The late rise of fascism

PopePalpatine

silverharp wrote: »

The Austrian one might be a sideshow to this one longer term, this is being seen as a confidence vote for the current gov. if it fails it might bring down their government. The financial effect could be interesting, Italy is a financial basket case and any turn down in their bond market could cause a cascade into Deutsche Bank which has a lot of exposure to Italian Debt.
Not inconceivable that Italy could be kicked out or kick themselves of the Euro.

Well that explains the pound resurging from €1.10/£1 to €1.18/£1 in the past month.

silverharp

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well that explains the pound resurging from €1.10/£1 to €1.18/£1 in the past month.

Looking at the Euro against the dollar it wouldn't be surprised if it goes below parity which kind of means there will be a gurgling sound of funds heading to the US.
the next thing will be pressure for the Germans to agree to Eurobonds cos we are all one being happy family 'n stuff. :pac: Italy's debt to gdp btw is second only to Greece at over 130% and their banks are probably abusing the term solvency.

Qs

FA Hayek wrote: »

however they realise now, today, years after their youth that the best way to increase peoples standard of living is not through communism/socialism/marxism it is through free trade, capitalism and neo-liberal economic policies.

Not really, they realised the only way to stay in power was to go along with the neo-liberal policies of FF. A party who have also been decimated since that government.

FA Hayek wrote: »

the only thing that would differentiate them would be advocation of identity politics, things like gender quotas, traveller rights, advocating for more refugees. These things may be popular in middle class circles in the more leafy suburbs in Dublin but in working class areas, they get zero traction. Hence, why they are now a dead party.

Identity politics have nothing to do with why Labour lost votes, I've no idea why you keep bringing it up.

FA Hayek wrote: »

The young will gravitate towards this form of left wing politics, because they do now know its dangers or its lies, that socialism will actually improve peoples standards of living as a whole. It won't, but emotion trumps logic here.

Far higher levels of happiness, standards of living, etc in the much more socialist Scandinavian countries.

FA Hayek wrote: »

These zealots would rather the Labour party remain pure of heart and be out of power for a generation rather then compromise on their socialist principles.

Well yeah its not a football team. Whats the point in supporting a party because of its name? If it doesn't represent their views whats the point of putting them in power?

FA Hayek wrote: »

So, the new order is that one of the establishment vs populism where the populist right and left will reject the old and embrace dogmatic stances. Ireland does not have a right to speak of but it certainly has a populist left and they more they gain in popularity the bigger the push back will become to form a right to counter their bull****.

Not really. FF are the biggest populists going in this country and yet are the establishment too.

recedite

Qs wrote: »

Far higher levels of happiness, standards of living, etc in the much more socialist Scandinavian countries.

It did work in those countries, due to the mentality of the people. The Meitheal concept used to work in Ireland, but not any more. These things rely on an extremely close knit or cohesive community, and tend to break down very quickly as soon as a few people start to take the pi$$.
The social cohesion of Scandinavian countries has been broken down during the last 10 or 15 years by Ctrl-Left politicians. Hence their socialist systems are starting to collapse. Large numbers of people have migrated there with the intention of feeding off the system, but not contributing to it.
Sweden in particular has traded socialism, classical liberalism and cohesion for Ctrl-Left liberalism, globalism, capitalism, multiculturalism and social diversity.

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

The Austrian one might be a sideshow to this one longer term, this is being seen as a confidence vote for the current gov. if it fails it might bring down their government.

Hardly as their president is a powerless figurehead like ours, it would never bring down a government here.

The financial effect could be interesting, Italy is a financial basket case and any turn down in their bond market could cause a cascade into Deutsche Bank which has a lot of exposure to Italian Debt.

If Italy votes No then it's no change - no change is the opposite of a shock to the system, it merely means they keep the ineffective government structures they've had since WWII and which were already there when every investor and depositor in Italy bought in.

silverharp wrote: »

Looking at the Euro against the dollar it wouldn't be surprised if it goes below parity which kind of means there will be a gurgling sound of funds heading to the US.

