478
Exclusive: Majority Of Voters Want Next Government To Take UK Back Into European Union
(www.huffingtonpost.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
478 points (98.8% liked)
Europe
8326 readers
2 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well, for not listening is obvious, they are the ones not listening.
For not being heard is a little more complex. Maybe they are heard but simply their message is irrelevant to the listener, or maybe is wrong or targeted to the wrong audience. I mean, you can try to talk about cricket to me and I will not get your message since I don't care about cricket. Is it your fault ? No, you cannot know everything I am interested in. But it become your fault if you don't understand that I don't care about cricket and you continue to talk only about it.
The same with the left, they talked about something, people said "look, all interesting but we have some more pressing day by day problems" and the left continued to talk about the same thing. Is it their fault ? Not at the beginning but it became their fault once they don't understand that what they are talking about is not what the people need to talk about.
A too simple example but I get the gist. Short answer: you cannot and it is not your fault.
But the problem with politics is not that until today people are leftist and from tomorrow they suddently become fascists, even if this is what some part of the left like to think, but that it is a process. And since it is a process it is a fault of each parties if they don't understand it: it is a fault from the left if they don't understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the right and likewise is a fault of the right if they don't understand the process that drive their voters to vote for the left.
It is more a "I don't agree it is so bad that it need to be replaced"
I am afraid that trying something on a State level is way too dangerous, especially if the "something" already failed more then one time.
I get the point: there are two opposing blocks and each one is actively trying to make the other fail. So ?
Obvious to who? To the person declaring that no one is listening to them? What would the difference between them not listening and you being ignored, as you were wrong look like?
The problems come when people such as yourself claim the problem to be due to football, despite being caused by cricket, and then when you try to explain to them the problem is actually cricket they tell you they don't care about cricket. Therefor, the problem must be football.
With the greatest respect, you're doing that exact thing now.
Lol stalin was always a fascist. Simply declaring oneself to be a socialist doesn't make someone a socialist. For example, even the nazis claimed to be socialists. I agree with the latter part though.
Capitalism has failed the 99.9% every single time, yet you're okay to stick with that. It failed the planet and our our grandchildren. Please don't come to me with that.
So, by their own admission, it doesn't fail of its own accord, like capitalism.
To everyone with critical thinking. There is a part that ask about a problem and the other part never talk about the problem, it is open to be seen. And I have no problem to say that this is true to some extend both for the left and the right.
There would not be any difference in the end result, which is why people feel they are ignored. Personally I can get that I can be wrong but if you don't even try to explain to me the reason, the only conclusion I can make is that you are not listening to me.
I don't think you are right. For example, if people claims that a part of the city is dangerous because all the (documented) petty crimes committed you cannot answer that the problem is that there are not enough bike paths in the city, people could rightfully say that they don' t care about bike paths if they cannot walk on the street without being robbed.
Then I suppose that you can make an example of a actual nation where socialism (or any other system) works better.
And, btw, it is not only capitalism that supposedly failed the planet.
It was a fight. The strongest won. If socialism was that better, it should have won.
I agree that it can be both but it wasn't clear to me at the time that you meant both. Maybe we just got out wired crossed there.
I feel like the other side would say that they have explained it to you and you rejected what that said and didn't listen to them.
Sure but its not their foreign-ness or their being from a different race that makes it happen. It's general poverty. The way the right frames it is as if they wouldn't care if the crimes were committed by italians or that italians would never do those things. Its simply that the poorest do those things. Those types happen to be the poorest. Not saying you, personally of course or that they actaully think that but thats how they frame it.
Can you name an example of a socialist country that wasn't attacked as much as possible, by the worlds only super power, specifically to ensure that socialism failed? Of course, you can't. No one can. It would be like me tripping you up and then claiming you can walk properly.
Define you use of "better" here. Better in what way and for whom?
For sure, it's not only capitalism. However, when you have the same economic outlook as cancer, you can't act surprised when you kill the hosts ability to sustain life. We can't logically justify an economic model thats incompatible with not having to demand perpetual growth on a finite planet.
No, one side wanted to fight. The others wanted to he left alone. The problem is, capitalism can't tolerate any alternatives, as people will choose them over capitalism. Your other option HAS to be to starve on the street. Isnt it weird that no one sees a problem with those being your only two choices?
Also, capitalism had over a century's head start. I mean, its very true to capitalist form that you refuse to admit the outrageous advantage some groups start with, lest you accidentally acknowledge the fundamental problem with capitalism. However, let's be fair here. I mean, even without that, the number of people living under each is vastly different.
