Why do europeans vote for the left? Ive tried to understand what exactly it is that europeans see in the modern left when all i see is an evil plot to destroy the continent. So why is it? If you can give me one good reason to vote for the left i will admit that socialists arent involved in a secret conspiracy to destroy us.
I vote Labour because Ireland has been ruled by the right since the foundation of the state. And Labour is the only major pro-choice party in Ireland.
Do we? I think voting patterns are quite varied across Europe (even just Western Europe) and have been over time. The UK coalition is headed by the nominally right-wing Conservatives. That said, I think the whole left/right division is a misnomer in mainstream politics as the vast majority of politicians (and voters) are pretty much in the middle. Anyone significantly left or right of centre are considered extremists. I'm sure this will be an extremely difficult concept for you, but is it at all possible that you're even slightly... wrong?
The UK is right of centre and certainly not Socialist . France is similar Germany has not seen the Social Democrats since 2005, from memory . Other EU countries are not that important in the greater picture and are broke . What are you babbling about munqi?
Abortion? Ok, good enough. But most other european countries dont have that reason. So anything else? While the left may not be in power in many europeans countries it is still far more powerfull than it should be considering that there is absolutely no intelligent reason to vote for it.
Perhaps Europeans like voters everywhere vote in accordance to their values and principles? Perhaps European voters see the right as a particularly uninspiring and uninspired lot and pick the lesser of two evils? That you dislike the "left" is no reason to dismiss all those who chose to. I can see no reason to vote for Fianna Fail or Sinn Fein yet 25% of the electorate did. I would not dream of claiming there is no intelligent reason to vote for them.
...And im asking you what those principles and values are. Im genuinely trying to understand you. ..And the fact that i still havent heard a single good explanation other than abortion is making me a little worried.
If that's true, you're not trying hard enough. Your apparent perception of "the left" doesn't fit any mainstream political movement in Europe I recognise. Before anyone answers your questions regarding why people vote for particular parties, policies or concepts, you need to establish that they're actually voting for them in the first place. In the UK, I don't feel any of the mainstream political parties come anywhere near representing they kind of politics you suggest. I don't think you could tell Labour, Conservative or Liberal politicans apart, which is why they wear colour-coded labels.
Glad to see you have modified your start position . Now it means that the " Enemy" are not those in power , but those that MIGHT attain power . I am not a Socialist , but I am loth to support your strange view that all of them are unintelligent simply because they are Socialists .Clearly there many brilliant and talented people on the Left . If Socialism in its simplest form means maximising opportunities for everybody , looking after the disadvantaged and constantly trying to raise standards for those at the bottom of society , then it surely has many good features . Of course there are other matters to consider and all proposals need costing which is something that Socialists have failed to do well in the past . But it seems to be rooted in very humanitarian principles . Therefore , why be so scathing about it? We , the ruling classes , have had thousands of years to formulate policy . The underbelly of society have barely started . So a little more compassion and tolerance might be reasonable . And I am an ultra Right Wing thinker by natural disposition . So my praise or support for a strong opposition is indeed praise . imo
I don't know why a few hundred million adults vote for a over 2 dozen "leftist" parties. I am sure that their reasons are valid. But that country by country they vary enormously. I gave my reason for voting labour. They are pro-choice. Irish parties scramble for the center on economic policies. I do not believe that labour would have any different economic policies if it formed a single party government. I knew that the terms of the bailout and the pariah status of Ireland on the international money markets would limit the ability of any government to get overly creative with their policies. I vote labour on social issues. I dislike how completely the catholic church permeates the infrastructure of the state. I dislike the constitution beginning with "in the name of the most holy trinity". I dislike the control the church retains over the provision of healthcare. I dislike the control the church retains over primary and secondary education. I dislike we have blasphemy laws on the book. I like that labour support a more secularised country. I am not anti church I still go to mass I just want less of it in my government. I like that labour supports gay marriage, I think that equality is important and I believe that the civil partnership bill puts the needs of children behind the needs of christian fundamentalists. I probably wouldn't vote labour if I thought they would form a single party government. I don't particularly like any of the parties I pick the best I can. I like the Lib dems in the UK. I would vote consistently for them if they had an Irish affiliate.
