The french national assembly of the first bourgeois french revolution, where the terms left-wing and right-wing originate, had various factions in each of the wings.
@@dalfokaneWhat's ironic is that despite the left being today associated with state intervention and regulations, back then during the French revolution the left wanted laissez-faire economic policies while the right wing was supportive of regulations and tariffs "Economically left/right" is complete bollocks because in the end both left and right will just follow the economic policies they see more fit to achieve their goals
@@dalfokane in those times it was the radical anti-authority vs the establishment monarchists, whereas government these days has pretty much leveled out on the "anarchy-authority" dichotomy. And since the 80s both sides (in the west) have mostly gravitated towards neoliberalism (yuck) which is why faith in democracy is declining
Left-right still works no matter the political organization. "Conservative left" is basically conservatives. Left wing is left wing. Right wing is right wing.
Being “left” doesn’t mean redistribution. I don’t know why people seem to think this. He was defiantly a centrist but even so he was incredibly pro almost all of our social policies
Me being from a post-communist country ''Conservative Left'' seems very normal to me. Its basically a softer version of Soviet Leftism; which I believe is very different from Western Liberal Leftism.
@@dnhn.design so Right economics and progressive culturally? hmmm why can't we have both? i mean, economics are so wide that there is a room for social approach for example in housing, as well as for classical liberal/marker approach - in taxies for example. same with cultural. there is always space to be conservative for example when it comes to fertility rates crisis and to be progressive in gay rights for example. But that would mean you can't rule by dividing people over simple things.
the conservative "left" is hardly left here unless you consider crushing teachers' unions a left-wing policy. the most left-wing thing they've done so far is raise the minimum wage by a net amount of ~15 euros (i am not kidding). they're making more promises but for now they're not really leftists, they're just "left" because they're the former communist party, but ""reformed""
I think the appeal of left-conservatism is partly due to a reverse post-materialism growing in Europe. That is, working class people are less interested in highminded progressivism when their basic sense of security and stability is under attack for several reasons. Social progressivism only works when the basic human needs are already stable.
But it's very easy to disguise Fascism as "left conservatism", just look for the scapegoating, most of em are scapegoating minorities even when they pretend not to. Easy way to tell, look at their position on immigrants, being against illegal migration and regulating the amount of overall immigrants are mainstream positions, if they're pushing for removing legal immigrants who are not criminals especially when they're of certain ethnic groups, that's when they're Fascists pretending to be "left conservative"
also right wing figures have used progressive politics as scapegoat for problems rather than actually addressing them, people are now more progressive than ever but are increasingly manipulated against policies they agree with
@ you mean trade? Like every other country? Like the UAE, East Asia etc does? Why are we the ones expected to take immigrants who contribute nothing to us?
Yeah tldr seems to really have a boner for the right Like kamala ran a right wing bid for the American presidency even by American standards but she was pained as a commie practically. And remember American politics is a solid 2 decades and schews conservative behind Europe so right wing of right wing of right wing of liberal
Well, the RN is economically "left" in its political communication only. Once in parliament, the furthest left they went was to oppose the pension reform ...
Same with the PVV in the Netherlands. They pretend to have some leftwing economic views, though they never would call it that way because "left" is the enemy for them. But once elected their economic policies go to the far right. They're just grifters.
In Britain, this is basically One Nation conservatism as conceptualized by Disraeli. The Tory party has consistently been caught between this model and the more Thatcherite free market libertarian model.
@Minimmalmythicist please its not dead just as non Reaganomics republicans it isn't dead in America. The thing is after the party take overs the middle management are filtering them out.
Nah one nation conservatism is centre. These people actually support socialism but also traditional values ie. importance of family, christian values, tighter border controls. So basically all those, but also supporting extensive welfare, predistribution and regulated economy.
There's not really anything equivalent in the UK. Tories are socially centrist and economically VERY much only there for the billionaire class (Baedenoch may push them heavily into culture war, which would render Reform redundant). Reform is basically Tories, but with 1000% more culture war. Labour is the traditional centre-left, they might be able to adopt "left conservatism" since Starmer has heavily scaled back the identity politics (to the dismay of the Corbyn faction). Lib Dem is just Tories but 100% ignore social issues.
@mrvwbug4423 Not exactly. Mainstream conservatives are more for small businesses and middle (upper middle) class, and their tax regimes has been quite moderate over the years. If you see carefully, that's what the democrats are doing as well. It's just that the tories are more socially conservative (at least post Cameron and May) than the democrats
Le Pen isn't left wing economically she is a super libertarian, the national rally only talks about protecting the workers right but when it comes to vote they always vote in favour of a more free market.
@@loubaxo9339 you dont know what fascism is then. Modern fascist economy is for example china. Where is free market and capitalism but with state control when needed.
Paternal Conservativism was a pretty popular ideology back then in Europe during the late 1800s after the industrial revolution and the rise of wealth inequality, it's no surprise that it's making a come back with similar economic disparity. Someone like Otto von Bismarck would be one due to his conservative social views and pretty left wing economic policies at the time like social welfare.
But the only common thread between those 3 is the authoritarianism. China is functionally Fascist. Vietnam is basically communism tailored to the modern economy. Singapore is extreme paternalism but without the corruption endemic to most authoritarian regimes.
@@skinwalker69420 my brother in christ vietnam is a softcore ethnostate (even more than China) and national liberation against invaders all throughout history is their nation's story. and where do you see that one calls itself nat and soc but not the other?
This is the logical outcome of decades of neoliberal hegemony. Since neoliberalism considers any state intervention on the market as inherently bad, the only type of leftism allowed under it is on social and cultural issues - which means that those who don't consider themselves to be economically well-off but also don't see themselves as beneficaries of socio-cultural leftism don't see their issues politically reflected. This segment has, by now, grown to become politically significant, so of course anyone willing to appeal to that segment can derive some serious political gains from that.
so national socialism with inorganic change of culture because ppl have neither studied german nor russian political theory of the last 100 years? that is a very sad state of things then
@@cwpv2477 Yes, national socialism is a pretty good way to call it. You're not seriously thinking people are going not to vote for those who talk about their everyday issues just because you're having an issue with a name Hitler chose for his party 100 years ago to undermine communists, are you?
This comment needs _all_ the upvotes. The Left decided to focus their efforts on cultural issues (feminism, lgbt rights) as a way to "pick their battles" at a time where it seemed futile to oppose neoliberalism on the economic front. But you can only neglect the economic front for so long before the working classes realize that you just _aren't doing your job._
@@yarpen26 u do understand many things not very well. Stalin was a national socialist. hitler was. mao was. you are just n insane person bro im sorry but I hope you study history a bit.
Not really, they're also way more socially progressive as well, legal weed, abortion rights, I think they mainly vote republican for small government and protecting gun rights
So they're libertarian; but few people realise or like to admit that unions are a free market capitalist mechanism. I'm a centrist but if libertarians embraced unions I'd be all for it
the thumbnail is wrong, authoritarian left is the complete opposite of conservative and economically left but socially and culturally conservative is still conservative
I do think that this "conservative left" parties have become so big due to one major flaw in the "progressive left" parties in the 21st century. The left used to be there for the worker. Dubbeling down on workers rights, good wages and taxation of the extremely rich. This attracted a lot of labourers, (its kinda in the name of a lot of old left parties) they where there by the labours for the labours. The last decades has seen a big shift on the left to focus more and more on the green and progressive social issues. While I myself agree that it is important, it took way too much the front stage. In the end the average labourer cares about being able to afford a meatball on there plate after a day of hard work and not if they take out a coffie if they should have it with oatmilk and have to say they/them to their barista. I think that if the progressive left wants to grow again they should start to focus on the economic side first again. Climate and the left social issues can still play a rol. And having one party focusing on them is good I think. But for the majority of the left, I think they should sideline it a bit and just work on it more in the background. I think it would also help against the current polarization. Edit: some spelling corrections and last sentence
❤❤ it is time to change for the better for the general population of hard working and honest people. We have enough of so called social/green parties which support wars while cutting spendings on education, hospitals, pensions, and making in the name of green/left politics everything more expensive like food, housing and transportation. That is not left politics, it is ignorant, snobbish and elitist.
I totally agree with that. Another important thing is the fact that average worker /labourer is conservative /patriotic /traditionalist on social stance
You see it in US politics as well, there’s huge focus on culture war issues to distract people from the lack of any real ideas on how to address the economic issues faced by lots of working class people.
@@cm275 Yeah, and that makes the whole system fail, when, in essence, neither side has good policies. 2024's US election was two bumbling idiots, one two steps away from saying that we should have joined the axis in WW2, getting decided via coin flip, because both of their policies, to the average voter, are exactly the same. One was just slightly more socially progressive (AKA, status quo). We now have a rampant dictator as a president. One that is also, pardon my French, a complete. Fucking. Dumbass. That statistic of the US being the only one to have major parties that deny climate change is starting to become more and more of a bitch.
Wdym ? On its own of course it doesn’t work but if you combine it with other scales its better. Political compass is not perfect but still is good. But the more scales the better
This is why America needs more political parties. It’s better to have a coalition government than having 2 diametrically opposed parties that will change policies in 180 whomever goes into power.
@ No that’s not true at all some states and even most states downright blocked them from the ballot. I get it the Greens in the US under Jill Stein are just terrible and I really don’t like her stance especially when she’s doing the bidding of Russia, China and The Muslim World. But other parties would have been a viable option like the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang that’s filled with technocrats.