It is an option, of course. And sometimes it happen. But many more times did not. What it seems is that the left wing lost their ability to talk to the common people on the street, which historically was their voters. It is an open discussion here that the right basically win over the left taking over the arguments the left had until 5/10 years ago. As i said, it was a process.
True, but they can easily frame this way because is what people see. In these areas people don't see Italians, they see migrants because the migrants are there, not Italians. They see that are migrants that commit the petty crimes (I've seen more than one myself), not the Italians. True, maybe the right exaggerate this, but the people see this.
Honestly, if I see that in a certain zone (Central Station for example) the majority of the petty crimes I saw was committed by foreigners or people from a different races, my logical conclusion could be that these people are a problem, which in itself did not exclude the Italians, but simply start from the more visible aspect. I agree that it could be limitating of course.
All the comunist block before 1990.
Better for the common people. Back at the time, my parents had it a lot better than the equivalent parents in a comunist/socialist state.
Agree on that.
I distinctly remember that URSS tried pretty hard to destroy capitalism, like USA tried to destroy socialism. So URSS never wanted to quit the fight, they simply lost it.
As I said, I do not know how old are you, but I am old enough to remember that at the time the end result of the socialism was the exact same result of the capitalism: few ultrarich and powerfull people and a lot of poor people. Difference was that poor people from the west were anyway richer than the poor people in the comunist block, even if it started a century later. For some aspect it was way better: they arrive at the same result starting way later.
I put it to you that its not that they dont listen, its that they (despite having listened) disagree. As a group, its been decided that it must be that they didn't listen because who could disagree with something so True^^^^tm ? I would also add that the UK labour party which is the closet thing we have to a left just won nearly the greatest landslide in their history, forcing the tories to the lowest seats since thd 1830s, specifically because the right lost the common people in the street. How do we reconcile that with such a broad term as "the left wing" when talking about the ability to talk to the common person in the street?
I'm not saying they don't see this. I'm saying they're wrong to associate it with their foreign-ness which I'm glad we seem to agree on. But you simply can't counter that kind of weaponsied ignorance. The only way to is to sink as low as the people making it out to be due to their foreign-ness and not their being poor. But then you're not the good guys anymore. So, its pointless. To me, I have to just accept that some people simply don't even care what the truth is too. I mean, its what they see but they're an adult and its a simple explanation.
Violent crime per capita has fallen across the world for centuries now. You think its bad now, you should have see the state of it 100 years ago or even 30. Thats why we have to go with data analysis. That doesn't make it less intimidating or not a problem. But it also means that what the right is using for is a lie (blaming the economic situation on them).
All the comunist block before 1990.
But they were attacked all the time. They were excluded and cut off from the rest of the world too. There isn't an instance of it failing of its own accord or unmolested. Would you accept me tripping you over and using that to claim you fail at walking? I don't imagine you would.
Better for the common people. Back at the time, my parents had it a lot better than the equivalent parents in a comunist/socialist state.
And now their children and grandchildren will have less than them. Yes, I agree that socialist states are starved by the rest of the world. Even more so, if its not socialism for everyone, its not socialism at all. None of those countries were socialist.
But I just described capitalism.
Let's say that was true, how about Cuba and all the Latin American countries that tried to be socialist, until America "liberated" them from what they had democratically chosen? Even then, what has convinced you that anyone would choose to be dumb enough to cut themselves of from the counties that make up nato? Also, it was American policy of containment. Also also, the ussr was awful, just to be clear.
If you genuinely beleive the USSR was socialist then you simply do not know what socialism is. I'm sorry to be blunt. I don't know how old you are either but I'm old enough to know what that word means and that simply declaring ones self to be something doesn't make someone that thing. If I paint something orange and declare it to be blue, its still orange.
They weren't poor because they were socialist. They didn't lose because they were socialist. They lost because the richest countries in the world they would lose. Firstly, they weren't socialist. Secondly, they could have had any model ever and they would have lost. Capitalism has to claim victory for the things it isn't responsible for and blame everything else for the things it is responsible for.
Heres a good thought experiment, try defending capitalism on its OWN merit. For that, a person can't just claim others to be bad or worse of course. They also can't claim the things that we have due to the passage of time, like medicine. Otherwise, you're claiming that those things would never have happened if capitalism didn't happen which would, on reflection, obviously be very silly.
