Are leftists becoming a minority?

[Arkolon]

FN are the most popular party in France (I think) and le Pen is the most popular presidential candidate.

That isn't true. In fact, the two-round voting system pretty much ensures she would have to climb a very painful, and very long uphill battle to win the Presidential elections in France.

Oh, and UKIP won the EU election.

That's quite irrelevant now, and their polling scores are slipping.

[Excidium Planetis]

I don't see Liberals in America disappearing. It's always the same in America: There are more registered Democrats, but when the Republicans get riled up, they flock to the voting booths and beat the Democrats by percentage. Republicans aren't a majority, they're just really loud.

[Quintium]

Why is 'immigrant' synonymous with 'Muslim' to you?

If you can prove that I said that, I will apologise profusely.

There are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants that come into Britain, and all working immigrants are beneficial to the economy.

According to the calculations that I have seen - you know, the ones that led the mass media in Britain to report that European migrants were good for the economy - the net contribution to the British economy of European migrants between 1995 and 2011 was around £5bn, and the net contribution of non-European migrants between 1995 and 2011 was negative £120bn. So for immigration to Britain, measured over the period between 1995 and 2011 and as a cost-benefit sum, migration in general has been a negative of roughly £115bn.

If being favourable is what you call 'denying the reality of supply and demand', you must also think that all mainstream economists do the same as well. Immigrants are hugely beneficial to any country because their function is mainly to fill labour market gaps or shortages. For every job an immigrant takes, more jobs are opened as a result, usually somewhere higher up the ladder too.

Oh, and I will never deny that if you add more people to the economy, the total size of that economy will increase. That's simple economics. But hasn't the left always been about the rights and comforts of workers? In Britain, and in most Western European countries, workers at the bottom end of the economy have seen their standards of living drop quite a bit in recent years - much more than any other group. And again, that's because the supply of unskilled labour in Western Europe is now much greater than it has been in decades. Employers can now get Eastern European workers at a salary that wouldn't allow a British worker to rent a small house and have food on the table, let alone get a wife and start a family. That's the social effect of immigration, not the macroeconomic effect. And I have always wondered why the left has abandoned these people, left them to the mercy of employers who are too stingy to pay a living wage.

Lower wages for the jobs lower to the bottom of the ladder. That saved money doesn't just disappear though, you can't be that oblivious. It goes to creating more jobs, and (more often than not), better-paying jobs.

Then where are those better-paying jobs if you have people who spend their twenties and thirties in unpaid internships and 'flexible contracts'? If they don't have any financial security up until the point where the men are burnt out and the women are too old to start a family? The economy should serve the material standard of living for the greatest amount of people, and that's not happening here. And if this globalist, multiculturalist horror continues, then we might well see not only the far-right, but also the far-left grow. You can babble on about macroeconomic effects of immigration as long as you like, but if I see my pay cut by twenty percent over the course of five years and I see that I won't be able to get a family unless I knock some random girl up and start claiming benefits, then I'm not going to support you. I think the centre-right is treading on extremely thin ice, and beneath it hide sharks with friggin' lasers attached to their heads.

Our hardships are the fault of reckless bankers and vote-chasing politicians, not a small group of the population that are simply searching for a standard of living we've enjoyed for centuries.

And who do you think their shock troops are? If immigration was limited to a negligible level in Britain, then workers could organise and demand a living wage. But at the moment, if workers demand a living wage then employers can just say "for what we pay to employ you right now, we can employ twice as many Slovakians and they don't have a problem with working more hours each week than is legally allowed". You're trying to resist the generals, but at the same time you are doing nothing to stop the troops. That's why the left is failing - it has reached a state of synthesis with the centre-right on the issue of immigration. The left gets more diversity, and the centre-right gets to hire workers at such low rates that no native-born man or woman can compete.

[New Werpland]

No, if anything they're the majority.

That's when you count people in favor of government as leftists.

[Genivaria]

The fact that a majority of Americans are overwhelmingly liberal in key issues I'm gonna say no.

[Genivaria]

No, if anything they're the majority.

That's when you count people in favor of government as leftists.