?? Low euro means investing in Europe is cheap. High euro would drive US and other foreign capital away.

recedite wrote: »

Ctrl-Left

:rolleyes:

I'm more a Meta-shift-backspace kinda guy myself.

FA Hayek

robindch wrote: »

Have you had time to read the OP in this thread?

It's a link to a video which talks about the rise of "populists, demagogues and political fantasists" and doesn't include the word "right" except as part of "human rights".

I hope this clarifies the OP for you.

That is wonderful, then why did you use the word fascism in the OP, expect to have a fist waving dig at the 'right'?

The video mentions Farage in the same light as ISIS (lol, really, this from a guy who espouses the virtue of Blasphemy laws?), yet makes no mention of the emergence of left wing populism in the form of Greece's Syriza, Italy's five star movement, Spain's Podemos, the Bernie phenomenon, Labours shift to Corbyn, the rise of AAA/PBP in Ireland and a host of other left wing populist movements most of the anti free-trade, anti-capitalist, anti EU, and anti establishment.

See, we could have had a discussion about populism over all and its obvious emergence but you wanted to frame the discussion purely in your own terms, ie. there are only bad populists on the right. Funny that!

Practice what you preach maybe.

FA Hayek

Qs wrote: »

Not really, they realised the only way to stay in power was to go along with the neo-liberal policies of FF. A party who have also been decimated since that government.

Em, Labour went into government with FG. The left lost the economic argument when the Berlin Wall fell. If you want to pursue policies that are anti-free trade and capitalist then you want to have something else up your sleeve rather then the works of Marx and Engels. Corbyn seems to have hitched his ride on being anti-neo liberal. Fine, but Labour will never be in power again, if they persist with this.

Identity politics have nothing to do with why Labour lost votes, I've no idea why you keep bringing it up.

Of course it does, it shows a disconnect from the voters, especially those in the working class world. It shows and elitism and an ivory tower mentality. Talking about white male privilege, gender quotas, Palestine, Islamaphobia, the usual left wing social causes alienates the very people Labour claim to represent. They have been kicked out of traditional working class areas, to be replaced by Sinn Fein and AAA/PBP. They are not going to be winning back those seats anytime soon.

If you want an even more glaring example, look at the US election in the rust belt. Look at the north of England, Labours heartland during the Brexit vote. Do you think a white working class man or woman from Sunderland or Sheffield itdentigfies with Corbyn, Diane Abbott or Emily Thornberry? These people generally show contempt to the the white working class person.

Far higher levels of happiness, standards of living, etc in the much more socialist Scandinavian countries.

Even if we take your assertion at face value, let me go through it in an Irish context. In Ireland we want Scandinavian level of services but won't pay for it. Now it is not the middle class or even the high earners who are not paying their fair share here. It is the lower income earners who either pay very little income tax or none at all. We are close to 50% of income earners who pay no income tax.

The Social Democrats in the last election made great hay about Scandinavian level of services. Yet in the same manifesto would not say how this would be paid for and skirted over the issue (no surprises there). If we were to transplant the taxation level from say Denmark to Ireland, the biggest losers would be those on the lower income. They would find themselves paying a good chuck of their income in taxes all of a sudden, those in the middle and higher income bracket would not see much change at all. Who are the winners and losers here?

Now tell me, what political party in Ireland is going to say, that we need to tax the lower paid more?

It is NEVER going to happen. EVER!

We talk endlessly about broadening the tax base, yet when it actually comes down to it we, the Irish people resist it as much as possible. For two reasons, The middle/higher earners see it as a scam, as they pay more yet get very little out of it. The Irish system is not about fairness or equality, its about giving money to people to keep them happy for the time being.
The lower incomes types or those that do not work at all like the status quo, they pay nothing or very little into the system and get free stuff in return, why risk that and change it?

Instead we talk in circles about some fantasy money tree out there that we can pluck that will pay for all these services while half the country pays no income tax, while half the country has a medical card and more then half the country is in receipt of some form of welfare, while Ireland has the highest level of disability in the OECD.......