@@concernedcitizens4110 "It’s better to have a coalition government than having 2 diametrically opposed parties that will change policies in 180 whomever goes into power." Having more parties *may* help with that but it's not a given. Sometimes, what happens is that the parties just arrange themselves into 2 coalitions that similarly take turns in being in power.
"diametrically opposed" on only the current trending news topics, but very much aligned on the military budget, corporate lobbying, Israel, and anything that has no positive impact on the general public.
@@concernedcitizens4110there's absolutely no chance for a 3rd party to get even 5% of the vote, and if you know Andrew Yang then you know how important ranked choice voting is to his party
Should be noted that the BSW seems to already be collapsing again. Many don't like they either are not able to enter coalition talks in Saxony or are too harsh on the AfD. It also seems like Wagenknecht personally sabotaged coalition talks against her own state party. Wagenknecht is also a common guest in a variety of establishment talkshows over the years, boosting her name. Many voters of left-conservative parties in the west grow dissolusioned and disappointed quickly once their parties enter government. Doesn't help that I am not aware of any conservative-left party that did not end up having a massive corruption scandal. Also Fizos Smer-SD and the Romanian PS have conservative essentially since inception. I also wouldn't call the Danish Social Democrats conservative for being harder on immigration, which is just one issue. If anything you could argue this lead to the rise of the Danish left with the Socialist People's Party now on a historic 15-17% (they won the EU election against them) and Enhedslisten on 6-8% with the Green-Left "The Alternative" also above the 2% Threshold. Other conservative parties may campaign on leftist issues but don't seem to focus on them. The Dutch PVV was big on supporting building houses in the campaign to solve the housing crisis but it was one of the first things they dropped when entering coalition talks.
" It also seems like Wagenknecht personally sabotaged coalition talks against her own state party." That's correct. Wagenknecht demanded, that any political party has to vote against supplying ukraine with weapons on a federal level, if the want the BSW to join a coalition in a german state. Her opponents call her "Zarenknecht" (Tzar's servant) for her pro-Putin-positions.
@Minimmalmythicist The left to right spectrum is not clearly defined. There is no logic behind it besides what has historically been the case. Nationalism, workers right, nuclear power, immigration, it's all just put on the left to right spectrum based on what position the parties in parlament have held and it will differ from country to country. Being against immigration is 100% conservative. Progressives don't want to change everything though and Conservatives don't want to keep everything the way it is. I am very much a nationalist and I don't see how wanting to keep the sovereignty of your people conflicts with fighting wealth inequality. Good thing for the left that they are no longer selling out their people for migrant voters. I'd like to take this opportunity to greet the remaining 36% of people living in London that are british.
@Minimmalmythicist You are confusing nationality with citizenship. Citizenship is a legal term, nationality is not. "Nation" comes from a latin word for birth and means: "a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language" Coming to New Zealand doesn't make you a Maori and coming to England doesn't make you English. Races do exist on a spectrum like colors. There are no clear borders, no pure races. When you take blue and cyan it's hard to tell the difference but however when you take blue and yellow it is not. The white population of London is higher at 54%, I did not equate being white with being british. People don't want to become a minority in their in their homeland wether it be race or nationality. No law will change that.
@Minimmalmythicist First of all 41% of London residents are foreign born. So you are already missing the point when it comes to most of the people that we are talking about just based on easily verifiable evidence. Do the other people identify as English? Did they go to school in England? Do they play cricket? Still knowing the definition of a nation is not arbitrary exclusion. People have identified based on culture and ancestry for millennia because it makes sense. All people have a bias for prefering those who are similar to them. This is observable among migrants and natives. It's a bias that makes sense because it makes life easier for everyone. It's not about being better or worse. People generally like their familiy, their parents, their grandparents. Some will give up the culture and identity of their ancestors but many wont and you can't blame them. They want to be free to live the way they want but other people want to live their way too. People mostly move to other countries for financial opportunities so that they can have more freedom, not because they want to limit their identity and way of life. You simply get problems when you force different people together unnecessarily. Second generation immigrant don't choose to become a minority unlike their parents. They are forced to live estranged from their roots and as a result they are a lot more criminal than their migrant parents who chose being a minority. Identity is a psychological need and lays the foundation for the necessary organization of society. Sovereignty is something that every nation deserves and profits from. Western nations are throwing it away because they don't want to fix their broken system where people no longer get children. A system that needs to be fixed worldwide, not with in the west. The social consequences of the current migrations will last for hundreds if not thousands of years and the positives are gimicks while the negatives are solid statistically observable problems.
If BSW is trying to pull people who might consider AfD over economic disillusionment but not identity politics and culture war, then they should be as harsh as possible on AfD. Any rational person can see AfD for what it is, neo-Nazis hiding in plain sight.
Jk Rowling is a example, she is centre left, and sociallyi liberal, argued gender critical views from a feminist point of view, not biblical, so really a lot of so called social conservatives left, are out and out left wing gender critical left wingers, nor conservatives at all, indeed the insults v them, are they are radical feminists which is not conservative.
The great thing here is, right wing and left wing economics can be debated using facts and historically extrapolation. Austerity vs. Helping workers is way more interesting than modern twitter politics, I find.
Just the way you're phrasing this ("Austerity vs. Helping workers") shows that you don't care much about facts. Because you could also phrase it like ("stop burdening future generations of workers with debt vs. benefiting the current wealthy senior voter base").
@@dalfokane Yep. If we are talking about economic policies I think a broader scale would put State Econony on one end and Private Economy on the other.
I'm very skeptical on any conservative left. Some think the Geert Wilders/PVV is conservative left, because he has leftwing talking points during elections. He's economic right afterwards though.
Yeah, these populist right figures are always considered 'fiscally progressive' economically because they counter one or two neoliberal talking points. When push comes to shove, they always uphold the status quo of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. Case in point the billionaire set to be reinagurated as president...
Conservative-left means basically the same as conservative right, once they are in government nothing gets done except them stuffing their pockets. In Germanys case the leader of BSW Wagenknecht is literally known to not attent parliament meetings and rather eat lobsters with the rich or going to talkshows promoting her book.
I don't know about the whole world, but how I've interpreted this shift in the left is that when the right started to gain popularity with more market-oriented, even neo-liberal politics, the left countered it by pivoting to the identity side of leftism. Now, when neo-liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be, the left is still stuck with its identity/woke politics, and this creates opportunities for both the right and the traditional/conservative left to appeal to those who want more attention paid to ordinary working folk. I remember when this shift happened in Finland-when the left changed course. First, there were countrywide discussions of "has the left lost relevance?" when it seemed the right was on the path to becoming perpetually popular. Shortly after, the left started electing young party leaders, appropriated green values from the Green Party, began pandering to the urban university-educated professional class, and finally became the party (or parties) most known for their woke/identity-driven policies (the Left Alliance more so, the Social Democrats less so, but still in the same boat). This happened because the left felt they were becoming irrelevant, so they removed the working man/woman from being their top priority. Now, when the working man/woman are again the kingmakers, the left is having a hard time appealing to them once more. This is why the right, the nationalists, and the populists are now drawing all the working class into their ranks.
Nobody wants socialist policies if they have any kind of autonomy and are doing alright. The left's policies are for the dependent people who aren't productive and can't support themselves. That's why they lost the working people, and try to create division, resentment, uphold envy as a virtue, and push these identity-politics. There's not much else there. They just need people to need them by creating problems and drumming up confusion. The nationalists seem to be a counter force to this YGL (Young Global Leaders) cast of politicians who are part of the same globalist WEF posse despite belonging to supposedly different parties. Most of politics is just theater. Power is what is always has been: people with leverage saying what's gonna happen.
snygg1993 What the f are you talking about? It's not Stalinism, it's simply Marixsm-Leninism. USSR was fine until Stalin and even then it was not all that bad.
I’m pretty socially progressive but I’m absolutely pining for more parties to just be economically left regardless of their social views (and actually stick to them unlike the National Front or the Finns Party). Actually improving a population’s material conditions is >>>
The Finns were only left because of Soini. It has been economically right since Halla-aho. They literally campaigned on cutting debt and spending here.
@@Pietzu10it’s hilarious that they campaigned themselves as a “non-socialist workers party” then immediately capitulated to centre-right liberalism lmao
"I'm pretty socially progressive but boy does that hitler make the trains run on time. Shame about the jews but *shrug* what can ya do." You people are insane.
You’re naive if you think these economically left and socially conservative parties care about economic inequality. They will always prioritize scapegoating minorities over actually helping anyone.
This is also a phenomenon we have seen across the pond in the US with trumps MAGA movement and before 2016 Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, while not actively conservative on cultural grounds argued the Democratic Party should concentrate on labor needs rather than those cultural identifiers. Trump meanwhile argued for protectionism and big spending, both at odds with traditional GOP orthodoxy before him. This explains somewhat the “Sanders-Trump” voters which were much discussed after the 2016 election, and is credited with Trumps durable support amongst union members, if not leadership.
Don't forget that Trump used to be a Democrat. He only became a Republican because the Democrats weren't aligned with what he wanted to do if he got elected as president. That's why his policies are sometimes very un-Republican. I strongly believe that if the USA had more than two significant parties, he'd have chosen a more left-aligned one than the GOP.
This is the best time to introduce Paternalistic Conservatism to the GOP. It would blend so elegantly with their current politics. "Make the liberal elites pay their fair share". Would be absolutely hilarious
But 2024 MAGA is just Trump's petty obsession with his perceived enemies and straight up Fascism. Trumpism is 100% scapegoating and 0% policy. It's about shows of force and strongman optics
You're giving MAGA too much credit. Both parties in the US, and all 3 dominant factions (assuming Trump is one), only care about Crony Capitalism and Zîønîsm.
