German Politics Thread

[rotting bones]

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

This point of view is not shared by the poor. Liberal democracy alone doesn't raise the living standards of the poor. Living standards are what the poor are most concerned about since it's the bottleneck preventing them from living a fulfilling life. Freedom only becomes a concern for people whose essentials are taken care of.

[WeepingElf]

My first problem with Green types is because fundamentally Green-ness is a pet issue, and being a pet issue Greens are willing to put it over liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, and when the authoritarians win the Greens fundamentally will be defeated anyways, making all of their environmental principles all for naught.

(My second problem with Green types is that Green positions often don't make sense, e.g. their opposition to nuclear -- when you judge power by the actual rational criterion of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is much better than what has served to replace it in places like Germany, and nuclear is better environmentally* than some other nominally relatively-low deaths per terawatt-hour sources of power like hydroelectric power, which can actually cause massive amounts of damage to the environment, and which when it does go bad can actually cause massive death tolls amongst human populations far outstripping Chernobyl and Fukushima, cf. the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure.)

* And even things like solar power -- think of what turning desert ecosystems into seas of solar panels can do.

I don't know what kind of "Green types" you are referring to. The Green Party of the United States seems to be to me what among German Greens is called "Fundis" (a short form of Fundamentalisten). The German Greens, and most other Western European Green parties, are no longer that way, and reject any kind of authoritarianism. They are ardently liberal democrats ("liberal" as in civil rights, not "liberal" as in unfettered capitalism). An "eco-dictatorship" is the last thing they want!

And certainly, ecological sustainability is definitely NOT a "pet issue". Do you want to live in a Mad Max-like world where civilization has failed because the climate has gone bonkers and most valuable resources have run out?

Nuclear power is unsustainable because uranium is a non-renewable resource, nobody knows how to safely dispose of the radioactive wastes, and catastrophic accident may happens. Plus the prospect that any country with nuclear power plants could build nuclear warheads. Huge dams can also fail catastrophically (but at least they don't spread radioactive wastes when they fail), but most European Greens are opposed to such schemes. They are into decentralized renewable energy - solar panels on roofs of buildings that are there anyway, wind turbines here and there, small hydroelectric plants, and the like.

[Travis B.]

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

This point of view is not shared by the poor. Liberal democracy alone doesn't raise the living standards of the poor. Living standards are what the poor are most concerned about since it's the bottleneck preventing them from living a fulfilling life. Freedom only becomes a concern for people whose essentials are taken care of.

The key thing is that with an authoritarian state democratic socialism will never be achieved unless liberal democracy is a clear popular goal alongside socialism, as the popular social organization needed for bringing about democratic socialism requires an open society or at least popular awareness of liberal democracy as a model to follow, and hence liberal democracy is a prerequisite for democratic socialism. (Yes you could have a bloody revolution without seeking liberal democracy, but we all know the track record of those.)

[Travis B.]

My first problem with Green types is because fundamentally Green-ness is a pet issue, and being a pet issue Greens are willing to put it over liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, and when the authoritarians win the Greens fundamentally will be defeated anyways, making all of their environmental principles all for naught.

(My second problem with Green types is that Green positions often don't make sense, e.g. their opposition to nuclear -- when you judge power by the actual rational criterion of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is much better than what has served to replace it in places like Germany, and nuclear is better environmentally* than some other nominally relatively-low deaths per terawatt-hour sources of power like hydroelectric power, which can actually cause massive amounts of damage to the environment, and which when it does go bad can actually cause massive death tolls amongst human populations far outstripping Chernobyl and Fukushima, cf. the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure.)

* And even things like solar power -- think of what turning desert ecosystems into seas of solar panels can do.

I don't know what kind of "Green types" you are referring to. The Green Party of the United States seems to be to me what among German Greens is called "Fundis" (a short form of Fundamentalisten). The German Greens, and most other Western European Green parties, are no longer that way, and reject any kind of authoritarianism. They are ardently liberal democrats ("liberal" as in civil rights, not "liberal" as in unfettered capitalism). An "eco-dictatorship" is the last thing they want!