I don't know why you'd think that.

[Diopolis]

Becoming? We have been, for a while. Neoliberalism is overwhelmingly dominant in the western world, which is what I assume this thread is focusing on.

Which is also not, strictly speaking, right-wing, except in the sense of it being the status quo. Actual right-wing economics are laissez-faire or traditionalist(distributist/producerist or mercantilist). Conservatives, especially relatively moderate conservatives, tend to defend neoliberalism because that's how things already work, and conservatives do that.

[Britanno]

FN are the most popular party in France (I think) and le Pen is the most popular presidential candidate.

France just had an election and they came a distant second. She could get to the second round of a presidential, but could never win.

Oh, and UKIP won the EU election.

important

[Quintium]

France just had an election and they came a distant second. She could get to the second round of a presidential, but could never win.

You should mention, though, that the Front National came second not to a left-wing party but to a slightly less right-wing party. A party which, in the past, has ordered bulldozers to 'clear' migrant camps and gypsy settlements. A party which opposed gay marriage and tried to get a constitutional court to block it. A party led, essentially, by a short version of Claude Frollo.

[MERIZoC]

Becoming? We have been, for a while. Neoliberalism is overwhelmingly dominant in the western world, which is what I assume this thread is focusing on.

Which is also not, strictly speaking, right-wing, except in the sense of it being the status quo. Actual right-wing economics are laissez-faire or traditionalist(distributist/producerist or mercantilist). Conservatives, especially relatively moderate conservatives, tend to defend neoliberalism because that's how things already work, and conservatives do that.

Neoliberalism is certainly right-of-centre. Laissez-faire and traditionalist economics are also right wing. It's not just a few ideologies you know.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Ikania, you mention the rise of the populist right in Europe. I think it's important to realize that many left wingers support such parties, like the Front National or UKIP. Many working class people in Europe are disenfranchised with the EU, and when given the choice between the centre right and centre left bureaucrats, they'd rather choose the populist right. It's a bit unfortunate, since parties like the Front National and Freedom Party are a bit insane. However, for many left wing people, they are the only parties responding to legitimate grievances.

[MERIZoC]

Ikania, you mention the rise of the populist right in Europe. I think it's important to realize that many left wingers support such parties, like the Front National or UKIP. Many working class people in Europe are disenfranchised with the EU, and when given the choice between the centre right and centre left bureaucrats, they'd rather choose the populist right. It's a bit unfortunate, since parties like the Front National and Freedom Party are a bit insane. However, for many left wing people, they are the only parties responding to legitimate grievances.

Sources?

[Herskerstad]

France just had an election and they came a distant second. She could get to the second round of a presidential, but could never win.

You should mention, though, that the Front National came second not to a left-wing party but to a slightly less right-wing party. A party which, in the past, has ordered bulldozers to 'clear' migrant camps and gypsy settlements. A party which opposed gay marriage and tried to get a constitutional court to block it. A party led, essentially, by a short version of Claude Frollo.

That'd be the most epic reign in France's history.

[Diopolis]

Which is also not, strictly speaking, right-wing, except in the sense of it being the status quo. Actual right-wing economics are laissez-faire or traditionalist(distributist/producerist or mercantilist). Conservatives, especially relatively moderate conservatives, tend to defend neoliberalism because that's how things already work, and conservatives do that.

Neoliberalism is certainly right-of-centre. Laissez-faire and traditionalist economics are also right wing. It's not just a few ideologies you know.

Neo-liberalism is conservative in that it's the status quo. Given the social policies that go in hand with the actual ideology of neoliberalism, it's actually rather liberal on the overall spectrum.

[MERIZoC]

Neoliberalism is certainly right-of-centre. Laissez-faire and traditionalist economics are also right wing. It's not just a few ideologies you know.

Neo-liberalism is conservative in that it's the status quo. Given the social policies that go in hand with the actual ideology of neoliberalism, it's actually rather liberal on the overall spectrum.

The left-right dichotomy doesn't have anything to do with social policies, as anyone on here could tell you. Liberalism, an extension of capitalism, is still a centre to right-wing ideology.

