A new study found that, on TikTok and Elon Musk's Twitter, nearly 3/4 of all partisan content being pushed algorithmically to German users favored the party best known for its ties to neo-Nazis.
This is the opposite of true. Appeasing the far right on immigration in other countries has led to disaster, every time. It’s caused Brexit. It shifts the overton window., allowing their rhetoric to become mainstream, making it credible. You do not give these fucks an inch. You tell them no. They have to be fought as early as possible, because they’re like bedbugs: if you allow them in you can’t get rid of them.
Its not only that but how the left has been marginalised, as what happened with the labour party in the UK - Jeremy corbyn, the old leader who was actually left wing has been barred from the party, which he was part of for his whole life. A lifelong anti-racist on the correct side of every issue has been smeared as being a racist and that is now the mainstream ‘truth’.
The only left wing party of any size in the UK now is the green party. The only alternatives to business as usual labour/conservatives (same thing) are the greens (seen mostly as a middle class protest vote) or reform.
Labour are definitely not for the working class anymore.
Couldn’t agree with you more there.
For what it’s worth, I’m a member of the TUSC (trade union socialist coalition) and the Socialist Party. You’re right they’re not big hitters, smaller even than the greens, but they are there, they stand for what I stand for, and they’re just a great bunch of people that I love hanging out with. Also, unlike Lemmy, it’s a tankie-free zone!
They’re good at building a community and they are active every day on a small, local scale.
I’ve had some good conversations with local TUSC members collecting signatures and so on, I’ve a lot of respect for them but sadly the general public don’t seem to. I think after the kicking by thatcher, unions and socialism in general are out of fashion. I do think there should be a broadly left party, allowing secondary membership maybe. Work on getting agreement on some issues, laser focus on what’s most urgent and get decent people elected. I’d support any party with decent policies and which had the most chance of getting elected.
I dunno, I’ve lost faith since Corbyn. He was prevented from being elected. I believe the left are kept from power, because in my lifetime, most of the people I talk to are to the left of the people who’ve been power. Jeremy Corbyn being character assassinated wasn’t surprising to me. So I’m not fixated on getting leftists into Westminster. I don’t think it’s possible.
Agreed its not likely but it’s not possible to give up. I mean, it could and has been worse. We aren’t slaves, our country hasn’t been invaded, we aren’t living in Russia… It could be worse and we can’t give up or it will probably get worse.
Apparently telling voters “no” is working terribly because right wing parties keep rising in polls. The evidence directly contradicts your claim. I don’t see how Brexit was caused in any way by appeasement. If anything, Brexit was caused by derision and dismissal, leaving low socioeconomic voters in particular no other way to vent their anger than by burning an institution to the ground. If you don’t give voters what they want they will vote extremists into power, or vote for extreme solutions out of spite.
Broadly speaking I find the argument of telling voters “no” in a democracy absurd and authoritarian.
Those voters had already been brainwashed by fascists into thinking destitute refugees and asylum seekers were at the root of their problems instead of offshore bank accounts stuffed with their taxes, which should have been used to pay for public services and housing.
I have, and I think you are wrong. However both of us are using very vague words like “appeasement” and I’m beginning to think we’re not using the same definitions. We might be remembering the facts which align with our narrative and ignoring those which do not. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
Brexit happened because David Cameron needed to appease the right wing of his party. That is a fact, and I won’t be ceding any ground there. It looks like you might try and rewrite history next, and I had taken you for someone who just didn’t know, rather than someone spreading lies.
Brexit happened because successive neoliberal governments ground low and middle class workers into dust. The two party system provided no alternative to voters than the two neoliberal governments. So when voters got the chance, they burned a cherished institution to the ground in protest. The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens, and I’m dismayed that you would argue the issue might be actually listening to voters for the first time in generations. It is the exact opposite that is needed in the UK and around Europe.
The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what’s causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say “neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust”?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration?
I’m not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
So you’re acknowledging that it’s a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?
Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there’s now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people’s economic issues.
Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.
Globalization isn’t bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.
So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting “zero asylum” policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn’t need to migrate to richer counties - but I don’t see the same “anti-globalist” parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.
Denmark’s approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They’ve maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a “freedom for me, but not for thee” approach.
Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?
This is the opposite of true. Appeasing the far right on immigration in other countries has led to disaster, every time. It’s caused Brexit. It shifts the overton window., allowing their rhetoric to become mainstream, making it credible. You do not give these fucks an inch. You tell them no. They have to be fought as early as possible, because they’re like bedbugs: if you allow them in you can’t get rid of them.
Its not only that but how the left has been marginalised, as what happened with the labour party in the UK - Jeremy corbyn, the old leader who was actually left wing has been barred from the party, which he was part of for his whole life. A lifelong anti-racist on the correct side of every issue has been smeared as being a racist and that is now the mainstream ‘truth’.
The only left wing party of any size in the UK now is the green party. The only alternatives to business as usual labour/conservatives (same thing) are the greens (seen mostly as a middle class protest vote) or reform.
Labour are definitely not for the working class anymore.
Couldn’t agree with you more there.