This time there is also the marvelous phenomenon of AOC-Trump voters. Those two seem like polar opposites on the surface yet appeal to many of the same (particularly young) people. Very interesting.
The UK Labour party was started as a conservative left wing party, in 1899 Kier Hardie wrote a report recomending a total ban on immigration from countries where the average was lower than the UK to stop employers bringing in cheap labour to under cut British workers.
It was only a matter of time before this occurred. A large portion of the working class has historically not been progressive regarding social issues such as abortion, gay rights, the environment, and human rights. They voted for the left-leaning parties primarily because those parties were the only ones promising them higher wages and social benefits.
I'd agree with most of your point. But the environment is not a social issue. It's very much an economic one. And the opposition to action on climate change is driven by a combination of fossil fuel industries borrowing the tobacco industry's playbook and the true believers in right-wing neoliberal economics who realise that action on climate change requires government intervention in the economy.
@@stephengray1344 I mean, lately we have been (and will continue to be) experiencing the first climate-driven refugees. So it most definitely is also a social issue.
Unlike America and to an extent the United Kingdom, Europe has always been more keen on interventionist policies in the economy. Especially in countries with a lot of small businesses, both the left and right agreed in state intervention. This is one of the reasons why I heavily disagree with the notion of "economically left/right" because almost every right winger I know is very on the "left" in economic policies, with only taxation being a point of contention (but mostly because despite being subject to heavy taxation the public services received in return are terrible)
It's historically due to the risk of invasion from a neighbouring country. If the population was motivated and well-fed, they'd fight for their country, or so the reasoning went. It's no surprise that Bismarck, an arch conservative, was one of the first statesmen to pass laws limiting the work week for 40 hours. And they were right, Russia was ruled by an oppressive Tsarist dictatorship which had a very poor record over labor rights,and as a result they had a communist revolution which led to a civil war and the loss of 1/4th of their territory. By contrast,Britain is protected by the English Channel and America is surrounded on 2 sides by sea and on the other two by militarily weak neighbours. Even so, Britain has come under the risk of invasion,notably in the Blitz,which may be why they have universal single payer healthcare unlike the Americans
The UK and to an extent the US had very interventionist economic policies, strong social welfare and highly subsidized industries during the 1950s-1970s called Keynesian Economics. Hell, Britain was arguably the most Socialist nation in Europe outside of the Eastern Bloc during this period of time and had probably the strongest Trade Union movement in the entire Western World. This philosophy however completely broke down in the 1970s, which was a very miserable decade for both the UK and US - high unemployment, endless strikes, runaway inflation, economic ruin. This led directly to Thatcher and Raegan who invented modern Neo-Liberalism, which is still the dominant economic philosophy in those countries to this day.
@Samwell_2024 yes it's true Britain and the US had a more Interventionist policy in the early-mid 20th century, however in the 800's they were the model of small government economies and it's why the Anglosphere has very strong economically liberal right wing parties or in the case of the US factions within the 2 big parties Now in the case of the US the shift to more interventionist policies can be attributed to immigration from European countries, especially Catholic ones such as Ireland and Italians, while the old school libertarians are more prominent among the old protestant stocks, at least this is the perception I have as an European
It doesn't seem difficult to see why, you could describe much of the pre-60s left as conservative left or visa versa for the right before neo liberalism. Its not a stretch to see people attracted an old but once dominant ideology. Also normal people aren't ideologically consistent
6:42 Sorry, but the 2008 crisis did not lead to Poles losing faith in ‘neoliberalism.’ For many Poles, the real trauma was the economic reforms implemented by Leszek Balcerowicz, the so-called ‘shock therapy,’ which resulted in many people losing their jobs.
As a Hungarian, no People like to call Fidesz “economically left” because they spent a lot of money to win elections, and put price caps on gas and groceries (for a while). However, they also: 1. Introduced flat taxes instead of progressive taxation 2. Lowered corporate tax 3. Deregulated major industries 4. Refused to spend money on universal healthcare, yet supported private hospitals with money 5. Don’t spend any money on education or infrastructure 6. Suppressed labor unions 7. Introduced various anti-worker laws (such as the infamous “slave law” in 2018) The only reason why people call them leftist is because they spend money on useless stuff. However, they don’t spend money on welfare at all, and a bunch of money spent by them actually goes to lowering taxes and supporting corporations.
Fidesz and PiS both spend massive amounts on welfare and redistribution. From 2010 to 2022, PiS essentially bribed rural voters just before elections by increasing payments to rural communities: child subsidies, agricultural subsidies, etc. Fidesz, meanwhile, spends twice as much on child subsidies as on defense and splashes loads of cash out to rural Hungarians.
Yes they did in 2010s, PiS was basically on a crusade against entrepenours creating that one image of them being shady with paying minimal taxes while doing the horrendously corrupted shit with state owned businesses. They were also claiming to lower taxes on everyone while implementing various new taxes that were targetted especially at small and medium business. They can eat shit along other left economic parties that are just as corrupted as American parties.
Well kinda, but not really. I’d say they are just more of a populist party. Riding economical and social issues with brain dead takes, policies and slogans while they enriching themselves. Now that the EU has been cut off the funding, their popularity really fell off even to the point that a new opposition party can challenge them for governance in 2026 after 16 years of ruling.
4:05 PiS has never been liberal on social issues. Since I was a kid, I remmber them being highly conservative, catholic driven party. They banned abortion under any circumstances in 2020, ran a a presidential campaign sparking homophobia etc. Progressive leftists, liberals and even some moderate conservatives in Poland oppose PiS's strict, far-right policies regarding social issues.
The right really does have a brilliant strategy. 1: Talk non-stop about cultural issues (trans stuff and all of the other things they constantly get mad about) 2: Get the media to only cover those stories and not give any air to the main points of the left 3: Convince the people that the left only cares about those issues. It's insane that we all let these people get away with this.
Cope. The left obviously cares about all those things otherwise they wouldn't pass the laws that they are passing. And yes, parties are setting up different interests against each other to get voters. That's a natural consequence of the party system. If you want politicians to focus on popular policies instead of creating their "the best of two evils" bundles you should demand more direct democracy.
more like, the left has a brilliant strategy 1. suppress speech, and get mad whenever a man who calls himself a woman is "discriminated against" 2. the right talks about it 3. convince the people that the right only cares about those issues
Because that's what they're actually doing. Modern socialists would happily be part of the bourgeois. They have no modern points anymore; they'll happily allow a free market if it allowed them to force their pronouns
The problem with this framing, is that these parties are never actually on the left economically, they always vote against it. They're just more traditional conservative parties springing out of former left-wing parties
I don't rly know if their policies are good or bad, but i think its good that more parties exist that are something else between the parties that don't really get anything done (i.e. the ruling parties in germany so far) and the extreme AfD. in the future they will probably take away a lot of votes from both parties - many ppl in germany voted for AfD because they were tired of the current parties not doing anything, but might not really like AfD either
The BSW wants to form a coalition with the CDU, so they have revealed themselves to be a pro-establishment party as well. At least they did that prior to the elections, looking forward to that abomination to fall below the 5% limit
I mean to remember «the road to somewhere» discusses this by extension. A huge portion of the population naturally fall within this distribution, left leaning economically but conservative socially and culturally. Political parties have not catered will to this group previously. Natural to see developments here
Well soviet and eastern bloc countries were socially much to the right of anything we’d see in modern europe. After all, social liberalism is downstream from economic liberalism
They were certainly progressive for their time. The Soviet Union allowed Women to vote from beginning on, criticised the USA for the Ku Klux Klan lynching blacks, and East Germany had no Victimless crimes. The BSW, - like most Realsocialists - are *actually* *tolerant* as opposed to be opressive from the other fringe. They also have a "Live with it" stance on climate change, wich is more based than claiming it doesn't exist. Moralizing like the Alt-Right just angers young voters, who would support you on opposing immigration. Sexual Moral Panics costed PiS the Election and make Trump look like a hypocrite.
@@Ribulose15diphosphat East Germany had no victimless crimes? Anyone who got on the wrong side of the Stasi would beg to differ. And this is the other problem. People are forgetting about the brutal oppression of the Fascists and Communists in the 20th century.
@@Ribulose15diphosphat Basically, in terms of the emancipation of women, the eastern bloc was more advanced but towards the end of the cold war as those countries were not affected by the movements of the new western left they have maintained a social conservatism in the rest of the topics.
I think social liberalism is the result of affluence and being able to be really out there with your ideas and beliefs - and then still surviving. That's why you have the "champaign socialists".
When you start realizing that left-right isn't a straight line but a circle, it becomes easier to understand the revolving doors between the far left and the far right because they sit next to each other.
Sounds reasonable. the EU benefits nobody, it is exploiting productive nations like Germany and making unproductive nations like Poland dependent on foreign aid.
I find it weird how TLDR describes left wing parties focusing on civil liberties, human rights, and accessibility and social mobility as focusing on "identity politics“ or "cultural issues“. This isn’t the US-Democrats we’re talking about.
I've heard the argument that the terms "left" and "right" are irrelevant in political analysis today. I refused to believe that argument, but until hearing Boris Johnson described as left-wing economically in this video, I am starting to think that argument may have a point.
That'd be assuming that the video is _correct_ in calling Boris Johnson "left wing", which isn't the case. Johnson may have dialled back some of the Tories' most extreme thatcherite policies when the situation was really desperate for the lower classes in Britain, but that hardly counts as a turn to the left :P
The more I read/hear/watch about politics and social movements around the Western world, the more I realise there is no political home for me anywhere.....