I don't mean that Greens seek an 'eco-dictatorship', but that they don't put defending liberal democracy first, like many leftists overall. You are not going to defend the environment (or achieve socialism for that matter) once the authoritarians have crushed popular movements in general.

And certainly, ecological sustainability is definitely NOT a "pet issue". Do you want to live in a Mad Max-like world where civilization has failed because the climate has gone bonkers and most valuable resources have run out?

Once the authoritarians have won you will never achieve ecological sustainability. Hence fighting the authoritarians ought to be a higher priority, as it is necessary for achieving ecological sustainability.

Nuclear power is unsustainable because uranium is a non-renewable resource, nobody knows how to safely dispose of the radioactive wastes, and catastrophic accident may happens. Plus the prospect that any country with nuclear power plants could build nuclear warheads. Huge dams can also fail catastrophically (but at least they don't spread radioactive wastes when they fail), but most European Greens are opposed to such schemes. They are into decentralized renewable energy - solar panels on roofs of buildings that are there anyway, wind turbines here and there, small hydroelectric plants, and the like.

Radioactive waste from nuclear is small and easily contained, and nuclear fuel is used in relatively small quantities; neither is true of fossil fuels, which have very often replaced nuclear in places where nuclear has been phased out. Sure, nuclear fuel is not re-newable per se, but a shift to a thorium fuel cycle could mitigate this since thorium is much more common than uranium.

[WeepingElf]

My first problem with Green types is because fundamentally Green-ness is a pet issue, and being a pet issue Greens are willing to put it over liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, and when the authoritarians win the Greens fundamentally will be defeated anyways, making all of their environmental principles all for naught.

(My second problem with Green types is that Green positions often don't make sense, e.g. their opposition to nuclear -- when you judge power by the actual rational criterion of deaths per terawatt-hour, nuclear is much better than what has served to replace it in places like Germany, and nuclear is better environmentally* than some other nominally relatively-low deaths per terawatt-hour sources of power like hydroelectric power, which can actually cause massive amounts of damage to the environment, and which when it does go bad can actually cause massive death tolls amongst human populations far outstripping Chernobyl and Fukushima, cf. the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure.)

* And even things like solar power -- think of what turning desert ecosystems into seas of solar panels can do.

I don't know what kind of "Green types" you are referring to. The Green Party of the United States seems to be to me what among German Greens is called "Fundis" (a short form of Fundamentalisten). The German Greens, and most other Western European Green parties, are no longer that way, and reject any kind of authoritarianism. They are ardently liberal democrats ("liberal" as in civil rights, not "liberal" as in unfettered capitalism). An "eco-dictatorship" is the last thing they want!

I don't mean that Greens seek an 'eco-dictatorship', but that they don't put defending liberal democracy first, like many leftists overall. You are not going to defend the environment (or achieve socialism for that matter) once the authoritarians have crushed popular movements in general.

You are knocking at an open door with me here. But you are wrong in claiming that the German Greens did not put defending liberal democracy first. This may be true of some leftist movements, especially in the United States where many leftists seem to think that "both parties are equally evil", but by far not of all of them. It is not true of the German Greens (and don't forget that we are in the German Politics Thread here, so what some sectarian leftists in the US may think is not really of interest). The German Greens are indeed the most uncompromising of the significant political parties to defend liberal democracy and oppose authoritarianism, while many conservatives are compliant to vote with the AfD "on specific issues", and the BSW is hard to tell whether they are leftists or rightists.

And certainly, ecological sustainability is definitely NOT a "pet issue". Do you want to live in a Mad Max-like world where civilization has failed because the climate has gone bonkers and most valuable resources have run out?

Once the authoritarians have won you will never achieve ecological sustainability. Hence fighting the authoritarians ought to be a higher priority, as it is necessary for achieving ecological sustainability.

Sure! Authoritarianism inevitably leads to Mad Max; only liberal democracy makes sustainability even possible.

