The star of Germany's left-most parliamentary party has quit to set up her own populist formation, based on scepticism on both green issues and on support for Ukraine, that polls suggest could capture up to 20% of the vote.
Are you concern-trolling?
Because it feels like it.
Third-Positionists claim to be centrist, arguing “bOtH sIdEs hAvE a fAiR pOIIInT”.
You cant just genocide “a tiny bit” or being “a little bit racist”, but in giving credit to the rights ideas, you enable them.
Its even on wikipedia and is accuratly mentioning the “Fascism on the left” thing.
She is supporting Putin, a fascist dictator and is spreading missinformation on the matter.
Google search: “Sarah Wagenknecht on Putin”. I tried it just know and boy there is a lot.
The other point:
This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron, and also just regular moron. Or in her case, dishonesty.
Because that would be social, but also national, fusing into national-social(ism).
Also anti-climate regulation, calling it “blind planless Eco-Activism, costing people money, but actually doing nothing for the climate”. Literal denial of the efforts we make to safe the world.
Another very Fascist talking point.
Fascist cant defeat the Climate Crisis, because you cant it by being racist and unfuckable, some of the only things they actually do well.
Also:
Economic Policies ARE Social Policies.
If you are right on them, you are just on the right.
The idea that both are separated is naive at best and active malice at worst.
First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I’m going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.
No, I’m not concern trolling, just looking to have a discussion on how reductionist calling wanting to appeal to both sides of a political aisle as being third positionism or ‘fascist’ is. I never mentioned or disputed your points on Sarah Wagenknecht since I am not informed on that.
I guess, I take issue with the implied idea that everyone that says “both sides bad” or “both sides have a good point” is a third positionist and therefore a ‘fascist’. Appealing to both sides can be a way of consensus building and needs to be encouraged IMO. Real world issues are rarely black and white and assuming they are is why people are so divided.
You can acknowledge that certain groups get one idea or policy right without agreeing with them on everything or ‘enabling them’. It is called compromise. Just because some of the groups in history that used the term were authoritarian fascists does not mean every group that claims ‘there is a third position between capitalism and communism’ are authoritarian fascists(Wikipedia source for third positionist’s claim).
The third positionist’s claim is a true claim as evidenced by the fact that the most successful economies are mixed economies with both public(socialist) and private (capitalistic) enterprises. It is just a claim that has historically been used by bad actors(authoritarians) to gain power.
In rhetorical terms, you implying all third positionists bad or ‘fascist’ is an example of Genetic fallacy – a conclusion based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Maybe in this case, Sarah Wagenknecht is fascist. Maybe not. I am not familiar enough to make a judgement call.
But calling all populists or third positionist’s ‘fascists’ is as misleading as calling all US democrats ‘communists’. It is judging someone before you actually know what they stand for.
The other point: This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron
Left-conservative makes sense to me if you interpret it as left of economic issues while conservative on social issues.
Economic Policies ARE Social Policies
I tend to disagree with that thinking. Economic policies are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in a society, while social policies are concerned with the distribution of welfare(basic resources or needs). They are interrelated, but they are not identical. Economic policies focus on productivity and growth while Social policies focus on health and inequality.
I can easily envision a society that is left economically while also being right socially. It would encourage worker coops and state run enterprises but on the other hand tacitly endorse traditional social values like racism and sexism via restrictive immigration and endorsing women as homemakers instead of in the workplace. I’m not saying that is ideal, but I am simply saying it could easily exist.
Note: Populism is IMO a very correct way of looking at the world. According to wikipedia, it “presents ‘the people’ as a morally good force and contrasts them against ‘the elite’, who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.”
In my experience, When regular people act immorally they are held accountable. When powerful people act immorally, they are much less likely to be held accountable.
Sorry, if I went too in depth here. It’s kinda hard to keep it succinct when discussing broad ideas.
First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I’m going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.
Oh stop it. You’re projecting your own ignorance onto the poster you’re arguing with in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you waded in while knowing absolutely nothing.
I know what facism is. I also know that it is also commonly used as an insult and has therefore lost meaning for a lot of people. Call me ignorant if you want. I was simply making a point.
Are you concern-trolling? Because it feels like it.