Yes they do (?) How is being socially conservative and being economically left wing not possible? This is the way things have been for the majority of history. With progressives being individualists and liberals and conservatives being communitarian and left wing. The modern situation in western countries is a historical fluke.
I think we can comfortably drop the "W". Also allegedly she doesn't want to be seen left anymore. So she is just an authoritarian populist claiming to be the only rational player.
We used to have them in Scotland - they were called the SNP. Then Nicola Sturgeon came on and decided that sensible, popular policies weren't her bag, so drove the party into an insane liberal hole whilst also dragging it more economically right.
tbf I'd rather a socially leftist party who is economically on the right than vice versa. Rights and the protection of our planet as a whole should be prioritised above everything else, then we can get to the rest.
@@drunkenhobo5039 It's more so rightists want to deny rights to minorities which would not negatively effect anyone who isn't a homophobic or racist weirdo in any way. The hate for those different to themselves is unfortunately still rather common nowadays, and it's exclusively focused into the right, they find excuses to hate gay people, trans people, black people, neurodivergent people, disabled people and etc but in reality it's just pure unadultered inexcusable hate.
Unfortunately, US Democrats will watch this and say, "ok, we should stay neoliberal and sacrifice the trans community and immigrants" and completely ignore the parts about left economics being a key to success.
left economics being a sucess lol. If you argue this bc of the Nordic countries, they actually are one of the most free markets economies in the world and that's why they are rich.
@@magicjuand you can be neoliberal and oppose unregulated illegal immigration. It was always the case, not opposition to the general immigration but an unregulated one that was responsible for swift socio-economic changes.
@@otaviourso They were free market and thats why they are rich. However the social democratic dream is going to end as competitivness is no longer a strong case for Nordics. That's why Sweden is trying to U-Turn on fracking laws to keep up with growing demand for economic growth so they could at least keep their social democratic model without crashing on debt ceiling.
@@thirdbrother4018 It's true that nordic countries (except Norway) aren't as competitive as before, but if they mantain a strong pro-business policy and a descent fiscal budget, they will continue to be rich. The part about the social democracy is absolutely true, especially with Sweden and it's middle east refugees crisis
because the pro immigration is not part of core left wing ideology and as such has developed in very different circles ( upper classes not working classes)
Honestly, this sounds like a winning formula. Embracing liberal economic policies and socially conservative values will have a much broader appeal to people outside of political enclaves.
@SgtCandy: I assume you mean Otto rather than Gregor Strasser. While Gregor may belong in the upper strata of hell, Otto deserves a place in heaven, though not quite at the top
As a non-Westerner, the Western(West Europe and Anglosphere) definition of left and right is unique, and not the same as the rest of the world, even not the same as the West in the last century. It's something very new and unique but people just take it for granted. Only Westerners use the left vs. right model to understand gender, immigration, foreign relations, and economic issues to that degree.
I think this rise is objectively a good thing for European people of any political belief. More choices, positioned more delicately across various political spectrums, can’t be bad for elections that better represent the people they serve. And frankly, this aligns well with my political worldview of several years now. In this landscape, I too would place myself as conservative center-ish left
they are still often corrupt pro-russian populist parties, which is not a good thing, i hope actual liberal left wing parties wake up and stop diluting their economics with neoliberalism
I would call that line "conservative socialism". The more you are conservative, the more you are on the right, independently of anything else. Right-wing confusionism lures us into thinking that there is some left in right-wing policies. But the truth is that economic issues were the defining attributes of right and left in a specific political context, that might now belong to the past.
Yes at least in my country. They tend to skew (non-US) libertarian where they find it important people can be whomever they can be as long as the taxes are low and business is booming.
In Portugal we have the Liberal Iniative which is an almost libertarian party in its economic proposals, however they also believe one cannot interfere with others freedom, then they usually approve progressive policies like abortion, among others. They kinda messed this up when Trump won the elections and they said it was a defeat of "woke culture", kinda ridiculous and I don't even understand what they wanted to say exactly
I want to note that she is is extremely friendly with the kremlin and has basically blamed Ukraine for the war that Putin started. She also said she'd rather live under the GDR dictatorship than in the FRG. Also she is way to narcissistic to the point where she would rather appear on TV debates than in parliament, making her also a burden on the tax payer who essentially pays an MP who doesn't even bother exercising their mandate. Oh and did I fail to mention that she is one of Germanys MPs with the highest income from their other jobs? Surely I don't have to tell you what that means for how much I think she can be trusted? As a leftist who has had to tolerate her shenanigans (which IMO held back the left) for the last two decades: I absolutely despise her, and doubt you'd be very happy with her for long.
“Conservative left” just ends up devolving into fascism. They end up blaming minorities (the more vulnerable and socially despised, the better) for any financial plights and economic inequality. Instead of actually addressing the issues of economic inequality, the enemy is made out to be trans people or Jews or immigrants, and that somehow brutalizing and demonizing these people will end economic inequality
yeah to be honest, tldr is just playing into right wing cards by not disclaiming this... becuase its a right wing thing to do: lie about their economical strategy...
The Danish social democrats didn't pivot sharply to the right on immigration issues a few years ago. They started becoming aware of the negative consequences of unchecked muslim immigration several decades ago, so this has been a gradual development
The only reason there were refugee crises and, subsequently, an avenue for increased illegal migration, is because of the Libya and Syria wars. And what caused all that? People want to talk about everything besides the elephants in the room.
spill that nonsense somewhere else - the last time the parties you would probably consider left in Poland (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (Democratic Left Alliance) who lost power in 2005) were in power they pursued almost laissez-faire policies - why? - because in reality they were a party protecting the interests of post-communists who appropriated big chunks of the economy in the so-called "transformation of the economy"
I think politicising green policy in the UK is a massive mistake. Pulling down electricity prices is the only short term bullet we have to increase the domestic economy
You could have added PSD in Romania, literally the conservative left, they get along exceptionally well with the Romanian Orthodox Church, even better than the right-wing parties.
I wanted a term to explain my political views, and tbh this is the closest thing I could compare to my own views. Liberal on most economic issues, conservative on most social issues.
Really if Europe just stayed out of the Islamic World, then Muslims could stay out of Europe. But this reality where Europe is heavily involved in the Muslim world and in denial, is just mental illness
This is why politics should be viewed in more of a 3d view, cause left and right socially and economically are very different and hold no bearing on each other
2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3
6:47 Actually, liberalism was not discredited in Poland During the 2008 financial crisis - it was discredited in the 90's during the economic downturn after communism. People voted for the former Communists and Aleksander Kwaśniewski - the Leftwing President was elected with huge margin of votes. Left only lost because of corruption scandal, and rampant crime, which is why Law and Justice was elected - They won the first time because people wanted to get rid of crime and corruption. Later when Civic Platform took power, corruption had risen, but crime overall did lower, but people did get poorer and Civic Platform lost. But Civic Platform was a Centrist party. Again, the main reason they lost was corruption. 2008 financial crisis actually made Civic Platform win their second election, because Poland got thru it with little economic loss, and it was praised as the success of theirs (I believe they actually got more votes in second term). It lost later because economic situation did not improve, and because of what happened in Ukraine during their tenure, as well as many other things that happened during their tenure. Financial Crisis of 2008 did not actually influence Polish elections much - in fact it allowed the Civic Platform to continue their rule.
In the 2023 elections in The Netherlands, the media touted that the right had won with Geert Wilders PVV getting a lot of seats. However, if you take the classification of the Kieskompas of parties as left-right (economic) and progressive-conservative (social), what actually happened is that the average vote became a little more left and a lot more conservative. Mainly due to the decline of more economically right parties.
No, it’s multidimensional, and the dimensions correlate in weird ways sometimes. You can be opposed on one axis and aligned on another, but it’s bad to think they are the same.
Also the Romanian PSD it's the definition of the conservative left. Economically they are left and socially they are as conservative as you get, against LGBT community, against civil unions, pro religion, etc.
@@starman1144 North Macedonia , South Yugoslavia, Western Balkans, Eastern Culture...Whatever dude I see just from one sentence you are nicely propagated by the propaganda
I need to clarify for France because something wrong has been said. You need to really dig in their behavior before wrongly labeling them as "Conservative Left". "Rassemblement National" (National Rally) is *NOT* a conservative left party. Not only their parliament votes in France and Europe translates to a right-wing economy, but they also don't try to hide this to their voters anymore; for example, they had all the pain in the world to vote with the left coalition (New Popular Front, Nouveau Front Populaire) about abrogating the unpopular pension reform, and they voted *against* it many times in commission, invoking absurd reasons as explanations. Now that they have risen enough support based on racism, xenophobia and hatred of gender minorities, they don't care about the left-looking economic views. If BSW in Germany could be qualified as Conservative Left (as a matter of fact, based on what you describe), the truth is it doesn't apply to France. Conservative Left is not a thing. The left-wing coalitions have proven to be way more left-wing economically AND have tried to push further on this direction, but the National Rally has failed to... well... rally on this question and have recently voted against an economical budget in France which would have led to really redistribute the wealth. And to be clear, I'm not pretending to say who has the truth about the economics in the country, but for sure, the National Rally left-wing economics are just a fog screen they used when they couldn't rely on simple hatred of others. In reality, when you scan the votes, they're totally on the right wing, including the economics. And the French voters, who turn to the National Rally for this fog screen begin to realize it and the elected deputes begin to be fed up to be seen as the current government auxiliaries.
OF COURSE the National Rally is right wing. They're not even right wing wing, they're far right wing. Just take a look at their group at the European parliament, look at the other parties they're together with. Anyone saying they're left is hopelessly politically gaslighted.