Fine. Then what the answer should be ? Silence or "Ok, listen, we don't agree with you for [whatever reason]" ? Because if you don't even answer after some time I ask you about a problem, I can rightfully think you are not listening.
What happened in UK (and what will happen) was clear from the moment Brexit passed, they are now paying the price of their choices. Note that it would be ended in the same way even with the left in power during and after Brexit.
Aside the fact that in other countries the right won (Italy) or that the left need to get everyone else together to not let the right win ?
Let face it: it is not that Meloni is doing everything right, but she is doing something for the people. In the recent years every laws that erored the worker's right come from the left. Every laws that made the street less secure comes from the left. They were governing, it not seems to me they were listening to the common person, so yes. the left, at least here, has completely lost the ability to speak to the common person on the street because if they had listen they would not have done what they did.
Historically speaking the left was successful in the regions with many workers, in the countryside where the people were poorer and aimed to reduce the difference between them and the rich people living in the cities. Now the leftist live in the rich inner center of the cities, but the consequences of their actions are suffered from the suburbs. It is not a coincidence that much of the right voters are from the suburbs and the countryside while the left win in the big cities.
And that was because the left wing went speaking to the workers, to the peasants and generally to the poor. Now they talk about "green transition" and "trans rights" and "open borders" to people that have the problem of putting 3 meals a day on the table. All honorable thing to do btw.
Same in France: the left win, true, but if you followed the second round campaign, the mantra was "Le Pen should lose" and not "we must win". To win they had to get everyone that was not from the "right" to have a chance. And yes, they won, but now ? It is to be see if they will start to try to understand why on the first round Le Pen won.
The simple explanation is that one side allowed mass immigration without any idea about what to do after with all these people, thus creating the problem. And at some point people become tired of the problem and choose to vote for the side who pointed out the problem that already exist. But when people vote for the side that point out the problem they become fascist, because they cannot do wrong. (note that this time it is the left doing wrong, but that not means that the right cannot do wrong the same way).
Man, I grow up in one of the worst part of my city. And I must tell you that until a 10 years ago, the situation only got worse and worse.
What we see is that crime are no more reported since people do not belive anymore in the justice system and there is a social stigma to report a crime if it is committed from an illegal immigrant. The most used excuse is "yeah, this illegal immigrant committed a crime, but also italians do it". Fuck it. If this time is the foreigner, punish him. Then if the next time it is an Italian punish him in the same way.
Still the same problem. Just to say that the right lie do not solve the problem. And in the eyes of the ones who suffer the situation saying that the right lies simply means that you don't care because you are saying that the problem do not exist.
Yes, they were attacked by the other socialist countries. In East Europe, nations that rebelled to the comunist were invaded by URSS, not USA.
Nope, socialist state starved themself.
True. But the "None of those countries were socialist" is the same lame excuse people use when they see their system fail. If socialism is that better, it should had win irregarless of the interferences from USA (or anybody else) because it should had been superior. If something fail everytime it is tried, you cannot just say "yeah, it fail but it was not the true something". I mean, you can a couple of time, but then no more, you become a joke.
That should be explained to some part of the actual left wing. And some other people tbh.
Anyway, I know what socialism is, what I don't understand is why it should be a better system when history shown it is not true. I get that capitalism is not the best system in the world, it has its problems, but it seems better than the other we tried. Maybe we should aim to fix a somewhat good system instead of trying to make a bad system work.
The fact is that URSS was socialist but socialism suffer from the same end problem capitalism has: make few people rich and the other poor. Only difference is that under socialism it is the party to keep you down, under capitalism it is the rich. But under capitalism you can try to rise yourself without damaging everyone else, under socialism the only way to rise is to take down someone else.
Don't agree. They had the same opportunities at the beginning. The only difference I agree on is that after WWII URSS was destroyed and USA not. But also Europe was destroyed (man, in Milano we built a hill with bombing debris). But strangely enough every country under a socialist system lose and every country under a capitalist system win. Even is the two system tried to destroy earch other with any means. Look at North and South Korea for an actual example.
Now it can be that "it was not true socialism (tm)" but at that point the question is: ok, but it was even possible to implement true socialism ?
Just one example: capitalism created a system that was able to sell wheat to the URSS even during the Cold War, a time when URSS had the same amount (if not even way more) of fields but somehow it was not able to produce enought wheat to feed its own people, while at the same time feeding its people and some more.