France regional elections: far-right nationalist party tipped for big gains - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Danny1828;49262037]Personally I think something in between left and right would be the best. But is that something that we can really achieve now a days? Like it pretty much seems you can either be left or right, I just kind of want a bit of both.. since they all tend to have good points.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as a centrist school of thought. I tried for a long time to find people and parties who were centrist, or create one online. What ended up happening was conflict due to irreconcilable differences that members didnt want to compromise on, that led to infighting, then implosion. Its ineffective. No, you need a new idea which redefines what "left and right" means. The trick is to find a way to invalidate both ideas, then create a new one that gives (and delivers) what both sides are aiming for. Just in a different manner they both hate.

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49262052]There is no such thing as a centrist school of thought. I tried for a long time to find people and parties who were centrist, or create one online. What ended up happening is there will be irreconcilable differences that members won't compromise on, then which leads to infighting, then implosion.[/QUOTE] It's a simple example of the middle ground fallacy, that's why.

[QUOTE=goldenhue;49262084]It's a simple example of the middle ground fallacy, that's why.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as middle of the ground. There is such a thing as conflicting ideals. The trick is redefine what left and right means. To do that, you have figure out what both have in common then create one that is the directly polar opposite of those two.

I understand what you're saying. You can stop editing your post now; it makes sense.

[QUOTE=goldenhue;49262223]I understand what you're saying. You can stop editing your post now; it makes sense.[/QUOTE] Apologies, Im working on being more clear. Trying to find a balance between everything I want to say and keeping it brief and coherent. Hence the constant re editing. You have to realize the current "left right" dichotomy is a trap or trick. Just think out side that trap. Create your own options, and don't accept the ones that are offered you. Its the only way to avoid the train wreck western society is currently on. We need unprecedented ideas and soon. What currently is available is obviously not working and is taking humanity to self destruction and ruin. Why do we keep choosing rubbish? We can do and create something new and better. I hope by me saying this, it will stimulate or spark a brainstorm in that direction from those more knowledgeable and elegant then I. Better now then later.

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49262230] I hope by me saying this, it will stimulate or spark a brainstorm in that direction[/QUOTE] It has.

[QUOTE=goldenhue;49262334]It has.[/QUOTE] I would like to hear your ideas then. If having trouble, may I offer a suggestion?

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;49262331]I mean if you're going to have [url=http://motherboard.vice.com/read/after-paris-attacks-proposed-french-law-would-block-tor-and-forbid-free-wi-fi]fascist laws[/url], you might as well have a proper fascist party in power.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Article]the French government is considering to “Forbid free and shared wi-fi connections” [b]during a state of emergency.[/b][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=State of Emergency]a situation of national danger or disaster in which a government [b]suspends normal constitutional procedures[/b] in order to regain control.[/QUOTE] As for TOR, it's already riddled by FBI and who knows what else. Plus, it'll be very difficult to censor it. I doubt it's going to follow through. Calling this fascist is a bit of an exaggeration.

People need to remember that the right/left wing split is very different in the US and Europe. For example, the furthest right wing parties in the US, like the Tea Party, are closer to anarchism with very little government control. The right win parties in Europe are whole lot more nationalistic and government centered. The Nazis would be far from "right wing" in the US.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49260382]You can't be leftwing and oppose limiting and controlling the 800,000 immigrants a year plan. Only the right wingers aren't afraid of being called racist and unfortunately some of them are quite bigoted.[/QUOTE] Actually no that's complete bullshit. I'm absolutely sure that as long as you aren't in Sweden, if a left winger comes out and says he/she doesn't support the huge amount of refugees coming over the borders, people won't give a shit and still vote for him/her. Hell even if they are in Sweden, they would probably still get voted for, it's just their (idiotic) party wouldn't support them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49262631]People need to remember that the right/left wing split is very different in the US and Europe. For example, the furthest right wing parties in the US, like the Tea Party, are [B]closer to anarchism[/B] with very little government control. The right win parties in Europe are whole lot more nationalistic and government centered. The Nazis would be far from "right wing" in the US.[/QUOTE] Republicans are more of the veins of libertarianism. For one, anarchist tradition is leftist, more than often, socialist, and as such it is clearly not of the same essence. At last, for those who'll try and bunch anarchism and ''anarcho''-capitalism, remember that is not recognised as anarchism, because the core ideologies it espouses, such as free market and private property (which is viewed as an illegitimate power structure by anarchists), are in direct conflict with anarchism. Btw, you shouldn't even try the ''no true Scotsman'' in the same way any of you would recognise that the DPRK is really not about democracy.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;49263625]Republicans are more of the veins of libertarianism.[/QUOTE] Libertarian is kinda a meaningless term since it encompasses "Paulites" "Palinites" and "Trumpers". The Republican party as a whole also supports big government, safety over freedom and pushing their values onto other people.