Third-Positionists claim to be centrist, arguing “bOtH sIdEs hAvE a fAiR pOIIInT”. You cant just genocide “a tiny bit” or being “a little bit racist”, but in giving credit to the rights ideas, you enable them. Its even on wikipedia and is accuratly mentioning the “Fascism on the left” thing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position
She is supporting Putin, a fascist dictator and is spreading missinformation on the matter. Google search: “Sarah Wagenknecht on Putin”. I tried it just know and boy there is a lot.
The other point: This article mentions she calls herself a “left-conservative”, which is an oxymoron, and also just regular moron. Or in her case, dishonesty. Because that would be social, but also national, fusing into national-social(ism). Also anti-climate regulation, calling it “blind planless Eco-Activism, costing people money, but actually doing nothing for the climate”. Literal denial of the efforts we make to safe the world. Another very Fascist talking point. Fascist cant defeat the Climate Crisis, because you cant it by being racist and unfuckable, some of the only things they actually do well.
https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2023-10/sahra-wagenknecht-partei-buendnis-faq#welche-positionen-koennte-bsw-fuer-vernunft-und-gerechtigkeit-vertreten
(Source is in German, sorry for that)
Also: Economic Policies ARE Social Policies. If you are right on them, you are just on the right. The idea that both are separated is naive at best and active malice at worst.
First of all, since you never defined what you mean by fascism, I’m going to assume you are using as an insult as that is how it is commonly used.
No, I’m not concern trolling, just looking to have a discussion on how reductionist calling wanting to appeal to both sides of a political aisle as being third positionism or ‘fascist’ is. I never mentioned or disputed your points on Sarah Wagenknecht since I am not informed on that.
I guess, I take issue with the implied idea that everyone that says “both sides bad” or “both sides have a good point” is a third positionist and therefore a ‘fascist’. Appealing to both sides can be a way of consensus building and needs to be encouraged IMO. Real world issues are rarely black and white and assuming they are is why people are so divided.
You can acknowledge that certain groups get one idea or policy right without agreeing with them on everything or ‘enabling them’. It is called compromise. Just because some of the groups in history that used the term were authoritarian fascists does not mean every group that claims ‘there is a third position between capitalism and communism’ are authoritarian fascists(Wikipedia source for third positionist’s claim).
The third positionist’s claim is a true claim as evidenced by the fact that the most successful economies are mixed economies with both public(socialist) and private (capitalistic) enterprises. It is just a claim that has historically been used by bad actors(authoritarians) to gain power.
In rhetorical terms, you implying all third positionists bad or ‘fascist’ is an example of Genetic fallacy – a conclusion based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context.
Maybe in this case, Sarah Wagenknecht is fascist. Maybe not. I am not familiar enough to make a judgement call.
But calling all populists or third positionist’s ‘fascists’ is as misleading as calling all US democrats ‘communists’. It is judging someone before you actually know what they stand for.
Left-conservative makes sense to me if you interpret it as left of economic issues while conservative on social issues.
I tend to disagree with that thinking. Economic policies are concerned with the allocation of scarce resources in a society, while social policies are concerned with the distribution of welfare(basic resources or needs). They are interrelated, but they are not identical. Economic policies focus on productivity and growth while Social policies focus on health and inequality.
I can easily envision a society that is left economically while also being right socially. It would encourage worker coops and state run enterprises but on the other hand tacitly endorse traditional social values like racism and sexism via restrictive immigration and endorsing women as homemakers instead of in the workplace. I’m not saying that is ideal, but I am simply saying it could easily exist.
Note: Populism is IMO a very correct way of looking at the world. According to wikipedia, it “presents ‘the people’ as a morally good force and contrasts them against ‘the elite’, who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving.”
In my experience, When regular people act immorally they are held accountable. When powerful people act immorally, they are much less likely to be held accountable.
Sorry, if I went too in depth here. It’s kinda hard to keep it succinct when discussing broad ideas.
Oh stop it. You’re projecting your own ignorance onto the poster you’re arguing with in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you waded in while knowing absolutely nothing.
Learn something and back down gracefully.
I know what facism is. I also know that it is also commonly used as an insult and has therefore lost meaning for a lot of people. Call me ignorant if you want. I was simply making a point.
That excuse does not wash given what you were responding to. Quit digging.