Essentially fascists. Lot of bullshit about "fighting for the worker" blahblah, but when push comes to shove, they always side with the capital against the worker. Historically, fascism was the answer for the growing left sentiment, capital would rather lose rights and have dictatorship than lose power and money.
I understand that Sahra Wagenknecht has defined her new party as "conservative" but I take issue with it being labeled "right wing" on social matters. Even her labeling of the party as "conservative" is, I think, mainly just based on the extremely distorted definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that have taken hold especially in the past 10 years. She's working together with Alice Schwarzer on some campaigns; the most famous feminist icon of Germany who worked with radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin in the past. Just how "conservative" can Sahra Wagenknecht really be, when working with the most prominent feminist of the country with ties to radical feminism? Is feminism "conservative" now? I'm not saying any of this as a critique by the way, but rather as a defense. I still consider myself very liberal, broadly speaking, but find Sahra Wagenknecht to be much more sensible than the "woke" lefty types, for lack of a better term. I think so-called "wokism" is essentially a perversion of liberalism, and why some genuine liberals are now using the "conservative" label for themselves after all.
In an ideal world it should not be controversial to use the words Nationalist and Socialist together. But unfortunately the use of these words by a certain Austrian painter in the first half of the 20th century means they are now so tainted that they can never really be used together again.
x_aquatix_x Stop saying things you don't know. Not all social nationalists are Nazbols. Nazbols are specifically people who wish to synthesize Italian Fascism with Stalinist USSR (Bolshevism). These people are just socialist conservatives.
Great, I actually consider myself exactly that - conservative left. I am very much against big business, and pro social reforms, and minimum wage. I am against immigration, and I think governments should focus on making most of the native population for work. I'm glad that conservative left is on the rise, and can prevent fascist parties like the AfD from taking over votes of regular poor people.
Where is the line of calling the AfD fascist, but not the conservative left when they share blaming immigrants for their problems. The blaming of an out-group for the in-group’s socioeconomic status is a core tenant of fascism
@@UGMD because blaming immigrants is not what constitutes a fascist. On their secret meetings AfD were saying very racist things, and conspiring to deport large amounts of "undesirable" population. That's why I call them that. Stopping immigration in favour of investing in the local population is VERY much needed across Europe. Currently large European companies prefer to allow cheap low skilled migration to lower their costs, while forgetting about the local population and adjusting themselves to the locals. This is unacceptable. That's why Europeans all across the continent are saying: not a single migrant more. They have a point. We must invest to increase birthrates, and not just sweep the demographic problem with importing people who will never assimilate into our societies.
@@WorthlessWinner they seem to attract the more toxic sides of the ideology. Moreover, it's important to distinguish between national socialism (left wing socialism), and national populism - which the NSDAP also was. AfD just brings bad vibes to me, especially that I'm from Poland.
@@MiSt3300 Is the PIS ok? they did oversee large improvement but i'm not quite sure, at least both of your major parties are anti migration (complete opposite in both countries I live in)
Maybe its also because the traditional "left right" spectrum falls appart in countries with more than 2 large parties.
The french national assembly of the first bourgeois french revolution, where the terms left-wing and right-wing originate, had various factions in each of the wings.
Most democratic countries have more than 2 large parties. Heck even North Korea has 3 large parties
@@dalfokaneWhat's ironic is that despite the left being today associated with state intervention and regulations, back then during the French revolution the left wanted laissez-faire economic policies while the right wing was supportive of regulations and tariffs
"Economically left/right" is complete bollocks because in the end both left and right will just follow the economic policies they see more fit to achieve their goals
@@dalfokane in those times it was the radical anti-authority vs the establishment monarchists, whereas government these days has pretty much leveled out on the "anarchy-authority" dichotomy. And since the 80s both sides (in the west) have mostly gravitated towards neoliberalism (yuck) which is why faith in democracy is declining
Left-right still works no matter the political organization. "Conservative left" is basically conservatives. Left wing is left wing. Right wing is right wing.
Boris Johnson wasn't left leaning economically. "Levelling up" wasn't a policy, just a marketing campaign. He didn't redistribute wealth.
Levelling up wasn't about redistributing wealth
my thoughts exactly, thought it was bizarre mentioning Boris as an example for this lol
There's a reason It was a marketing gimmick. People want regional economic redistribution and development.
Being “left” doesn’t mean redistribution. I don’t know why people seem to think this. He was defiantly a centrist but even so he was incredibly pro almost all of our social policies
@@AF2277S Being left is being socialist. You may be thinking of liberal, not left.
Me being from a post-communist country ''Conservative Left'' seems very normal to me. Its basically a softer version of Soviet Leftism; which I believe is very different from Western Liberal Leftism.
It is. Try telling americans you're a leftist while disagreeing with them. Have fun watching them melt down
As a Post-Soviet Communist, yes, Marxism-Leninism is extremely different from the "Progressive" "Left".
I much prefer Progressive-Right than conservative-left
@@dnhn.design so Right economics and progressive culturally? hmmm why can't we have both? i mean, economics are so wide that there is a room for social approach for example in housing, as well as for classical liberal/marker approach - in taxies for example. same with cultural. there is always space to be conservative for example when it comes to fertility rates crisis and to be progressive in gay rights for example. But that would mean you can't rule by dividing people over simple things.
Here in romania (and much of Eastern Europe), the conservative left has been around for decades by this point. Its not a new phenomenon
the same in Latin America.
Basically the old communist governments were this. Altough they usually pretended they're not. So people are used to this kind of vocabulary.
Yes, communists originally were pretty conservative (at least by today's standards) and that side of politics never really disappeared.
And if you watched the video you would've known it was mentioned, or we can all continue reading headlines and basing our knowledge on that.
the conservative "left" is hardly left here unless you consider crushing teachers' unions a left-wing policy. the most left-wing thing they've done so far is raise the minimum wage by a net amount of ~15 euros (i am not kidding). they're making more promises but for now they're not really leftists, they're just "left" because they're the former communist party, but ""reformed""
I think the appeal of left-conservatism is partly due to a reverse post-materialism growing in Europe. That is, working class people are less interested in highminded progressivism when their basic sense of security and stability is under attack for several reasons.
Social progressivism only works when the basic human needs are already stable.
But it's very easy to disguise Fascism as "left conservatism", just look for the scapegoating, most of em are scapegoating minorities even when they pretend not to. Easy way to tell, look at their position on immigrants, being against illegal migration and regulating the amount of overall immigrants are mainstream positions, if they're pushing for removing legal immigrants who are not criminals especially when they're of certain ethnic groups, that's when they're Fascists pretending to be "left conservative"
absolutely correct facts bro
European left went too neoliberal economically (and seems like many still haven't learned the message)
also right wing figures have used progressive politics as scapegoat for problems rather than actually addressing them, people are now more progressive than ever but are increasingly manipulated against policies they agree with
@@Kubamorlo Please explain. How have progressive policies become a scapegoat?
It's weird to me that immigration and ecology are considered social issues. Both of those things are highly intertwined with economics.
Yes. We are custodians of our planet, but not of refugees
Yeah this is a joke. Shows a lack of understanding about why the left has a focus on social issues and its impact on economic issues.
Immigration is terrible for welfare states
@@chameleon28 A moot point really. When the comfort and wealth lived by most Europeans is off the backs, of the exploited global south.
@ you mean trade? Like every other country? Like the UAE, East Asia etc does? Why are we the ones expected to take immigrants who contribute nothing to us?
Boris Johnson did indeed go left economically and right on social issues and then proceeded to do the opposite once in government.
By 'opposite' are you saying he went left on social issues? Because that just doesn't sound right.
Yeah tldr seems to really have a boner for the right
Like kamala ran a right wing bid for the American presidency even by American standards but she was pained as a commie practically. And remember American politics is a solid 2 decades and schews conservative behind Europe so right wing of right wing of right wing of liberal
@@olive-robin what social issues did he go right on?
@@olive-robinwell I mean he basically folded like a piece of paper on trans stuff for example
@@SDDT1 Yet he imports immigrants, doesn't punish criminals infact he releases them from prison and puts political opponents and critics in prison
Well, the RN is economically "left" in its political communication only. Once in parliament, the furthest left they went was to oppose the pension reform ...
Same with the PVV in the Netherlands. They pretend to have some leftwing economic views, though they never would call it that way because "left" is the enemy for them. But once elected their economic policies go to the far right. They're just grifters.
Oui, dans leur graphique d'ailleurs le RN est classé au centre économiquement
Please shut up, France is a socialist country so even the fact of being neutral like Macron already makes you a socialist, back to school boy
@@baptiste7653mais c'est faux, dans tous ces votes ils ont clairement indique quils disent etre de gauche et ils votent a droite
I'm a leftist. Even far-left. But I must say, the French left is du mb as heck.
In Britain, this is basically One Nation conservatism as conceptualized by Disraeli. The Tory party has consistently been caught between this model and the more Thatcherite free market libertarian model.
@Minimmalmythicist please its not dead just as non Reaganomics republicans it isn't dead in America. The thing is after the party take overs the middle management are filtering them out.
Nah one nation conservatism is centre.
These people actually support socialism but also traditional values ie. importance of family, christian values, tighter border controls. So basically all those, but also supporting extensive welfare, predistribution and regulated economy.
There's not really anything equivalent in the UK. Tories are socially centrist and economically VERY much only there for the billionaire class (Baedenoch may push them heavily into culture war, which would render Reform redundant). Reform is basically Tories, but with 1000% more culture war. Labour is the traditional centre-left, they might be able to adopt "left conservatism" since Starmer has heavily scaled back the identity politics (to the dismay of the Corbyn faction). Lib Dem is just Tories but 100% ignore social issues.
