Has a great deal more grassroots support than you might first think but there is great division on how and for what crimes it is applied.
2022 French Presidential Election
- Thread starter Silvanus
- Start date
No, no, no. That's not how it works
If you take from the rich and give to the poor, that authoritarian repression
If you take from the poor and give to the rich, that's justice
Who is that comment aimed at? Silvanus's response was aimed at me and the only thing I've said is that both left and right wing populists can be dangerous to democracy. And I haven't brought up a single "wealth redistribution"-related policy to justify my worries about Melenchon.
I would also point out the typical classical liberal argument is not to take from the poor and give to the rich but to take less from the rich.
Yeah... that's not usually how it actually works out though, is it?
How so? It does work out like that entirely. Less is taken from the rich and less is given to the poor. Surely you would agree with me that there is a difference between me giving you 5 dollar instead of 10 and me taking 5 dollar out of your wallet. One is me being less generous, the other is me stealing.
Yes, I recognise the difference, and right-wing parties do the latter.
Here in the UK the government is raising national insurance, which means working people will have to pay more tax. At the same time, throughout the pandemic they have awarded lucrative public contracts to their personal friends (who have subsequently failed to fulfil those contracts, but keep the money).
They are directly taking more from the poor and funneling tax money to wealthy supporters.
That's not really taking from the poor to give to the rich. It's just raising the price of state service for everyone. I will totally agree it disproportionately affects the poor and that it sucks but it's still different.
As for the lucrative public contracts being awarded to their personal friends... Well that's not linked to right wing ideology. The most corrupt party in Belgium is the Socialist Party, they're almost always the leading figures in scandals which involve misusing public funds or enriching themselves with bullshit jobs (and that's always paid by taxes which could be used to help the poor). The most obviously disgusting one was when they used the "samusocial" (an NPO which is supposed to help the homeless) to enrich themselves. So yes, politicians stealing from the poor to enrich themselves or their friends (& family) is universal and usually the parties most affected are the ones with the most power and influence, simple as that.
If you're making the burden of cost disproportionately affect the poor, then that's functionally identical to taking from the poor.
Yet the parties with the largest networks of high-wealth and corporate backers are almost universally those on the right. Corporatists back the right because they know they'll minimise the tax burden for them in a quid-pro-quo.
Hey, hey, hey, our Socialists suck hard for sure, but don't understimate the Liberals. They might not get as many scandals, but theirs tend to involve way bigger amounts, like hundreds of millions of euros just vanishing into thin air, which for some reason they keep getting away with. Tho the Christian Democrats might take it if we broaden our definition of corrupt, eager as they are to sell out to whatever gets them more mandates. Don't see the Greens get top billing tho, they're generally far too incompetent. Ditto Vlaams Blok (I vehemently refuse to call them anything else). Not really sure where I'd put NVA, but they're basically the right-wing liberals, so I see little reason to make distinction.
Fuck I hate our political parties.
From a purely utilitarian point of view maybe. Just like not saving someone has the same result as murdering someone, in both cases a life has ceased. However I am not 100% utilitarian and therefor believe there is a moral/ethical difference. Doesn't mean I agree with it though. I am big proponent of accessible healthcare and ensuring the lower working classes can live a decent life while it is totally ridiculous how rich some people are.
Well... yes and no. It really depends, if the right is politically insignificant corporate entities and high wealth individuals will find more interest in having good relations with the left wing parties (although I guess they would probably avoid the communists who want to take away everything from them?). But with equal power yes, you are right. The right will naturally attract high wealth and corporate backers more. But that's a bid besides the point?
It is rather entirely the point. They know they'll be rewarded by having to shoulder a lower tax burden. And that means either higher taxes on the poor to make up the shortfall (as it did here in the UK) or by cutting public services (as it did here in the UK under Cameron and Osborne-- and which also disproportionately affects the poor who rely on such services more).
If you look at it more from the sense that anyone who is against cozying up to Putin is already not voting for Le Pen, it makes a bit more sense. She's not going to win over more voters by going against a platform so well defined already. Doubling down on it, however, might draw her some extra votes by the extreme far-right (or far-left accelerationists) who would otherwise sit out.
Well, yes and no. I feel the point is also always kind of shifting. As I said, cutting public services is "giving less" and higher taxes on the poor is a rather odd way to say "higher taxes that don't only affect the rich" because I doubt the UK has come up with taxes which only apply to the poor. If they did though, waw, just waw....
This is rather odd, some experts believe Zemmour lost a lot of momentum exactly because he didn't tone down with the Putin simping early enough (while Le Pen did) when the war broke out. I really don't get why she would go full pro Putin again.
Ah come on you don't like being forced to go vote on a Sunday and be given the choice between "Very Corrupt", "slightly less corrupt", "Ideologically corrupt", "Extremist", "Extremist" and "Incompetent fools"? Honestly I often end up voting for new smaller parties, whatever happens we always end up with a multi-colored coalition of incompetence and corruption anyway.
Well, that's just a factor of the human condition: People who want power, by and large, are people who shouldn't have power.
No, not really. I once had the unfortunate honor of working a job where I directly interacted with our politicians, at all levels, all parties. It very quickly cemented in me a profound animosity.
Fyi, in case anyone wonder why Generals said "forced to go vote", in Belgium voting is mandatory. All citizens of voting age are obligated by law to do so, under penalty of fines.
Well, you have to understand what a national insurance rise is: it only affects wage, and leaves capital gains, income from rent etc untouched. In short, it only affects wage workers, and not landlords or shareholders.
It very much is a roundabout way of instituting a tax and ensuring it specifically doesn't affect the best-off.
As I also know people who had to come into contact with the political world and have been in politics... Well I have reached a level beyond cynicism. At this point most of them can be arrested and jailed for a couple of years without a trial for all I care. And that's also because I know 99% of trials against politicians always seem to end up with no one going to prison, even when found guilty.
Oh I already assumed it worked exactly like it does here. The fact it is based on wage doesn't really change that much. Most rich people have high wages and capital gains just come on top of that. A rich person will still contribute more to the NHS than a poor one while needing it less. It's not about some kind of weird reverse solidarity, it's just less solidarity.
Mind you I am in no way saying the policies set out to ensure the rich become richer at the expense of public services is good but I do feel there is still quite a difference between less solidarity and some upside down solidarity which would consist of taking from the poor and giving to the rich.