The left flourishes because of the all-too-human tendency to want something for nothing. Socrates noted that as the chief flaw of democracy 2,500 years ago. Greece will show the world the limits of "something for nothing."
As for the Germans, I can tell you who votes left and why. Here I have a stat of the election result of the German leftist Party "Die Linke", whis is the former SED, the ruling party of the GDR. The statistic is about the last state election in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and it´s the result by age. You see that the voters of this party are mostly former GDR citizens: After the end of the GDR, the FGR destroyed the powerful economy of the GDR to clear the way for Westgerman companies in the area of the former GDR: The unemployment rate has increased from 0,1 to 10 % in 1990/91 and to 20 % until 2004.
@Bleipriester, "the powerful economy of the GDR"... are you kidding? Mainly due to its central planning system it wasnt competitive in the west... and eastern markets, where it was competitive, dwindled in the wake of the break up of the eastern bloc. @Munqi, there are many reasons why people vote left here in Germany, one of the more important ones is based on their idea of "social justice". According to them one of the most important tasks of the state is to ensure a redistribution of wealth. They are for the installation of minimum wages, which allow subsistence without needing to have two or three jobs at the same time and work 50 hours a week. The upper 1% or even 10% incomes will be heavily taxed to get the money to finance welfare programs to help people in need. Also, the left promise to increase inheritance taxes drastically, because they seem to find inheriting "unjust" in the sense that the contribution of the recipient often is not more than just being lucky to have been born by rich parents... The left over here have a deterrent example of a society... where theres a few ultra-rich, where 20% of the population own 85% of all fortunes, where 40% of the population practically owns nothing. Where many people live on the streets, many need several jobs to get along, many can't pay exorbitant health system insurance and therefore remain untreated when ill, where, without money, you're barred from decent education etcetc. You'll probably know already which specific country they are talking about... There political promise is to spare their citizens to live under dire conditions like that. There are more people, it seems, that think it's positive to have, in case of illness, joblessness etc., a working social "net", to have decent politically prescribed labour conditions, than people who think its negative to have some additional taxations during their blitz career to being a multimillionaire...
Wealth distribution: the fact that someone in your country has more money than you does not mean that you're entitled to his money. Now, people have always been envious and greedy and i dont expect that to change anytime soon, but is it too much to ask that you dont allow those things to get in the way of our economic recovery? I for one, am for more worried about not getting a decent job (which the rich will provide me) than the fact that bill gates has more money than me. Social security: we already have far too much unemployment. The last thing we need is to give people more free money. Finland for example has 7% unemployment even though we desperately need more plumbers etc. Minimum wage: The worst idea ever. Employers arent going to pay the minimum wage if the employee isnt worth that much.
Go back to WWII. They just defeated Nazisim and Facisim. Anything on the right, was decried as Facisim and Nazisim. So they took a left leaning stance. Welfare came from the destruction of homes and lives during the war, and money provided by the US.
Like the FRG, the GDR was a high quality goods export nation. It had its own computer industry, made light wave cables, TV sets, etc was rated one of the ten richest countries in the world and had a very high percentage of nuclear energy usage, even with power-heat coupling. You can´t do that with the "outdated GDR economy", they tell us about. If you´re interested, read more in that book: Die Industriespionage der DDR: Die wissenschaftlich-technische Aufklärung der HVA
Always refreshing to hear those cries -- an essential reminder to those in power . A good strong Left is an indispensable driver for a fairer society providing the centre and right can keep producing the business and costing matters realistically , without mortgaging the country towards insolvency as the lunatic Labour Party did in Team GB whilst it was in power .
But why do you think you're entitled to someone elses cash in the first place? I mean, if i start a company why the hell should you get any of the money i make?