@@mrvwbug4423there is galloways party, and the blue labour faction, though neither are all that relevant.
@mrvwbug4423 Not exactly.
Mainstream conservatives are more for small businesses and middle (upper middle) class, and their tax regimes has been quite moderate over the years. If you see carefully, that's what the democrats are doing as well. It's just that the tories are more socially conservative (at least post Cameron and May) than the democrats
Le Pen isn't left wing economically she is a super libertarian, the national rally only talks about protecting the workers right but when it comes to vote they always vote in favour of a more free market.
just like the original fascists...
France is so heavily taxed and has so much redistribution that only wanting to make it a little bit less left-wing economically is… still left-wing.
It's closer to nazbol than anything
@@loubaxo9339 you dont know what fascism is then. Modern fascist economy is for example china. Where is free market and capitalism but with state control when needed.
@tadeassopek1663 what is China doing that is fascist. You're literally doing the "fascism is something I don't like" meme
Paternal Conservativism was a pretty popular ideology back then in Europe during the late 1800s after the industrial revolution and the rise of wealth inequality, it's no surprise that it's making a come back with similar economic disparity.
Someone like Otto von Bismarck would be one due to his conservative social views and pretty left wing economic policies at the time like social welfare.
@@coconut7490 Based
How?? That man absolutely hated communists and people striking/protesting for worker's rights.
@@manvelmsurian9712which is why he instituted said social welfare policies, to undermine socialistic political movements.
We need to bring Bismarck back.
It never left Poland, though it walked hand in hand with Christian (Catholic) socialism
Asian Socialism has been like this for decades, especially China, Vietnam and Singapore.
But the only common thread between those 3 is the authoritarianism. China is functionally Fascist. Vietnam is basically communism tailored to the modern economy. Singapore is extreme paternalism but without the corruption endemic to most authoritarian regimes.
@@mrvwbug4423 why is Vietnam considered "communism tailored to the modern economy" but not China? what's the difference with fascism then?
@@nerd2544china calls themselves both nationalist and socialist, vietnam doesn't
@@skinwalker69420 my brother in christ vietnam is a softcore ethnostate (even more than China) and national liberation against invaders all throughout history is their nation's story.
and where do you see that one calls itself nat and soc but not the other?
@@nerd2544China literally is a big bully to it's neighbours. Viet Nam is chill.
This is the logical outcome of decades of neoliberal hegemony. Since neoliberalism considers any state intervention on the market as inherently bad, the only type of leftism allowed under it is on social and cultural issues - which means that those who don't consider themselves to be economically well-off but also don't see themselves as beneficaries of socio-cultural leftism don't see their issues politically reflected. This segment has, by now, grown to become politically significant, so of course anyone willing to appeal to that segment can derive some serious political gains from that.
so national socialism with inorganic change of culture because ppl have neither studied german nor russian political theory of the last 100 years? that is a very sad state of things then
@@cwpv2477 Yes, national socialism is a pretty good way to call it.
You're not seriously thinking people are going not to vote for those who talk about their everyday issues just because you're having an issue with a name Hitler chose for his party 100 years ago to undermine communists, are you?
This comment needs _all_ the upvotes. The Left decided to focus their efforts on cultural issues (feminism, lgbt rights) as a way to "pick their battles" at a time where it seemed futile to oppose neoliberalism on the economic front. But you can only neglect the economic front for so long before the working classes realize that you just _aren't doing your job._
@@yarpen26 u do understand many things not very well. Stalin was a national socialist. hitler was. mao was. you are just n insane person bro im sorry but I hope you study history a bit.
Neoliberalism is quite literally the opposite of what you describe.
That seems like what Alaskans are doing right now: voting for Republican, but voting for more powers on union workers.
Not really, they're also way more socially progressive as well, legal weed, abortion rights, I think they mainly vote republican for small government and protecting gun rights
Which they can afford due to economic imperialism and oil money
So they're libertarian; but few people realise or like to admit that unions are a free market capitalist mechanism. I'm a centrist but if libertarians embraced unions I'd be all for it
@@dalfokaneyes and?
@@aceman0000099yes but private sector unions only. Public sector unions are contrary to basic common sense.
the thumbnail is wrong, authoritarian left is the complete opposite of conservative
and economically left but socially and culturally conservative is still conservative
I do think that this "conservative left" parties have become so big due to one major flaw in the "progressive left" parties in the 21st century.
The left used to be there for the worker. Dubbeling down on workers rights, good wages and taxation of the extremely rich. This attracted a lot of labourers, (its kinda in the name of a lot of old left parties) they where there by the labours for the labours.
The last decades has seen a big shift on the left to focus more and more on the green and progressive social issues. While I myself agree that it is important, it took way too much the front stage. In the end the average labourer cares about being able to afford a meatball on there plate after a day of hard work and not if they take out a coffie if they should have it with oatmilk and have to say they/them to their barista.
I think that if the progressive left wants to grow again they should start to focus on the economic side first again. Climate and the left social issues can still play a rol. And having one party focusing on them is good I think. But for the majority of the left, I think they should sideline it a bit and just work on it more in the background. I think it would also help against the current polarization.
Edit: some spelling corrections and last sentence
❤❤ it is time to change for the better for the general population of hard working and honest people. We have enough of so called social/green parties which support wars while cutting spendings on education, hospitals, pensions, and making in the name of green/left politics everything more expensive like food, housing and transportation. That is not left politics, it is ignorant, snobbish and elitist.
Because they were just liberals, who hated their more extreme side and ignored it, blame their failours on it, or suppress it.
I totally agree with that. Another important thing is the fact that average worker /labourer is conservative /patriotic /traditionalist on social stance
You see it in US politics as well, there’s huge focus on culture war issues to distract people from the lack of any real ideas on how to address the economic issues faced by lots of working class people.
@@cm275 Yeah, and that makes the whole system fail, when, in essence, neither side has good policies.
2024's US election was two bumbling idiots, one two steps away from saying that we should have joined the axis in WW2, getting decided via coin flip, because both of their policies, to the average voter, are exactly the same. One was just slightly more socially progressive (AKA, status quo).
We now have a rampant dictator as a president. One that is also, pardon my French, a complete. Fucking. Dumbass.
That statistic of the US being the only one to have major parties that deny climate change is starting to become more and more of a bitch.
The right left scale has never worked so I stopped relying on it over a decade ago
Wdym ? On its own of course it doesn’t work but if you combine it with other scales its better. Political compass is not perfect but still is good. But the more scales the better
It works if you understand the words. The right wants hierarchy and the left doesn't. The foundation is the french revolution
Based
Well it's only a model but usually it is useful. If you consider the compass, that is actually even more useful.
@@uwayn9829 If you add more scales then it's no longer a left-right scale
As a conservative left American, I wish we had more than 2 parties so we could get in on the action
I'm not and I wish we could get in on the action too because I'm pretty sure this is what most Americans want
This is why America needs more political parties. It’s better to have a coalition government than having 2 diametrically opposed parties that will change policies in 180 whomever goes into power.
America has plenty of political parties. But small parties don't succeed in majoritarian electoral systems.
@ No that’s not true at all some states and even most states downright blocked them from the ballot. I get it the Greens in the US under Jill Stein are just terrible and I really don’t like her stance especially when she’s doing the bidding of Russia, China and The Muslim World. But other parties would have been a viable option like the Forward Party led by Andrew Yang that’s filled with technocrats.
@@concernedcitizens4110 "It’s better to have a coalition government than having 2 diametrically opposed parties that will change policies in 180 whomever goes into power."
Having more parties *may* help with that but it's not a given. Sometimes, what happens is that the parties just arrange themselves into 2 coalitions that similarly take turns in being in power.
"diametrically opposed" on only the current trending news topics, but very much aligned on the military budget, corporate lobbying, Israel, and anything that has no positive impact on the general public.
@@concernedcitizens4110there's absolutely no chance for a 3rd party to get even 5% of the vote, and if you know Andrew Yang then you know how important ranked choice voting is to his party
Should be noted that the BSW seems to already be collapsing again. Many don't like they either are not able to enter coalition talks in Saxony or are too harsh on the AfD. It also seems like Wagenknecht personally sabotaged coalition talks against her own state party. Wagenknecht is also a common guest in a variety of establishment talkshows over the years, boosting her name.
Many voters of left-conservative parties in the west grow dissolusioned and disappointed quickly once their parties enter government. Doesn't help that I am not aware of any conservative-left party that did not end up having a massive corruption scandal.
Also Fizos Smer-SD and the Romanian PS have conservative essentially since inception. I also wouldn't call the Danish Social Democrats conservative for being harder on immigration, which is just one issue. If anything you could argue this lead to the rise of the Danish left with the Socialist People's Party now on a historic 15-17% (they won the EU election against them) and Enhedslisten on 6-8% with the Green-Left "The Alternative" also above the 2% Threshold.
Other conservative parties may campaign on leftist issues but don't seem to focus on them. The Dutch PVV was big on supporting building houses in the campaign to solve the housing crisis but it was one of the first things they dropped when entering coalition talks.
" It also seems like Wagenknecht personally sabotaged coalition talks against her own state party." That's correct. Wagenknecht demanded, that any political party has to vote against supplying ukraine with weapons on a federal level, if the want the BSW to join a coalition in a german state. Her opponents call her "Zarenknecht" (Tzar's servant) for her pro-Putin-positions.