[HMS Vanguard]

So, what sayeth ye, NSG? Is all not yet lost, is the future of the world in the hands of Nigel Farage, or can Syriza and Podemos restore confidence in our liberal values?

Parties like SYRIZA and Podemos appear more similar to UKIP and the Front National than to the mainstream parties. I think we are seeing a return to 1930s-style clashes between a stolid centre of dull but mostly sensible establishment and fringes of arm-waving lunatics. The main difference between then and now is that the fringe collectivist ideologies have been powerfully discredited in the intervening years so they are not nearly as radical as they used to be.

[Sanctissima]

Salutations, liberal hivemind of NSG and the conservatives brave enough to oppose them!

Recently, on a long car trip back home from out of town, I contemplated the rise of various parties like UKIP, the Front National, and especially the Hawkish, theocratic wing of the Republican party. It seems that in America and especially Europe (but not quite Canada), we're seeing a growing voice for radical right wing parties. UKIP is now the most talked about party in Britain, and will probably place 3rd in May's elections. The Front National in France, headed by Marine Le Pen, is also seeing their approval ratings rise while the Socialist Hollande's drop (in November he was at 18%, but after Charlie Hebdo he shot up to 40).

Since the birth of left-right politics, both sides have been on about equal levels, with one shining more than the other at times. But is it actually possible that more people are subscribing to conservative politics, and that the liberals are becoming the minority?

In comments sections everywhere, we see hateful comments towards Muslims, and many people espousing anti-Liberal rhetoric. We keep waving them off as trolls, but they're quite a majority compared to the left-wing, level-headed commenters. In the EU elections in June, who was at the head of the tide? UKIP. It seems that the anti-immigration and typically anti-equality parties, which many compare to the National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany (by their harsh stances on immigration and civil rights), are becoming extremely popular. While opinion polling in the UK at least shows UKIP at a distant third, it is quite possible that support for these extremist viewpoints will be our leaders in the future.

In America, Obama's approval rating have... stagnated, after dropping a lot. Last I checked he was around 40%. We've seen the rise of the Tea Party, and though we all mock him, people like Ted Cruz think they can actually become President. The Republicans swept to power in both houses in the midterm elections, and it's a mystery as to who will become President in 2016, because the polls vary.

Is it entirely possible that the collective leftists of the Western world are becoming a minority? Or is the right-wing minority just getting louder as they decline in size?

So, what sayeth ye, NSG? Is all not yet lost, is the future of the world in the hands of Nigel Farage, or can Syriza and Podemos restore confidence in our liberal values?

Not quite.

If anything, liberalism and the left in general is becoming more and more of a mainstream thing. Sure, it's divided as hell, but it's definitely not on a downwards spiral. If anything, the political right is becoming a minority.

The exception to this trend seems to be the Middle East and Eastern Europe/Russia, where the right is on the rise. Otherwise, on a global scale, the left is the clear majority.

[Arkolon]

Becoming? We have been, for a while. Neoliberalism is overwhelmingly dominant in the western world, which is what I assume this thread is focusing on.

Which is also not, strictly speaking, right-wing, except in the sense of it being the status quo. Actual right-wing economics are laissez-faire or traditionalist(distributist/producerist or mercantilist). Conservatives, especially relatively moderate conservatives, tend to defend neoliberalism because that's how things already work, and conservatives do that.

If you define 'right-wing' as capitalistic, neoliberalism is leaning 'far right'.

[Arkolon]

Why is 'immigrant' synonymous with 'Muslim' to you?

If you can prove that I said that, I will apologise profusely.

You spoke of immigrants, then, in brackets, specifically labeled them all as Muslims. I will now expect an apology.

There are plenty of non-Muslim immigrants that come into Britain, and all working immigrants are beneficial to the economy.

According to the calculations that I have seen - you know, the ones that led the mass media in Britain to report that European migrants were good for the economy - the net contribution to the British economy of European migrants between 1995 and 2011 was around £5bn, and the net contribution of non-European migrants between 1995 and 2011 was negative £120bn. So for immigration to Britain, measured over the period between 1995 and 2011 and as a cost-benefit sum, migration in general has been a negative of roughly £115bn.