Now you see what is going on.

I think people would love to see better services but that means many people in the lower bracket, paying more tax and giving up free stuff. Why would they vote for this? They pay feck all into the system, they get some free stuff, they have it OK, middle Ireland will pay for it. A Scandinavian system means they lose out big time.

If you have an answer to this intractable issue I would like to hear it.

Well yeah its not a football team. Whats the point in supporting a party because of its name? If it doesn't represent their views whats the point of putting them in power?

Then your football team will forever be mid table and will never win. I would have thought the idea of a political party was to enact change, not stay on the sidelines, where it cribs and moans. We see it already with Sinn Fein here. Labour in the UK will be the same. Of course if that was the case, then the Labour party should split, but then like I said it would prove what I said, social democracy is done. If the Blair form of social democracy is hated by the zealots so much that they push the party so far to the left that it can never win a general election again, then social democracy as a force in the UK is finished.

Not really. FF are the biggest populists going in this country and yet are the establishment too.

Oh I agree, Irish people are quite populist in their approach. Just look at water charges. FF populism is all about give aways and 'one for everyone in the audience' very much left wing populism there where state blow outs' budget giveaways are very much the norm, much to the despair of many who want to see some common sense approach to things like infrastructure over christmas bonuses for the dole.

Hotblack Desiato

FA Hayek wrote: »

The left lost the economic argument when the Berlin Wall fell.

Communism lost the economic (and humanitarian) argument when the Berlin Wall was built.

That's not necessarily the case for other forms of left-of-centre politics, but I'm no fan of most of them.

Corbyn seems to have hitched his ride on being anti-neo liberal.

The very term 'neoliberal' is an idiocy - neo-conservative far more accurately describes them. Liberalism is an old and proud ideology with little time for the likes of them.

I actually regard 'neoliberal' when used as a pejorative as a very useful idiot filter - in other words those using it can safely be disregarded. This has never failed me yet.

If we were to transplant the taxation level from say Denmark to Ireland, the biggest losers would be those on the lower income. They would find themselves paying a good chuck of their income in taxes all of a sudden, those in the middle and higher income bracket would not see much change at all.

That's one reason it'll never happen here.
There'd also be a linkage between benefits and contributions, which is another reason it'll never happen here.

The middle/higher earners see it as a scam, as they pay more yet get very little out of it. The Irish system is not about fairness or equality, its about giving money to people to keep them happy for the time being.

There's an east/west urban/rural thing going on too. Urban dwellers in the east pay the lion's share of taxes, rural dwellers in the west absorb the lion's share of taxes, and rural voters especially in the west are over-represented in the Dail.

FA Hayek

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Communism lost the economic (and humanitarian) argument when the Berlin Wall was built.

That's not necessarily the case for other forms of left-of-centre politics, but I'm no fan of most of them.

The left hitched their wagon on the Soviet model for decades, hence when the Berlin Wall fell it ushered the end of their socialist economic dream. The end of History as Francis Fukuyama coined it.

Countries may have socialist programs to varying degrees but at their core all Western countries and societies are capitalist, even the likes of Sweden, Norway and Denmark. To find a country that is more puts socialism at the front of the queue look at the likes of Cuba and Venezuela. Hardly role models for success and prosperity.

The very term 'neoliberal' is an idiocy - neo-conservative far more accurately describes them. Liberalism is an old and proud ideology with little time for the likes of them.

I actually regard 'neoliberal' when used as a pejorative as a very useful idiot filter - in other words those using it can safely be disregarded. This has never failed me yet.

Well it is the populist left that use the term neo liberal as a pejorative so your beef is with them.

Why would neo conservative describe terms like free trade, free transfer of goods, services and labour. The three pillars of the EU is certainly not a conservative concept. I find it odd that you would.

The liberalism you refer to would be the the classic liberalism of Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and the like. Unfortunately modern day liberals do not have much in common with this.

There's an east/west urban/rural thing going on too. Urban dwellers in the east pay the lion's share of taxes, rural dwellers in the west absorb the lion's share of taxes, and rural voters especially in the west are over-represented in the Dail.