For what it’s worth, I’m a member of the TUSC (trade union socialist coalition) and the Socialist Party. You’re right they’re not big hitters, smaller even than the greens, but they are there, they stand for what I stand for, and they’re just a great bunch of people that I love hanging out with. Also, unlike Lemmy, it’s a tankie-free zone! They’re good at building a community and they are active every day on a small, local scale.
I’ve had some good conversations with local TUSC members collecting signatures and so on, I’ve a lot of respect for them but sadly the general public don’t seem to. I think after the kicking by thatcher, unions and socialism in general are out of fashion. I do think there should be a broadly left party, allowing secondary membership maybe. Work on getting agreement on some issues, laser focus on what’s most urgent and get decent people elected. I’d support any party with decent policies and which had the most chance of getting elected.
I dunno, I’ve lost faith since Corbyn. He was prevented from being elected. I believe the left are kept from power, because in my lifetime, most of the people I talk to are to the left of the people who’ve been power. Jeremy Corbyn being character assassinated wasn’t surprising to me. So I’m not fixated on getting leftists into Westminster. I don’t think it’s possible.
Agreed its not likely but it’s not possible to give up. I mean, it could and has been worse. We aren’t slaves, our country hasn’t been invaded, we aren’t living in Russia… It could be worse and we can’t give up or it will probably get worse.
Apparently telling voters “no” is working terribly because right wing parties keep rising in polls. The evidence directly contradicts your claim. I don’t see how Brexit was caused in any way by appeasement. If anything, Brexit was caused by derision and dismissal, leaving low socioeconomic voters in particular no other way to vent their anger than by burning an institution to the ground. If you don’t give voters what they want they will vote extremists into power, or vote for extreme solutions out of spite.
Broadly speaking I find the argument of telling voters “no” in a democracy absurd and authoritarian.
Those voters had already been brainwashed by fascists into thinking destitute refugees and asylum seekers were at the root of their problems instead of offshore bank accounts stuffed with their taxes, which should have been used to pay for public services and housing.
I was clearly talking about telling the far right “no”, not the voters.
If you don’t see how Brexit was caused by appeasing the right wing then you aren’t in possession of all the facts, as it is a fact. Go read about it.
I have, and I think you are wrong. However both of us are using very vague words like “appeasement” and I’m beginning to think we’re not using the same definitions. We might be remembering the facts which align with our narrative and ignoring those which do not. The truth might lie somewhere in between.
Brexit happened because David Cameron needed to appease the right wing of his party. That is a fact, and I won’t be ceding any ground there. It looks like you might try and rewrite history next, and I had taken you for someone who just didn’t know, rather than someone spreading lies.
Brexit happened because successive neoliberal governments ground low and middle class workers into dust. The two party system provided no alternative to voters than the two neoliberal governments. So when voters got the chance, they burned a cherished institution to the ground in protest. The issue here is decades of neglecting the wellbeing of citizens, and I’m dismayed that you would argue the issue might be actually listening to voters for the first time in generations. It is the exact opposite that is needed in the UK and around Europe.
Yes? But what does this have to do with immigration? Do you genuinely believe that immigrants are what’s causing the decay of citizen wellbeing and not as you say “neoliberal governments grounding low and middle class workers into dust”?
You see the issue but you side with the neoliberals on their preferred solution?
I’m not making that link. The user above argued Brexit was caused by appeasement. I was addressing that specific claim.
I generally side against the neoliberals. In this case, they have been tirelessly fighting for globalisation and high immigration. Like all economic policies, it comes with some good and some bad. It has certainly resulted in a lot of top line wealth generation. The problem is that most of it has been accrued at the top. This is not sustainable. I think this is why we are seeing a general backlash to globalisation: the experiment hurt a lot of middle and lower class people.
So you’re acknowledging that it’s a problem of wealth extraction but your proposed solution is for left wing parties to adopt a more anti-immigration stance instead of resolving the issue of inequality?
Right wing parties platform on isolationist policies (Brexit) while massively boosting globalization (how there’s now more migration post-Brexit than pre) and using migrants as a scapegoat for people’s economic issues.
Pinning the issue of globalization on migrants is like putting the blame on the exploited for the crimes of the exploiters.
Globalization isn’t bad because it allows people to resettle, escape political and environmental instability in their own countries - but because neoliberal interests specifically funnel away wealth from their local lower classes and destabilize poorer foreign nations to provide cheap labour for their businesses at home.
So instead of saying how great Denmark is for adopting “zero asylum” policies why not spend your energy advocating for wealth redistribution on a global scale? I agree, ideally people wouldn’t need to migrate to richer counties - but I don’t see the same “anti-globalist” parties advocating for paying reparations or providing zero debt aid to poorer nations instead either.
Denmark’s approach seems to prioritize protecting their domestic welfare system rather than addressing the global systems that create inequality. They’ve maintained many of the same neoliberal international policies while building higher walls around their own social safety net - exemplifying a “freedom for me, but not for thee” approach.
Which leads to the real crux of the issue - can a truly progressive approach stop at national borders, or does it require addressing the international systems that create inequality and drive migration in the first place?
Yep. Rewriting history.