[QUOTE=Mechanical43;49263625]Republicans are more of the veins of libertarianism. For one, anarchist tradition is leftist, more than often, socialist, and as such it is clearly not of the same essence. [/QUOTE] The Tea Party and other 'far right' groups are a whole lot closer to anarchism than any leftist group in the US. The further left you go, the more government control you see. The most extreme leftist parties, like the green party, want to have intimate control across every industry, even so far as to nationalize some of it. I'm not saying they are anarchists, but that the further right you go, the closer you get to anarchism in the US. Libertarians are so much further towards those ideals than any leftist party. Many of them advocate for private courts of law, for example. [QUOTE]The Republican party as a whole also supports big government, safety over freedom and pushing their values onto other people.[/QUOTE] There are a few social issues where the Republicans want control, like drugs, but generally they definitely want less. They want: - Less control over property (lower taxes) - Less control over business (less regulations) - Less control over health (private health insurance) - Less control over education (less involvement in public education) - Less control over states (leave most things for states to do, including things like marijuana) - etc. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] On the other hand, take Sanders, the furthest left Democrat running. He wants more control over essentially every facet of American life (other than drugs). He wants: - Higher taxes (including things like a carbon tax) - Total control over health - Huge amounts of control over education - Increased control over wages through a higher minimum wage - Increased control over trade - Increased role in employment (youth employment programs, for example) - Increased control over retirement by expanding social security - Mandating employer benefits - Mandating free pre-kindergarten and childcare - Increased government ensured union rights - etc. I literally just went down the list on the "issues" page of his website. There isn't a single point that doesn't increase government control.

I don't know a lot about front national or France in particular but I'm under the impression that Europe could gain something from the far right parties getting a bit stronger. It might put some pressure on the other parties forcing them to compromise more when it comes to stuff like immigration. As long as they aren't getting too big and can start pulling crazy radical shit I'm fine with this.

[QUOTE=maeZtro;49264255]I don't know a lot about front national or France in particular but I'm under the impression that Europe could gain something from the far right parties getting a bit stronger. It might put some pressure on the other parties forcing them to compromise more when it comes to stuff like immigration. As long as they aren't getting too big and can start pulling crazy radical shit I'm fine with this.[/QUOTE] When you say "gain something from far right parties getting a bit stronger" what do you mean by right wing? Economically right wing would be pushing for everything to be privatised and to trust in stuff like trickle down economics to distribute wealth. This is pretty prevalent, at least it is in the UK. That authoritarian right wing stuff, ie less personal freedoms and more government interference is also pretty prevalent. Not 100% sure what the correct term for being hard on immigration is but "right wing" seems sort of ambiguous and imo is serves to reframe the already right wing governments (like in the UK) as centre thus reframing left and centre as far-left and left respectively. Making dumb people less likely to pick them since they'll consider "centre" as more balanced. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;49263745] There are a few social issues where the Republicans want control, like drugs, but generally they definitely want less. They want: -snip- On the other hand, take Sanders, the furthest left Democrat running. He wants more control over essentially every facet of American life (other than drugs). He wants: - Higher taxes (including things like a carbon tax) - Total control over health - Huge amounts of control over education - Increased control over wages through a higher minimum wage - Increased control over trade - Increased role in employment (youth employment programs, for example) - Increased control over retirement by expanding social security - Mandating employer benefits - Mandating free pre-kindergarten and childcare - Increased government ensured union rights - etc. I literally just went down the list on the "issues" page of his website. There isn't a single point that doesn't increase government control.[/QUOTE] you have hand picked rather well and addressed something very oddly. [quote]Total control over health[/quote] This is false. Universal healthcare and even full on nationalised healthcare still gives choice to the consumers, they can choose to go private. It might even make it cheaper if the private companies have to compete. [quote]- Increased role in employment (youth employment programs, for example)[/quote] This wouldn't be forced on people. Since it is incentivised if anything it gives employers more choice with regard to who they can hire while remaining competitive. [quote]Increased government ensured union rights[/quote] If anything that is giving power the the unions. How is that "more control" Also failed to mention stuff like Trump's desire for a muslim database, or carson's desire for a database on everybody - pretty authoritarian and invasive/increased intrusion and control on peoples lives. Or Sander's opposition to mass surveillance - less government control and intrusion. Or maybe republicans (and oddly libertarians) bizarre stance against gay marriage - more government control and intrusion. You hand picked your examples and distorted the ones you did use. Also with regards to sander's regulation for stuff like minimum wage, it might be restrictive to the company but companies/the market can't be relied upon to self regulate (I put 2 [URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1495959&p=49245030#post49245030"]posts[/URL] about it 3 days ago) so the government should step in to help them get back on track.