Nuclear power is unsustainable because uranium is a non-renewable resource, nobody knows how to safely dispose of the radioactive wastes, and catastrophic accident may happens. Plus the prospect that any country with nuclear power plants could build nuclear warheads. Huge dams can also fail catastrophically (but at least they don't spread radioactive wastes when they fail), but most European Greens are opposed to such schemes. They are into decentralized renewable energy - solar panels on roofs of buildings that are there anyway, wind turbines here and there, small hydroelectric plants, and the like.

Radioactive waste from nuclear is small and easily contained, and nuclear fuel is used in relatively small quantities; neither is true of fossil fuels, which have very often replaced nuclear in places where nuclear has been phased out. Sure, nuclear fuel is not re-newable per se, but a shift to a thorium fuel cycle could mitigate this since thorium is much more common than uranium.

I don't favour fossil fuels over nuclear power - nor do the German Greens! Our goal is 100% renewable energy. Radioactive waste may be "small" as compared to the carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuel, but it is much more hazardous, and the disposal problem is still unsolved. And carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere and turned into useful things, even if that is still too expensive to be economically feasible. That's of course no excuse to belch out more of it, though. The Sun sends us much more energy than we can ever consume; there really is no need for either fossil fuels or nuclear power.

(You will have guessed by now that I am regular voter of the German Greens. It's even "worse" - I am a member. Which does not mean that I automatically approve of everything the party does. For instance, I think that the Greens and other progressive groups communicate suboptimally: they say what they don't want all the time, and tell too little of what they want. People have enough of the litany of problems (which is why so many are yearning for an allegedly better past); they want a compelling vision of a better future. And while I am a member of the Green Party, I don't post here as a spokesperson of that party - I only post my own opinions here.)

[rotting bones]

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

This point of view is not shared by the poor. Liberal democracy alone doesn't raise the living standards of the poor. Living standards are what the poor are most concerned about since it's the bottleneck preventing them from living a fulfilling life. Freedom only becomes a concern for people whose essentials are taken care of.

The key thing is that with an authoritarian state democratic socialism will never be achieved unless liberal democracy is a clear popular goal alongside socialism, as the popular social organization needed for bringing about democratic socialism requires an open society or at least popular awareness of liberal democracy as a model to follow, and hence liberal democracy is a prerequisite for democratic socialism. (Yes you could have a bloody revolution without seeking liberal democracy, but we all know the track record of those.)

The text I quoted seems to be promoting the idea that "liberal democracy" has a higher priority than socialism. My point is that if you do not advocate for socialism, then prepare to drop the poor as allies and repress them in the name of "liberal democracy" or "civilization" or whatever. If you are allying with conservatives and helping them crack down on socialists because the conservatives support "liberal democracy", then what's the value of the freedom you've secured? Instead, take care of essentials first so that freedom can be a priority for everyone.

[WeepingElf]

This point of view is not shared by the poor. Liberal democracy alone doesn't raise the living standards of the poor. Living standards are what the poor are most concerned about since it's the bottleneck preventing them from living a fulfilling life. Freedom only becomes a concern for people whose essentials are taken care of.

The key thing is that with an authoritarian state democratic socialism will never be achieved unless liberal democracy is a clear popular goal alongside socialism, as the popular social organization needed for bringing about democratic socialism requires an open society or at least popular awareness of liberal democracy as a model to follow, and hence liberal democracy is a prerequisite for democratic socialism. (Yes you could have a bloody revolution without seeking liberal democracy, but we all know the track record of those.)

The text I quoted seems to be promoting the idea that "liberal democracy" has a higher priority than socialism. My point is that if you do not advocate for socialism, then prepare to drop the poor as allies and repress them in the name of "liberal democracy" or "civilization" or whatever. If you are allying with conservatives and helping them crack down on socialists because the conservatives support "liberal democracy", then what's the value of the freedom you've secured? Instead, take care of essentials first so that freedom can be a priority for everyone.