If you could source that for me, that would be great. I googled what I could and found numbers closer to net positives of £25bn incl. all immigrants.

If being favourable is what you call 'denying the reality of supply and demand', you must also think that all mainstream economists do the same as well. Immigrants are hugely beneficial to any country because their function is mainly to fill labour market gaps or shortages. For every job an immigrant takes, more jobs are opened as a result, usually somewhere higher up the ladder too.

Oh, and I will never deny that if you add more people to the economy, the total size of that economy will increase.

Not only that, but there is also a multiplier effect where productivity would eventually grow as well. I mean, saving £1 on someone's wage means £1 more to spend elsewhere, that's simple money.

But hasn't the left always been about the rights and comforts of workers? In Britain, and in most Western European countries, workers at the bottom end of the economy have seen their standards of living drop quite a bit in recent years - much more than any other group. And again, that's because the supply of unskilled labour in Western Europe is now much greater than it has been in decades. Employers can now get Eastern European workers at a salary that wouldn't allow a British worker to rent a small house and have food on the table, let alone get a wife and start a family. That's the social effect of immigration, not the macroeconomic effect. And I have always wondered why the left has abandoned these people, left them to the mercy of employers who are too stingy to pay a living wage.

I can't speak for opinions I do not have.

[Islamic State of Middle East]

Neocons are becoming quite popular even within liberals, unfortunately.

[The 502nd SS]

I really do hope so, we need more right wing people in this world

[Islamic State of Middle East]

I really do hope so, we need more right wing people in this world

Hitler was not sufficient?

[Vasileus]

I really do hope so, we need more right wing people in this world

Hitler was not sufficient?

Fam your flag is literally the ISIS flag

[Islamic State of Middle East]

Hitler was not sufficient?

Fam your flag is literally the ISIS flag

So what?

[Quintium]

Ikania, you mention the rise of the populist right in Europe. I think it's important to realize that many left wingers support such parties, like the Front National or UKIP. Many working class people in Europe are disenfranchised with the EU, and when given the choice between the centre right and centre left bureaucrats, they'd rather choose the populist right. It's a bit unfortunate, since parties like the Front National and Freedom Party are a bit insane. However, for many left wing people, they are the only parties responding to legitimate grievances.

Sources?

Well, that's difficult to prove. But what we can prove is that people with less income and less formal education are more likely to vote far-right in Europe (although the permanently welfare-dependent underclass votes for the far-left if it votes at all). Traditionally, the PVV in the Netherlands has done tremendously well among the old working class, the people who have been chased out of the cities they grew up in by what the left calls 'microaggressions'. The people who voted 'no' in a referendum about the structure of the European Union since 2007, but got a 'yes' from their government.

You spoke of immigrants, then, in brackets, specifically labeled them all as Muslims. I will now expect an apology.

That's not what I did. I spoke of a general rule (immigrants do not want to take over your country), but I mentioned as an exception to that rule (and a rhetorical means to make you see the absurdity of the situation at hand) that one group (which claims to represent Muslim voters in 'concentrated areas where they can make the difference') has tried to negotiate with Labour and the Tories about votes in exchange for a pledge to carry out a manifesto to give Muslims more rights and legal protections. You're getting no apology from me, because I have nothing to apologise for.

If you could source that for me, that would be great. I googled what I could and found numbers closer to net positives of £25bn incl. all immigrants.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... llion.html

Not only that, but there is also a multiplier effect where productivity would eventually grow as well. I mean, saving £1 on someone's wage means £1 more to spend elsewhere, that's simple money.

Or, as is more likely, will disappear into the financial system and benefit primarily those who sit at the top of society and do nothing but take. Your economic models work in an economy which is based on material wealth growth. Europe's economies are based on theoretical, fiscal wealth growth where money is more often retained in the financial system than spent on goods or services.

I can't speak for opinions I do not have.

Then we have come full circle; I explicitly mentioned before you engaged me in this debate that it was the left's position which confused me, and not the centre-right's.