I think you're both looking at it in the wrong way. Republicans favour less government control over the economy, but more LOCAL (generally) government control over personal lives, such as in banning gay marriage, abortion and drugs. Democrats typically favour more government control over the economy, but less government control over personal lives, but in doing so favour more government control in overruling oppositional state governments and increasing the power of the federal government. It isn't as black and white as Libertarians vs Leninists. Both favour controls but in different ways and different areas. [editline]7th December 2015[/editline] Also, Trump and Carson are very bad examples. I would advise taking a Tea Party member like Cruz or an establishment Republican like Rubio or Bush as examples for typical Republican opinion.

Both the left and right ideas are at their core based on economics. That is their center focus. Therefore there need to be something that is the opposite of this or an idea not centered around economics.

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49265879]Both the left and right ideas are at their core based on economics. That is their center focus. Therefore there need to be something that is the opposite of this or an idea not centered around economics.[/QUOTE] Uhh, I don't know if you're aware of the connotations of 'ni droite, ni gauche' in France are...

I just hope other foreigners who have nothing to do with muslim extremism won't suffer under a more right wing France.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265898]Uhh, I don't know if you're aware of the connotations of 'ni droite, ni gauche' in France are...[/QUOTE] I googled it and couldnt get a straight answer. So no.

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49266022]I googled it and couldnt get a straight answer. So no.[/QUOTE] It's very strongly associated with fascist movements in Italy and France. This is because they take stances of the far-right on social issues like immigration and gay marriage, but stances of the centre-left on economic issues - much like some view the Nazi Party as doing.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49266052]It's very strongly associated with fascist movements in Italy and France. This is because they take stances of the far-right on social issues like immigration and gay marriage, but stances of the centre-left on economic issues - much like some view the Nazi Party as doing.[/QUOTE] Is this towards the goal I mentioned to a new idea or something else?

[QUOTE=JohhnyCarson;49266069]Is this towards the goal I mentioned to a new idea or something else?[/QUOTE] No, its just the claim that being above left/right politics is one that has usually been used by those kinds of politicians.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49266082]No, its just the claim that being above left/right politics is one that has usually been used by those kinds of politicians.[/QUOTE] Umm this is how I would go above left right politics. For example, let say I was in a country where Islam is the main thing. The "left" party would be shia. The "right party" would be Sunni. Let say I had enough of both of their shite. There is a third sect. Ibadi. I would convert to Ibadi and declare both sides (sunni and shia the "right" and "left") as false Muslims and start attacking them both. This would generate the affect of having Sunnis and Shia teaming up to counter me. There is no such thing as left or right. There is only the pursuit of power and using it to solve issues that society faces. To me, ideals are not the end in of themselves, but a tool and a means to achieve an objective or initiate much needed change.

[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;49265172]I think you're both looking at it in the wrong way. Republicans favour less government control over the economy, but more LOCAL (generally) government control over personal lives, such as in banning gay marriage, abortion and drugs.[/QUOTE] I'm with you on the drugs. Republicans definitely want more government control about that, but the other two issues aren't really issues of control. The gay marriage debate is about what marriage should be, not how much control the government should have over marriage. The left, for example, still want to bar polygamy and other "unacceptable" uses of marriage. Libertarians often actually argue for getting rid of marriage entirely as a civil institution. Cruz, for example, is for leaving it up to the states to have their own definitions. Abortion is similar. The argument is over whether the fetus has rights. If so, then protecting those rights is an obligation of the state. If not, then there is no obligation. The argument has nothing to do with added government control. [QUOTE]Democrats typically favour more government control over the economy, but less government control over personal lives, but in doing so favour more government control in overruling oppositional state governments and increasing the power of the federal government.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]It isn't as black and white as Libertarians vs Leninists. Both favour controls but in different ways and different areas.[/QUOTE] I agree, but I really don't think there's a balance between social and economic. There are a few cases where the right generally wants control (drugs), but in essentially every other case the left argues for more, in both the social and economic sphere. Take any general policy disagreement and you'll see that to be true. Like I said previously, go down Sanders' issues list on his website and you'll see that every point is in favor of increasing government control. The same can be said about Hillary.