Over represented? How do you figure that? Dublin have 44 TD's elected while the entire area west of the Shannon has 28. This is based on a TD per 30,000 people. How do they also absorb the 'lions share' of the taxes? I would imagine this is not the case at all. Sure, Dublin is a net contributor while the west may be in a net deficit, but they do not take the 'lions share' of the taxes i.e. over 51%.

Qs

FA Hayek wrote: »

The left lost the economic argument when the Berlin Wall fell.

:rolleyes:

Talking about white male privilege, gender quotas, Palestine, Islamaphobia, the usual left wing social causes alienates the very people Labour claim to represent. They have been kicked out of traditional working class areas, to be replaced by Sinn Fein and AAA/PBP. They are not going to be winning back those seats anytime soon.

Again AAA, etc are much more about those things than Labour ever were so you argument on this contradicts itself.

If you want an even more glaring example, look at the...

Nope nothing to do with Ireland.

Even if we take your assertion at face value, let me go through it in an Irish context. In Ireland we want Scandinavian level of services but won't pay for it. Now it is not the middle class or even the high earners who are not paying their fair share here. It is the lower income earners who either pay very little income tax or none at all. We are close to 50% of income earners who pay no income tax.

The Social Democrats in the last election made great hay about Scandinavian level of services. Yet in the same manifesto would not say how this would be paid for and skirted over the issue (no surprises there). If we were to transplant the taxation level from say Denmark to Ireland, the biggest losers would be those on the lower income. They would find themselves paying a good chuck of their income in taxes all of a sudden, those in the middle and higher income bracket would not see much change at all. Who are the winners and losers here?

Now tell me, what political party in Ireland is going to say, that we need to tax the lower paid more?

It is NEVER going to happen. EVER!

We talk endlessly about broadening the tax base, yet when it actually comes down to it we, the Irish people resist it as much as possible. For two reasons, The middle/higher earners see it as a scam, as they pay more yet get very little out of it. The Irish system is not about fairness or equality, its about giving money to people to keep them happy for the time being.
The lower incomes types or those that do not work at all like the status quo, they pay nothing or very little into the system and get free stuff in return, why risk that and change it?

Instead we talk in circles about some fantasy money tree out there that we can pluck that will pay for all these services while half the country pays no income tax, while half the country has a medical card and more then half the country is in receipt of some form of welfare, while Ireland has the highest level of disability in the OECD.......

Bit all over the place here. Yes the Irish system is massively flawed. Thats part of the point, we need it fixed. The current situation is failing and doesn't seem to be getting better soon. A move to more free markets, less regulation, etc isn't going to make it better

Now you see what is going on.

:rolleyes:

I think people would love to see better services but that means many people in the lower bracket, paying more tax and giving up free stuff. Why would they vote for this? They pay feck all into the system, they get some free stuff, they have it OK, middle Ireland will pay for it. A Scandinavian system means they lose out big time.

No it doesn't.

I would have thought the idea of a political party was to enact change, not stay on the sidelines, where it cribs and moans. We see it already with Sinn Fein here. Labour in the UK will be the same.

You can't expect half of Labour or SF to join a government that opposes their beliefs and then to vote along with that government. Also FG and FF have said a hundred times they wont go into government with SF so thats moot.

Oh I agree, Irish people are quite populist in their approach. Just look at water charges. FF populism is all about give aways and 'one for everyone in the audience' very much left wing populism there where state blow outs' budget giveaways are very much the norm, much to the despair of many who want to see some common sense approach to things like infrastructure over christmas bonuses for the dole.

FF populism is always about tax breaks, etc Thats not left wing populism. Quite the opposite. People seem to have forgotten what the left wing actually is.

Hotblack Desiato

FA Hayek wrote: »

Over represented? How do you figure that? Dublin have 44 TD's elected while the entire area west of the Shannon has 28. This is based on a TD per 30,000 people.