@Minimmalmythicist The left to right spectrum is not clearly defined. There is no logic behind it besides what has historically been the case. Nationalism, workers right, nuclear power, immigration, it's all just put on the left to right spectrum based on what position the parties in parlament have held and it will differ from country to country.
Being against immigration is 100% conservative. Progressives don't want to change everything though and Conservatives don't want to keep everything the way it is. I am very much a nationalist and I don't see how wanting to keep the sovereignty of your people conflicts with fighting wealth inequality. Good thing for the left that they are no longer selling out their people for migrant voters. I'd like to take this opportunity to greet the remaining 36% of people living in London that are british.
@Minimmalmythicist You are confusing nationality with citizenship. Citizenship is a legal term, nationality is not. "Nation" comes from a latin word for birth and means:
"a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language"
Coming to New Zealand doesn't make you a Maori and coming to England doesn't make you English.
Races do exist on a spectrum like colors. There are no clear borders, no pure races. When you take blue and cyan it's hard to tell the difference but however when you take blue and yellow it is not. The white population of London is higher at 54%, I did not equate being white with being british.
People don't want to become a minority in their in their homeland wether it be race or nationality. No law will change that.
@Minimmalmythicist First of all 41% of London residents are foreign born. So you are already missing the point when it comes to most of the people that we are talking about just based on easily verifiable evidence. Do the other people identify as English? Did they go to school in England? Do they play cricket?
Still knowing the definition of a nation is not arbitrary exclusion. People have identified based on culture and ancestry for millennia because it makes sense. All people have a bias for prefering those who are similar to them. This is observable among migrants and natives. It's a bias that makes sense because it makes life easier for everyone. It's not about being better or worse.
People generally like their familiy, their parents, their grandparents. Some will give up the culture and identity of their ancestors but many wont and you can't blame them. They want to be free to live the way they want but other people want to live their way too. People mostly move to other countries for financial opportunities so that they can have more freedom, not because they want to limit their identity and way of life. You simply get problems when you force different people together unnecessarily. Second generation immigrant don't choose to become a minority unlike their parents. They are forced to live estranged from their roots and as a result they are a lot more criminal than their migrant parents who chose being a minority. Identity is a psychological need and lays the foundation for the necessary organization of society. Sovereignty is something that every nation deserves and profits from. Western nations are throwing it away because they don't want to fix their broken system where people no longer get children. A system that needs to be fixed worldwide, not with in the west.
The social consequences of the current migrations will last for hundreds if not thousands of years and the positives are gimicks while the negatives are solid statistically observable problems.
If BSW is trying to pull people who might consider AfD over economic disillusionment but not identity politics and culture war, then they should be as harsh as possible on AfD. Any rational person can see AfD for what it is, neo-Nazis hiding in plain sight.
If you are still using left and right to talk about politics, you aren't talking about politics. You are talking about history.
Jk Rowling is a example, she is centre left, and sociallyi liberal, argued gender critical views from a feminist point of view, not biblical, so really a lot of so called social conservatives left, are out and out left wing gender critical left wingers, nor conservatives at all, indeed the insults v them, are they are radical feminists which is not conservative.
@lewissmith350 it really is amazing to me how our political language hasn't evolved to describe the more complex reality.
The great thing here is, right wing and left wing economics can be debated using facts and historically extrapolation. Austerity vs. Helping workers is way more interesting than modern twitter politics, I find.
Well said
Just the way you're phrasing this ("Austerity vs. Helping workers") shows that you don't care much about facts. Because you could also phrase it like ("stop burdening future generations of workers with debt vs. benefiting the current wealthy senior voter base").
Austerity and "Helping workers" are both things which you would only discuss in a capitalist framework i.e. right-wing.
@@dalfokane Yep. If we are talking about economic policies I think a broader scale would put State Econony on one end and Private Economy on the other.
@@olska9498 i dropped out of economics in high school, dont take me seriously :p
I'm very skeptical on any conservative left. Some think the Geert Wilders/PVV is conservative left, because he has leftwing talking points during elections. He's economic right afterwards though.
Yeah, these populist right figures are always considered 'fiscally progressive' economically because they counter one or two neoliberal talking points. When push comes to shove, they always uphold the status quo of deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. Case in point the billionaire set to be reinagurated as president...
Trump and Boris did likewise. Some "left wingers who act socially conservative" dropped the social conservatism when they won too.
Conservative-left means basically the same as conservative right, once they are in government nothing gets done except them stuffing their pockets. In Germanys case the leader of BSW Wagenknecht is literally known to not attent parliament meetings and rather eat lobsters with the rich or going to talkshows promoting her book.
I don't know about the whole world, but how I've interpreted this shift in the left is that when the right started to gain popularity with more market-oriented, even neo-liberal politics, the left countered it by pivoting to the identity side of leftism.
Now, when neo-liberalism isn't as popular as it used to be, the left is still stuck with its identity/woke politics, and this creates opportunities for both the right and the traditional/conservative left to appeal to those who want more attention paid to ordinary working folk.
I remember when this shift happened in Finland-when the left changed course. First, there were countrywide discussions of "has the left lost relevance?" when it seemed the right was on the path to becoming perpetually popular. Shortly after, the left started electing young party leaders, appropriated green values from the Green Party, began pandering to the urban university-educated professional class, and finally became the party (or parties) most known for their woke/identity-driven policies (the Left Alliance more so, the Social Democrats less so, but still in the same boat).
This happened because the left felt they were becoming irrelevant, so they removed the working man/woman from being their top priority. Now, when the working man/woman are again the kingmakers, the left is having a hard time appealing to them once more. This is why the right, the nationalists, and the populists are now drawing all the working class into their ranks.
Nobody wants socialist policies if they have any kind of autonomy and are doing alright. The left's policies are for the dependent people who aren't productive and can't support themselves. That's why they lost the working people, and try to create division, resentment, uphold envy as a virtue, and push these identity-politics. There's not much else there. They just need people to need them by creating problems and drumming up confusion.
The nationalists seem to be a counter force to this YGL (Young Global Leaders) cast of politicians who are part of the same globalist WEF posse despite belonging to supposedly different parties. Most of politics is just theater. Power is what is always has been: people with leverage saying what's gonna happen.
So you finally have eastern European type left in the rest of Europe.
Yes, Stalinism spread, and its a bad thing, don't you remember the USSR?
@@snygg1993the Russians seem to remember it fondly.
snygg1993 What the f are you talking about? It's not Stalinism, it's simply Marixsm-Leninism. USSR was fine until Stalin and even then it was not all that bad.
BSW as a party centered on East Germany is actually part of the trends of Eastern Europe
@@EmperadordeIberia
BSW is very, very eastern Europe "inspired".
I’m pretty socially progressive but I’m absolutely pining for more parties to just be economically left regardless of their social views (and actually stick to them unlike the National Front or the Finns Party). Actually improving a population’s material conditions is >>>
The Finns were only left because of Soini. It has been economically right since Halla-aho. They literally campaigned on cutting debt and spending here.
@@Pietzu10it’s hilarious that they campaigned themselves as a “non-socialist workers party” then immediately capitulated to centre-right liberalism lmao
"I'm pretty socially progressive but boy does that hitler make the trains run on time. Shame about the jews but *shrug* what can ya do."
You people are insane.
You’re naive if you think these economically left and socially conservative parties care about economic inequality. They will always prioritize scapegoating minorities over actually helping anyone.
@@ambermetal195 comparing social conservatives to Hitler is insane.
*Top-right quadrant:* "authoritarian right"
*Top-left quadrant:* "cOnSerVAtivE LeFt"
Yeah because are leftists are authoritarian or totalitarian. They want to take other people's money and property.
Both would be accurate descriptors.
@@liamcdm3689no? Going up is authoritarian, going right is conservatism. If anything it's centrist.
This is also a phenomenon we have seen across the pond in the US with trumps MAGA movement and before 2016 Bernie Sanders. Senator Sanders, while not actively conservative on cultural grounds argued the Democratic Party should concentrate on labor needs rather than those cultural identifiers. Trump meanwhile argued for protectionism and big spending, both at odds with traditional GOP orthodoxy before him. This explains somewhat the “Sanders-Trump” voters which were much discussed after the 2016 election, and is credited with Trumps durable support amongst union members, if not leadership.
Don't forget that Trump used to be a Democrat. He only became a Republican because the Democrats weren't aligned with what he wanted to do if he got elected as president. That's why his policies are sometimes very un-Republican. I strongly believe that if the USA had more than two significant parties, he'd have chosen a more left-aligned one than the GOP.
This is the best time to introduce Paternalistic Conservatism to the GOP. It would blend so elegantly with their current politics. "Make the liberal elites pay their fair share". Would be absolutely hilarious
But 2024 MAGA is just Trump's petty obsession with his perceived enemies and straight up Fascism. Trumpism is 100% scapegoating and 0% policy. It's about shows of force and strongman optics
You're giving MAGA too much credit. Both parties in the US, and all 3 dominant factions (assuming Trump is one), only care about Crony Capitalism and Zîønîsm.
This time there is also the marvelous phenomenon of AOC-Trump voters. Those two seem like polar opposites on the surface yet appeal to many of the same (particularly young) people. Very interesting.
The UK Labour party was started as a conservative left wing party, in 1899 Kier Hardie wrote a report recomending a total ban on immigration from countries where the average was lower than the UK to stop employers bringing in cheap labour to under cut British workers.
It was only a matter of time before this occurred. A large portion of the working class has historically not been progressive regarding social issues such as abortion, gay rights, the environment, and human rights. They voted for the left-leaning parties primarily because those parties were the only ones promising them higher wages and social benefits.