[Quote]The Tea Party and other 'far right' groups are a whole lot closer to anarchism than any leftist group in the US.[/quote] Jk the Workers' Solidarity Alliance, the IWW, and basically every far left group ever. Anarchism is a leftist movement and libertarian was originally used by anarcho-communists. The Tea party is not close to anarchism or small government by any means. Its just a reactionary lobby within the GOP that pays lip service to classical liberalism.

is it just me or does conscript have quite literally the worst opinions ever trying to cite irrelevant groups as being an example of the left in the US

[QUOTE=Conscript;49266379]Jk the Workers' Solidarity Alliance, the IWW, and basically every far left group ever. Anarchism is a leftist movement and libertarian was originally used by anarcho-communists. The Tea party is not close to anarchism or small government by any means. Its just a reactionary lobby within the GOP that pays lip service to classical liberalism.[/QUOTE] [B]Closer[/B] to it. I'm making a comparative, not absolute statement. The Worker's Solidarity Alliance isn't even a complete ideology. On their website they deny both a top down approach and a market approach with their solution being: "Instead of a market-driven system, or top-down central planning, we believe that there needs to be a comprehensive agenda for production that everyone, the entire community, participates in developing." Even they don't know what they want. The same goes for the IWW. So let me revise my statement: The Tea Party and other 'far right' groups are a whole lot closer to anarchism than any leftist group with an actual, testable, ideology that doesn't depend on magic to solve all the problems.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;49264756]When you say "gain something from far right parties getting a bit stronger" what do you mean by right wing? Economically right wing would be pushing for everything to be privatised and to trust in stuff like trickle down economics to distribute wealth. This is pretty prevalent, at least it is in the UK. That authoritarian right wing stuff, ie less personal freedoms and more government interference is also pretty prevalent. Not 100% sure what the correct term for being hard on immigration is but "right wing" seems sort of ambiguous and imo is serves to reframe the already right wing governments (like in the UK) as centre thus reframing left and centre as far-left and left respectively. Making dumb people less likely to pick them since they'll consider "centre" as more balanced.[/QUOTE] I'm talking specifically about right wing as in lower immigration and nationalism(not economically, I want a pretty free market). I think parts of Europe, especially Sweden shouldn't be afraid to show that first of all we too have a culture and secondly that we care for our own (as in all the people who are already citizens of the country) first. Also when I wrote the other post I didn't consider UK which I think is already right wing enough and there are other countries like Poland which I think could benefit from the opposite. You have made me think about the terms right wing and left wing, they are ambiguous and outdated umbrella terms that mean different things to different people so I will try not to use them in the future.

[QUOTE=sgman91;49266451][B]Closer[/B] to it. I'm making a comparative, not absolute statement. The Worker's Solidarity Alliance isn't even a complete ideology. On their website they deny both a top down approach and a market approach with their solution being: "Instead of a market-driven system, or top-down central planning, we believe that there needs to be a comprehensive agenda for production that everyone, the entire community, participates in developing." Even they don't know what they want. The same goes for the IWW. So let me revise my statement: The Tea Party and other 'far right' groups are a whole lot closer to anarchism than any leftist group with an actual, testable, ideology that doesn't depend on magic to solve all the problems.[/QUOTE] I don't think your statement means anything anymore, it's just ideological masturbation ('tea party is closer to anarchism than anarchists). The point was most historical anarchists would have a cow at what you said, and that classical liberals are no closer to anarchism than any other sort of liberal. As for what they want, it's called anarcho-syndicalism, parecon, council communism, or (as the Kurds seem to like) libertarian communism. [Quote] is it just me or does conscript have quite literally the worst opinions ever trying to cite irrelevant groups as being an example of the left in the US[/quote] The left is irrelevant in the US. We've been steadily moving economically rightward for decades, Democrats are a shell of what they were let alone the left. So unless you want to hinge on progressive democrats, who are nothing more than a sad voting bloc that beg you to vote (for Democrats consistently to the right of them to keep even more right wing candidates out of power), you're looking at the far left.