But nowhere actually has exactly 30,000 people per TD.
The constitution states that there must be between 20,000 and 30,000 constituents per TD. Allocating additional TDs to Dublin constituencies always lags the population growth there. There was a constituency redrawing done in a hurry a few years back because some Dublin constituencies were close to breaking, or had already broken, the constitutional limit. At the moment all Dublin constituencies are over the 30,000 limit apart from two which are marginally under, based on 2016 population figures - source

As for European constituencies, Dublin is under-represented by almost 4% compared to the national average.

How do they also absorb the 'lions share' of the taxes? I would imagine this is not the case at all. Sure, Dublin is a net contributor while the west may be in a net deficit, but they do not take the 'lions share' of the taxes i.e. over 51%.

OK the lion's share was the wrong phrase, but they are net recipients nonetheless.

Labarbapostiza

FA Hayek wrote: »

We talk endlessly about broadening the tax base, yet when it actually comes down to it we, the Irish people resist it as much as possible. For two reasons,

The middle/higher earners see it as a scam, as they pay more yet get very little out of it.

The middle/higher earners, get a lot out of it. They get their lives.

There's few high earners I've had run ins with, who are only still alive because I don't like the idea of prison.

The lower incomes types or those that do not work at all like the status quo, they pay nothing or very little into the system and get free stuff in return, why risk that and change it?

Lower income types....Want to throw in another dig, like something about people who were not privately educated,

How the world works. Lower income people do the work. Higher income people watch them. And the overwhelming majority of the time, the higher income people are rewarded with their position for nothing more than their social class...or "normality"....or "character"....or whatever other bogus justification you have for the parasitism.

Who bailed out the property speculating classes?.....They didn't bail themselves out, given their actual productivity and economic contribution to the world being far south of zero. That's all very deliberately rigged by the state, to extract as much money as possible from the low paid, while giving an illusion that the lower paid are making minimal income tax contributions - if the state rig it, then it's a tax. And then the parasite class can be all mock wide-eyed and innocent, and say that it's the "market"....."Market" me hole.

FA Hayek

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The middle/higher earners, get a lot out of it. They get their lives.

There's few high earners I've had run ins with, who are only still alive because I don't like the idea of prison.

If the only thing keeping you from killing another person is the idea of prison then I suggest you seek some professional help.

Besides, I have to laugh at your premise. Pay your tax or lose your life. As if that is a serious argument or even a choice, well then again Socialist regimes the world over have slaughtered tens of millions in their lofty goals. So I guess you are pretty serious after all, which shows how dangerous your ideology is.

Lower income types....Want to throw in another dig, like something about people who were not privately educated,

I am not privately educated, nor are the vast majority of the middle class.

How the world works. Lower income people do the work. Higher income people watch them. And the overwhelming majority of the time, the higher income people are rewarded with their position for nothing more than their social class...or "normality"....or "character"....or whatever other bogus justification you have for the parasitism.

LOL, you have a very qaint view of the world. You may see it in the terms of Labour vs Capital like some 19th century Dickinson novel however, the world is not like that.

Who bailed out the property speculating classes?.....They didn't bail themselves out, given their actual productivity and economic contribution to the world being far south of zero. That's all very deliberately rigged by the state, to extract as much money as possible from the low paid, while giving an illusion that the lower paid are making minimal income tax contributions - if the state rig it, then it's a tax. And then the parasite class can be all mock wide-eyed and innocent, and say that it's the "market"....."Market" me hole.

It is not an illusion, its a fact.

The bottom 50% of workers pay 4% of the total income tax take. Guess who pays 96%, yes the top 50% of earners.

When close to 40% of low income earners pay no income tax then its not surprising.
https://fora.ie/how-much-taxes-paid-ireland-2988103-Sep2016/

BuilderPlumber

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

The middle/higher earners, get a lot out of it. They get their lives.

There's few high earners I've had run ins with, who are only still alive because I don't like the idea of prison.

