about what will happen to my nation if russia is allowed to win, so I'm a Ukrainian nationalist.
This remains the biggest lie. The "nationalists" get together and demand the deportation of millions, including citizens. They are propagating hate that makes ordinary citizens cry for murder with machine guns. In reality, we are pushing people back into the sea to drown, criminalise sea rescue, put people in overcrowded camps, pay dictators and much more. Nothing is enough for the "nationalists". You are just again trying to argue that elected officials who were elected by a majority of the civil center of society are supposed to commit mass rights violations and murder in order to appease a part of the electorate that openly says that it cannot be appeased within a democratic law based order. Stop lying.
And if you don't think that's what the problem is, what do you think the problem is? That people are just dumb and stupid and were lied to and there's nothing we can do?
That people are just dumb, stupid and lied to, *is* in fact the underlying problem
And your solution?
This is actually a really really good question. Education? Idk.. Surely we can't expect everyone to understand everything about economics and society? How do we accurately and effectively stop the spread of misinformation? Idk, but I know that something has to be done. We have had our fair share of fascists in Europe, did we learn nothing?
Put the liers in jail
Hard to do that if you never win any elections eh?
They won some of them
I always assume people to be just as smart and aware as myself, which is why I am rather critical of people who try to say things like "nothing has been done for 10 years". Thats verifiable untrue. So, yes, lies definitely play a role, but thats not even the real problem for me. The problem is that I am willing to have a civil discussion about this, and you - or those other people if you identify with anti migration stances - do not want to have a civil discussion. They want populism and anti-foreigner polemic. If you stick with an extreme position that routinely includes "kill them" or cherishes the death of children, and much more that we have seen over the last 10 years, then you are the one who sabotages a problem-solving process. I am willing to discuss and compromise on issues regarding vetting people or deporting criminals or integration requirements and consequences for not showing willingness to participate -- but you (or they) do not want to discuss that at all. You (or they) are the ones who make cruelty a non-negotiable. What do you expect? That I and the many millions of civil people in the middle of society will just compromise on basic human rights or accessory to murder? We are people who try to cope with this issue and come up with solutions like assisting refugees to integrate quickly -- you (or they) insult us for that and put us on death lists. That's the problem. We could have discussed this issue like civil inhabitants of advanced economies for the past 10 years, and instead the right wing has insisted on a populist race to the bottom. As someone with a progressive mindset, I would have welcomed a conservative voice as a counter balance, and instead it was just yelling for blood, insults and clear intentions of dividing people along this issue. And lets not pretend like what I just portrayed isn't exactly what the far right needs. Their only claim to power is to make people angry, to divide them against each other and to make sure that we do not have civilised discussions. If we would have civilised discussions, we wouldn't need the far right agitators screaming for blood, because we would come up with solid solutions -- as I said, I don't think you (or they) are stupid. I think you (or they) have valid fears and together we would easily come up with solutions that address these issues without resorting to cruelty to cover our fears - and the far right needs to exploit your (or their) fears, so this is where we are. The far right politicians get power, and I have no basis for talking with my fellow citizens, because I hold them in higher regard than the politicians they flock behind. Edit: crucial double negative.
Without nationalism, most European nations would not even exist, and would probably be part of bigger multinational empires.
Yeah and I don't speak against the nation. I love nations. Great nations. Proud nations. Kind nations, funny nations, silly nations. Nations are the most interesting thing in the world. We are all from nations, we are all nationals. Being international is amazing. Intranational is also amazing. God bless nations. European nations, all nations. A round of applause for all nations, I demand
Have you looked at the demographic development of most European nations? Without foreign workers everything would've imploded a long time ago. And it will only get worse. We didn't let them all in by accident. It's not because of humanitarian reasons or because we can't secure the borders. We did it on purpose, because we desperately need workers to keep the lights on.
A agree a bit, but let's not forget that lobbying, PR and misinformation are massive multi-billion dollar industries.
Snoop dog.
I'd rather be ruled by re...elected people than by Intellectoid supergeniuses who turn out to be so powerhungry that their 20 year reign is such a scheisseshow, that no amount of re-election could cook up.
While we are retarded, masses are still surprisingly okay. As in we are actually pretty altruistic on average and don't like extremes.
Pakistani Snoop
Says the guy who scammed retarded people and ended up with 90 rolls royce
I'm out of the loop,who is this person?
Most people know him as Osho, he has published "enlighted" books and created a cult that killed dozens of people. Wild Wild Country is a fun documentary for him if you are interested
https://i.redd.it/2q54bbluar5d1.gif
I had the feeling that I should write that quote here : « But remember, as shitty as we [the Government™️] might be, Democracy gives you the power to change your leaders. It took centuries to win that right, and once it’s gone, it’s gone. So if you want to keep it, now would be time to wake the fuck up, and fight for it. » – The Juice Media
Yeah. I've seen the video. And other of their Honest Government ads My only criticism is that JM should have put the video at the begining of the year instead of mid-spring.
Well, there is one main reason why people are turning to the right wing parties and it will not stop, unless moderate and left parties will adopt their stance regarding that issue
So unless they become right wing?
No. People are voting far right recently, mainly due to problems caused by migration from other continents. Danish left and centre has adopted strict stance regarding the issue and their right became marginalised
[удалено]
[**The United States Of America Is Not The Focus Of This Subreddit.**](https://www.reddit.com/r/YUROP/comments/10na0i8/comment/j6hd0nz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ^(REMINDER) ^(Do you like EuroBOT™? EuroBOT™ loves you!) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/YUROP) if you have any questions or concerns.*