This is precisely the kind of sectarian radical-left "socialism vs. liberalism" bullfrogs Travis was complaining about. Socialism without liberal democracy, i.e. socialism under an authoritarian regime, is no less nightmarish than capitalism under an authoritarian regime. Have you forgotten what happened in the Soviet Bloc and caused it to fail, or what is still happening in North Korea? (Also, think of the environmental atrocities of the Soviet Bloc.)

[rotting bones]

This is precisely the kind of sectarian radical-left "socialism vs. liberalism" bullfrogs Travis was complaining about. Socialism without liberal democracy, i.e. socialism under an authoritarian regime, is no less nightmarish than capitalism under an authoritarian regime. Have you forgotten what happened in the Soviet Bloc and caused it to fail, or what is still happening in North Korea? (Also, think of the environmental atrocities of the Soviet Bloc.)

Just to be clear, I am in favor of liberal democracy. I just think it's immoral to help conservatives repress the just complaints of the poor to secure freedom for the middle class. Instead, the right thing to do is to have a democratic socialist movement that seeks to draw socialists into the cause of liberal democracy and ally with capitalists on the condition that they support socialism. If a liberal democratic movement succeeds by helping conservatives repress the poor, I'd be hoping for a meteorite strike to wipe out the species.

[zompist]

Just to be clear, I am in favor of liberal democracy. I just think it's immoral to help conservatives repress the just complaints of the poor to secure freedom for the middle class. Instead, the right thing to do is to have a democratic socialist movement that seeks to draw socialists into the cause of liberal democracy and ally with capitalists on the condition that they support socialism. If a liberal democratic movement succeeds by helping conservatives repress the poor, I'd be hoping for a meteorite strike to wipe out the species.

Are you saying that European social democrats are repressing the poor? They're mostly not in power, but the EU isn't the US and isn't yet run by techbro plutocrats. E.g. the Gini coefficient is .294 for Germany, .297 in France, .265 for the Netherlands; compare to .494 in the US.

But I don't know what you two are arguing about. Democracy and social justice are not opposed choices, especially in a world where increasingly the bad guys are attacking both of them together.

[rotting bones]

I am opposing the position expressed in the following quotation:

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

In case you think liberal democrats have a lot to lose by not opportunistically repressing socialism, think of what we are working with. In my experience, managerial types love Saudi Arabia. What's the difference between Saudi Arabia and North Korea? All the capitalists trade with Saudi Arabia, and so it's rich.

You can find pro-capitalists who support authoritarianism, who support liberalism, who oppose socialism, who support socialism, etc. Why not ally with the faction that supports liberal socialism?

As for revolution, Bangladesh had a centrist revolution. The revolutionaries are now creating a centrist party to contest elections. Why are all these moronic intellectuals telling us the left can't do something similar if the situation is dire enough?

Like I have argued many times, the Soviet experiment was undermined by the authoritarian structure of government they established. There is no reason for us to follow them in that regard. 21st intellectuals are so stupid, they are turning me against the phenomenon of human intellectualism itself.

[rotting bones]

Are you saying that European social democrats are repressing the poor? They're mostly not in power, but the EU isn't the US and isn't yet run by techbro plutocrats. E.g. the Gini coefficient is .294 for Germany, .297 in France, .265 for the Netherlands; compare to .494 in the US.

But I don't know what you two are arguing about. Democracy and social justice are not opposed choices, especially in a world where increasingly the bad guys are attacking both of them together.

The position I'm opposing is that the only thing which matters is whether someone supports liberal democracy or not. Conservatives can support liberal democracy, and they are in competition with the poor everywhere.

Although I support liberal democracy, I also think we need constitutional changes to protect human rights and create government jobs by vote.

[zompist]

I am opposing the position expressed in the following quotation:

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

Ares Land can speak for himself, but I think you're misreading him. He is not saying socialism should be repressed. He's saying that unless we beat the fascists trying to destroy democracy, we're not going to get anything better than fascism.

[Travis B.]