Lower income types....Want to throw in another dig, like something about people who were not privately educated,

How the world works. Lower income people do the work. Higher income people watch them. And the overwhelming majority of the time, the higher income people are rewarded with their position for nothing more than their social class...or "normality"....or "character"....or whatever other bogus justification you have for the parasitism.

Who bailed out the property speculating classes?.....They didn't bail themselves out, given their actual productivity and economic contribution to the world being far south of zero. That's all very deliberately rigged by the state, to extract as much money as possible from the low paid, while giving an illusion that the lower paid are making minimal income tax contributions - if the state rig it, then it's a tax. And then the parasite class can be all mock wide-eyed and innocent, and say that it's the "market"....."Market" me hole.

It is very true that there is a whole lot of people in Ireland who are paid obscene money for ordinary jobs or careers that are not really work at all. There are then people who make their money speculating. Most people in this country myself included would be what one regards as middle class. The middle class and those lower down clearly make up the majority of the population but it is the elitist minority that control us.

Those who do soft work and get obscene money are not doctors and scientists who contribute cures for killer diseases. Either are they stressed out business executives who have to take the brunt of whatever anger is directed at them. They are not even politicians. Even with politicians, they have a job to do and face anger and if they want to keep their job, they have to do it well. Very poor politicians as a rule do get changed.

Who I do mean though are the media and the people the media push on us. Does Tubridy deserve the hundreds of thousands he gets? Do those doing the real work and research behind shows like his get even 1% of what he gets? Hardly. As well as this, people are handpicked and plucked from their ordinary careers and transformed into 'celebrity' chefs, solicitors, doctors, architects, etc. and programmes featuring them get made. The chefs are especially promoted and unfair advantage is given to the Allen family whose restaurants, products, books, etc. are pushed. In the so-called entertainment sector, it is a diet of nonstop poor modern pop and poor modern country music and often Louis Walsh is not far from the equation.

Property speculation needless to say was used to fund all this other stuff for years. A lot of the elite got into property to further their wealth and when all this went wrong, the rest of us had to bail them out. Even Pat Kenny was one of them. The greed of some people knows no bounds and why do these people who earn more in 1 year than 3 ordinary people would earn in 10 even have to do this. Surely they should be happy with what they have.

FA Hayek

Qs wrote: »

:rolleyes:

A well thought out retort.

Again AAA, etc are much more about those things than Labour ever were so you argument on this contradicts itself.

Oh, the AAA does the whole identity politics malarky as well. However, before all else is their economic populism, the usual Marxist guff you hear the likes of Paul Murphy spout on daily. The revolution is the main goal here. The overthrow of the capitalist classes is the objective.

Nope nothing to do with Ireland.

So, there is no left wing populism in Ireland? Hmmm..

Bit all over the place here. Yes the Irish system is massively flawed. Thats part of the point, we need it fixed. The current situation is failing and doesn't seem to be getting better soon. A move to more free markets, less regulation, etc isn't going to make it better

A move to more protectionism, tariffs, nationalised industries and socialism is not going to make it better either. If you think Ireland is bad now, you really do not want to see it if the likes of Sinn Fein or AAA/PBP get their hands on power.

I repeat, Ireland has done very very well out of globalisation and free markets. we owe our standard of living to it. What else we do have? Peat, nostalgia and a sense of entitlement?

:rolleyes:

Another well thought out rebuttal

No it doesn't.

So, the lower income pay more tax and we magically get better services. If you can sell that one to the Irish people, run for politics.

You can't expect half of Labour or SF to join a government that opposes their beliefs and then to vote along with that government. Also FG and FF have said a hundred times they wont go into government with SF so thats moot.

Politics is all about the art of compromise. If you want to be holier than thou and pure of heart, then best not to run for office. Better to stay on the sidelines to crib and moan, like everybody else.

FF populism is always about tax breaks, etc Thats not left wing populism. Quite the opposite. People seem to have forgotten what the left wing actually is.

Not really. Are you forgetting about the PD's? Remember them?

FF are big government and populist through and through. Look at the 5 euro increase for OAP's in the last budget. A FF doing. A left wing policy I may add.