Developed societies which have less inequality have less mental illness and social problems - never mind the reality that you do not magically make all your money on your own. True enough there are now many Global operators who give back nowhere and cause countries to crash. If we do not find a way to solve this problem it is not inconceivable that much of Europe and the USA will be living on the material level of Africa in 50-100 years - indeed Africa is hoping to ride on the back of China and become the new rich. There are lots of very good reasons why those who have received free education, free health when they are young and go on to enjoy all the infrastructure when they grow up which allows them the opportunity to create and advance should give back to the community, paying higher taxes to allow for the advancement of that structure which will allow others the same opportunities which they have had and paying good wages and providing good working conditions and in this way promoting sound social conditions. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw"]Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies - YouTube[/ame]
If you can operate as an "Island unto yourself " or you are a charming sociopath , you can probably get away with keeping everything -- less the bit the revenue want . But then you have to consider other factors and make your own choices --- terms like improvement , competition , shared talents and means of production, fulfilment appear , and the need for wider involvement become necessary. That is , you are in a Club and there are unwritten rules that cover the price of admission and a place at the table .For your benefit as well as the disadvantaged You don't have to be a Christian to be tolerant , caring , compassionate and pro active , and , if you are really a Scrooge deep down , you can play all of those " nice " games and still profit from them . The irony is , and I trust you are already a convert , fulfilment and pleasure increase as a consequence of giving and helping . Better than money . Though all together are best . So it becomes a Win - Win scenario . You don't HAVE to do behave in a certain way , BUT , if you are smart , you will -- be it for selfish or unselfish reasons . Good enough?
Again, why are you entitled to my money? Even if you can make a case that it benefits society as a whole? Alot of things benefit society as a whole. We could impose christian morality on everyone and society as a whole would benefit, yet we dont do that. Why? because we respect individual liberty. So then why dont you respect my individual liberty when it comes to money? Secondly, no one has ever argued that socialism is better for the economy than capitalism. Are you going to make that argument now? Africa will be better than America because of socialism? Third, nothing is free ok? Governments can not give you anything. What they "give" you they first have to take from you because they dont have anything. Now i agree with you on one thing: equal opportunities. If there was a situation in any european country where some people had more opportunities than others (im not talking about expensive private schools, but real injustices). But guess what? There isnt. When you live in a developed society you dont need government to provide you with anything. You just take a student loan and then pay it back with the money you would spend on taxes. And btw, theres a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) study for everything these days. Any socialist argument can be proven when there are plenty of scientists and journalists out there who think that they are doing society a favor by distorting facts to support the left wing cause.
I have no interest in your money darling. Your individual liberty to be a psychopath and exploit your own people. Really that is for them to deal with. I appreciate you feel no social responsibility and believe greed is good. Obviously if that is the case, laws will need to take the place of your lack of conscience. Laws will need to be provided in order to provide the services which you, using greed is good, take from the people and do not provide back as would be considered by normal good conscience. Never mind civil war. No, I accept that was off topic. I wasn't talking about socialism. It was taken from the idea of one Africa reporter on News 24 concerning Europe and the IMF. you failed to notice I already said that. The infrastructure and opportunities and training which you received by which you now exploit your fellow country people was already paid for and provided to you. Your need is to give back now you have received. They take from you, do they. Your midwife at birth and health for life, your education from nursery to higher level, your roads, your water, etc etc ec. You need to provide back for the next generation. total bollocks. Research in the UK last year found that babies by the age of 3 years if they came from poor families which had little education were developmental 8 months behind compared to rich families with good education. Equality of Opportunity has never happened in the UK. Never. Equality of opportunity can be noted by social mobility and our social mobility at the moment is non existent - as bad or worse than it was in the 1920's. Born poor stay poor. No change. The same is true in the US. These seem to be the sort of societies you wish to copy - or their arguments to support your own believe that 'greed is good' I see a student loan and graduation tax is all life is about to you. People are born at student age and die after it. very interesting. I take it you did not listen to the video and are showing the extent of your ability to assimilate different information. Left or right. You want to take right to the extreme do you not - give nothing back. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhatIsLeftOrRightWing
Alexa you're arguing a completely different point. I never said that the right to private property is more important than taking care of the poor or providing necessary infrastructure for everyone.Thats not what this is about. What you're saying is that rich people have an obligation to give money to middle class people simply because they have more money , even if those middle class people have everything they need. No rightwing party in Europe today is saying that we shouldnt take care of the poor. What they're against is this occupy wall street socialist greed. And btw, fascism and free market conservatism have absolutely nothing to do with eachother. It is national socialism afterall. The only thing that nazis and socialists disagreed on was that nazis were nationalists. And one more thing: You can never have full equality of opportunity and the state should only be worried about the financial aspect of it. Some people have bad parents and thats ofcourse a shame, but theres nothing the government can do about that. But even if you do have bad parents that does not mean that your own problems become someone elses.