I am opposing the position expressed in the following quotation:

The mistake everyone's making (including myself) is in believing the debate is about socialism vs. capitalism or conservatism vs. liberalism. I really thought so myself until recently. But I've come to realize this is entirely unimportant. The only political question right now is whether we still want liberal democracy or not.

Ares Land can speak for himself, but I think you're misreading him. He is not saying socialism should be repressed. He's saying that unless we beat the fascists trying to destroy democracy, we're not going to get anything better than fascism.

This. If we fail to beat the fascists then we will never achieve socialism, so not allying strategically in the present with other people who are on the side of liberal democracy on the grounds that they are not left-wing enough is fundamentally self-defeating.

[rotting bones]

Ares Land can speak for himself, but I think you're misreading him. He is not saying socialism should be repressed. He's saying that unless we beat the fascists trying to destroy democracy, we're not going to get anything better than fascism.

This. If we fail to beat the fascists then we will never achieve socialism, so not allying strategically in the present with other people who are on the side of liberal democracy on the grounds that they are not left-wing enough is fundamentally self-defeating.

If you talk to pro-capitalism types, you'll find there are lots of people who want to repress the poor to save liberal democracy. LOTS. These people ARE the fascists. The fascists are not just the enemies on the other side of the fence. There is no point fighting foreign fascists if we don't fight our own.

PS. In fact, "saving liberal democracy" is a trope fascists used in Chile.

[Travis B.]

Ares Land can speak for himself, but I think you're misreading him. He is not saying socialism should be repressed. He's saying that unless we beat the fascists trying to destroy democracy, we're not going to get anything better than fascism.

This. If we fail to beat the fascists then we will never achieve socialism, so not allying strategically in the present with other people who are on the side of liberal democracy on the grounds that they are not left-wing enough is fundamentally self-defeating.

If you talk to pro-capitalism types, you'll find there are lots of people who want to repress the poor to save liberal democracy. LOTS. These people ARE the fascists. The fascists are not just the enemies on the other side of the fence. There is no point fighting foreign fascists if we don't fight our own.

PS. In fact, "saving liberal democracy" is a trope fascists used in Chile.

So obviously in your mind the only people who aren't fascists are overt socialists, and everyone else really are only pretending not to be fascists. Nice way to effectively exclude the possibility of allying with anyone against the fascists, for the sake of preserving your left-wing purity. You must be against the ideas of the Popular Front and of the firewall against the far-right, as those require allying with people who aren't as purely socialist as yourself.

[rotting bones]

So obviously in your mind the only people who aren't fascists are overt socialists, and everyone else really are only pretending not to be fascists. Nice way to effectively exclude the possibility of allying with anyone against the fascists, for the sake of preserving your left-wing purity. You must be against the ideas of the Popular Front and of the firewall against the far-right, as those require allying with people who aren't as purely socialist as yourself.

Have you ever spoken to these people? These "liberals" communicate in helicopter memes. If repressing the poor is explicitly what they want to do, what's the point of allying with them? If the alternative to stopping Putin is a Pinochet regime, I'm against both outcomes. I honestly don't understand why one is better than the other.

[Raphael]

Well, of course, people who communicate in helicopter memes are not supporters of liberal democracy.

[rotting bones]

Well, of course, people who communicate in helicopter memes are not supporters of liberal democracy.

These people have engineering and management degrees, and they honestly don't understand why using helicopters isn't saving liberal democracy from the socialist rabble. At some point, you have to use your own judgment about who is or isn't a supporter of liberal democracy. This means refusing to ally with some factions that honestly see themselves as defenders of liberal democracy and call you a leftist fanatic for excluding them.

[Raphael]

This means refusing to ally with some factions that honestly see themselves as defenders of liberal democracy and call you a leftist fanatic for excluding them.

Oh, I'm all for refusing to ally with people who like helicopter memes.

[rotting bones]

Oh, I'm all for refusing to ally with people who like helicopter memes.

If they will allow workers to protest and force employers to submit to their demands, then they are not talking about repressing the poor as I understand it. I'm ok with an alliance with such people, even if it's temporary.