It was they would trippled the health budget over 10 years, they doubled the education budget, the almost tripled the Dole and the OAP. Just look at the amount of money they spent in the ten years from 1997 to 2007. Crazy stuff, and we voted them in 3 times in a row as a result. We did not vote them in because they were conservative with the cheque book or that they were right wing, we voted for them because they were happy to give us free stuff.

Great populist electioneering. Yet, the country suffered overall because we are fools to fall for the cheap tricks. In Ireland its all about the extra two euro in your pocket and to hell with services or infrastructure. That is the nature of things and that is why FF are the party that reflects the Irish psyche better then any other.

Qs

FA Hayek wrote: »

A well thought out retort.

I really didn't need one.

Hotblack Desiato

Labarbapostiza wrote: »

There's few high earners I've had run ins with, who are only still alive because I don't like the idea of prison.

Internet tough guys, the best kind.

Labarbapostiza

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Internet tough guys, the best kind.

That's right. I wouldn't be so tough if I was in an office and had a feeble little bossman who could take away my job, bully and push me around.

Under the rule of law, you can't just beat the crap out of someone when they cross you. No one is allowed do so. Even if you're being physically attacked, by defending yourself you risk prison, for not running away.

And people who abuse the fact you can't kick the crap out of them, are also the same kind who think they're very smart cheating you in ways that may even break the law, but it's hard for you to use the law against them.

robindch

Mod: Folks -

Please take the temperature down a few notches.

//thanks

BuilderPlumber

FA Hayek wrote: »

That is wonderful, then why did you use the word fascism in the OP, expect to have a fist waving dig at the 'right'?

The video mentions Farage in the same light as ISIS (lol, really, this from a guy who espouses the virtue of Blasphemy laws?), yet makes no mention of the emergence of left wing populism in the form of Greece's Syriza, Italy's five star movement, Spain's Podemos, the Bernie phenomenon, Labours shift to Corbyn, the rise of AAA/PBP in Ireland and a host of other left wing populist movements most of the anti free-trade, anti-capitalist, anti EU, and anti establishment.

See, we could have had a discussion about populism over all and its obvious emergence but you wanted to frame the discussion purely in your own terms, ie. there are only bad populists on the right. Funny that!

Practice what you preach maybe.

The old saying about moving too far right you go left and too far left you go right has a lot of truth in it. The far right and the far left often are identical. They spout ideas that will be popular but when they gain power they do not do thing according to their initial plans and often turn into nasty dictatorships a la Hitler and Stalin to take a far right and far left one. What both these did was very similar: A warped nationalism, a one party state, very poor treatment of political prisoners and/or groups deemed to be unpatriotic, and a personality cult. Fascism has been associated with the far right but are officially far left regimes also fascist? I would think so. North Korea, Ceaucescu, and Stalin are examples. Milosevic was surely a fascist but had roots in communism.

The other argument is not all far right and far left people are fascists. I would not call Nidge Farage, Marine Le Pen, AAA/PBP, Donald Trump, Jeremy Corbyn, or Alexis Tsipras as fascist and are nothing like those I mention above.

It is clear that certain things in the world are not working and that there is a place for populism. The fact that populism should not always be associated with far left and far right ideologies is also worth thinking about. Good populism in its purest form is governments doing right by their people and providing the people with a fair society. Bad populism is when governments pander to racist or sectarian opinion.

Free trade, capitalism, the EU and the establishment all bring both bad and good things. It is the very same with protectionism, communism, leaving the EU and anti-establishment. Sometimes certain things work out better in certain places and in certain eras.

My feeling is that the good elements of capitalism and communism need to be balanced. The EU does need reform and the one size fits all approach simply does not work. But I feel countries like Ireland need the EU and should aim for EU reform rather than leaving it. The free market economy system has proven to be a failure in times of uncertainty. A better more contingency based approach that mixes free market and planned economies depending on the economic situation is needed. Perhaps a lot of the problem is that certain politicians or parties are too narrowly focused on one ideology and cannot see that the use of more than one ideology can actually complement the other one they use.