Is that the only thing that matters to voters? Do they just quantify which political party they can personally benefit from the most?
Yes, but most not out of greed, but necessity @@Intrspace
I'd agree with most of your point. But the environment is not a social issue. It's very much an economic one. And the opposition to action on climate change is driven by a combination of fossil fuel industries borrowing the tobacco industry's playbook and the true believers in right-wing neoliberal economics who realise that action on climate change requires government intervention in the economy.
@@stephengray1344 I mean, lately we have been (and will continue to be) experiencing the first climate-driven refugees. So it most definitely is also a social issue.
@@stephengray1344 I do believe you are right when pointing out it´s a major economic issue though
Unlike America and to an extent the United Kingdom, Europe has always been more keen on interventionist policies in the economy. Especially in countries with a lot of small businesses, both the left and right agreed in state intervention.
This is one of the reasons why I heavily disagree with the notion of "economically left/right" because almost every right winger I know is very on the "left" in economic policies, with only taxation being a point of contention (but mostly because despite being subject to heavy taxation the public services received in return are terrible)
It's historically due to the risk of invasion from a neighbouring country. If the population was motivated and well-fed, they'd fight for their country, or so the reasoning went. It's no surprise that Bismarck, an arch conservative, was one of the first statesmen to pass laws limiting the work week for 40 hours. And they were right, Russia was ruled by an oppressive Tsarist dictatorship which had a very poor record over labor rights,and as a result they had a communist revolution which led to a civil war and the loss of 1/4th of their territory. By contrast,Britain is protected by the English Channel and America is surrounded on 2 sides by sea and on the other two by militarily weak neighbours. Even so, Britain has come under the risk of invasion,notably in the Blitz,which may be why they have universal single payer healthcare unlike the Americans
The UK and to an extent the US had very interventionist economic policies, strong social welfare and highly subsidized industries during the 1950s-1970s called Keynesian Economics. Hell, Britain was arguably the most Socialist nation in Europe outside of the Eastern Bloc during this period of time and had probably the strongest Trade Union movement in the entire Western World.
This philosophy however completely broke down in the 1970s, which was a very miserable decade for both the UK and US - high unemployment, endless strikes, runaway inflation, economic ruin. This led directly to Thatcher and Raegan who invented modern Neo-Liberalism, which is still the dominant economic philosophy in those countries to this day.
@Samwell_2024 yes it's true Britain and the US had a more Interventionist policy in the early-mid 20th century, however in the 800's they were the model of small government economies and it's why the Anglosphere has very strong economically liberal right wing parties or in the case of the US factions within the 2 big parties
Now in the case of the US the shift to more interventionist policies can be attributed to immigration from European countries, especially Catholic ones such as Ireland and Italians, while the old school libertarians are more prominent among the old protestant stocks, at least this is the perception I have as an European
It doesn't seem difficult to see why, you could describe much of the pre-60s left as conservative left or visa versa for the right before neo liberalism. Its not a stretch to see people attracted an old but once dominant ideology. Also normal people aren't ideologically consistent
Well said
They arent attracted to anything except migration politics, because someone told them all problems go away, once the foreign workers are all gone.
6:42 Sorry, but the 2008 crisis did not lead to Poles losing faith in ‘neoliberalism.’ For many Poles, the real trauma was the economic reforms implemented by Leszek Balcerowicz, the so-called ‘shock therapy,’ which resulted in many people losing their jobs.
"in the case of Fidesz and Law and Justice, shifted to the left on economic issues in the 2000s and 2010s"
They did?
As a Hungarian, no
People like to call Fidesz “economically left” because they spent a lot of money to win elections, and put price caps on gas and groceries (for a while). However, they also:
1. Introduced flat taxes instead of progressive taxation
2. Lowered corporate tax
3. Deregulated major industries
4. Refused to spend money on universal healthcare, yet supported private hospitals with money
5. Don’t spend any money on education or infrastructure
6. Suppressed labor unions
7. Introduced various anti-worker laws (such as the infamous “slave law” in 2018)
The only reason why people call them leftist is because they spend money on useless stuff. However, they don’t spend money on welfare at all, and a bunch of money spent by them actually goes to lowering taxes and supporting corporations.
Fidesz and PiS both spend massive amounts on welfare and redistribution. From 2010 to 2022, PiS essentially bribed rural voters just before elections by increasing payments to rural communities: child subsidies, agricultural subsidies, etc. Fidesz, meanwhile, spends twice as much on child subsidies as on defense and splashes loads of cash out to rural Hungarians.
Yes they did in 2010s, PiS was basically on a crusade against entrepenours creating that one image of them being shady with paying minimal taxes while doing the horrendously corrupted shit with state owned businesses. They were also claiming to lower taxes on everyone while implementing various new taxes that were targetted especially at small and medium business. They can eat shit along other left economic parties that are just as corrupted as American parties.
Well kinda, but not really. I’d say they are just more of a populist party. Riding economical and social issues with brain dead takes, policies and slogans while they enriching themselves. Now that the EU has been cut off the funding, their popularity really fell off even to the point that a new opposition party can challenge them for governance in 2026 after 16 years of ruling.
do you have doubts in Poland's Law and Justice case?
Political compass memes: my time has come
4:05 PiS has never been liberal on social issues. Since I was a kid, I remmber them being highly conservative, catholic driven party. They banned abortion under any circumstances in 2020, ran a a presidential campaign sparking homophobia etc. Progressive leftists, liberals and even some moderate conservatives in Poland oppose PiS's strict, far-right policies regarding social issues.
Irish left used to be conservative in the beginning cultural issues atleast
All in now on progressive issues now .. wonder will Clare Daly go the BSW route ..
This is what most nations used to be. Neoliberal capitalism is a very new thing, actually.
@@dendradwar9464 No because she's a internationlist trotskyist loon
@@dendradwar9464She and Mick Wallace have both immolated their political profile.
@@dazpatreg Daly got a significant number of votes in the Euros .. not sure I agree with you ..
The right really does have a brilliant strategy.
1: Talk non-stop about cultural issues (trans stuff and all of the other things they constantly get mad about)
2: Get the media to only cover those stories and not give any air to the main points of the left
3: Convince the people that the left only cares about those issues.
It's insane that we all let these people get away with this.
Yes, I also think it is to distract and to prevent a genuine left-wing economic policy, which could be pretty popular on its own, from taking place.
Cope. The left obviously cares about all those things otherwise they wouldn't pass the laws that they are passing.
And yes, parties are setting up different interests against each other to get voters. That's a natural consequence of the party system. If you want politicians to focus on popular policies instead of creating their "the best of two evils" bundles you should demand more direct democracy.
more like, the left has a brilliant strategy
1. suppress speech, and get mad whenever a man who calls himself a woman is "discriminated against"
2. the right talks about it
3. convince the people that the right only cares about those issues
Well said, very well said!
Because that's what they're actually doing. Modern socialists would happily be part of the bourgeois. They have no modern points anymore; they'll happily allow a free market if it allowed them to force their pronouns
The problem with this framing, is that these parties are never actually on the left economically, they always vote against it. They're just more traditional conservative parties springing out of former left-wing parties
I don't rly know if their policies are good or bad, but i think its good that more parties exist that are something else between the parties that don't really get anything done (i.e. the ruling parties in germany so far) and the extreme AfD. in the future they will probably take away a lot of votes from both parties - many ppl in germany voted for AfD because they were tired of the current parties not doing anything, but might not really like AfD either
The BSW wants to form a coalition with the CDU, so they have revealed themselves to be a pro-establishment party as well. At least they did that prior to the elections, looking forward to that abomination to fall below the 5% limit
I mean to remember «the road to somewhere» discusses this by extension. A huge portion of the population naturally fall within this distribution, left leaning economically but conservative socially and culturally. Political parties have not catered will to this group previously. Natural to see developments here
Haven't watched yer but conservative socialists is what was ruling Poland for 8 years untill last years election
Well soviet and eastern bloc countries were socially much to the right of anything we’d see in modern europe. After all, social liberalism is downstream from economic liberalism
They were certainly progressive for their time. The Soviet Union allowed Women to vote from beginning on, criticised the USA for the Ku Klux Klan lynching blacks, and East Germany had no Victimless crimes.
The BSW, - like most Realsocialists - are *actually* *tolerant* as opposed to be opressive from the other fringe. They also have a "Live with it" stance on climate change, wich is more based than claiming it doesn't exist.
Moralizing like the Alt-Right just angers young voters, who would support you on opposing immigration. Sexual Moral Panics costed PiS the Election and make Trump look like a hypocrite.
It's funny to see people fighting to see how they're going to support politicians 🤣🤣
@@Ribulose15diphosphat East Germany had no victimless crimes? Anyone who got on the wrong side of the Stasi would beg to differ. And this is the other problem. People are forgetting about the brutal oppression of the Fascists and Communists in the 20th century.
@@Ribulose15diphosphat Basically, in terms of the emancipation of women, the eastern bloc was more advanced but towards the end of the cold war as those countries were not affected by the movements of the new western left they have maintained a social conservatism in the rest of the topics.
I think social liberalism is the result of affluence and being able to be really out there with your ideas and beliefs - and then still surviving. That's why you have the "champaign socialists".
I don't think it's fair to call PiS anti-establishment when it's been one of the leading 2 parties for decades and has led multiple governments
When you start realizing that left-right isn't a straight line but a circle, it becomes easier to understand the revolving doors between the far left and the far right because they sit next to each other.
This is not new, especially in the East. Indeed, Eastern Europe is largely "Conservative Left".
Why did you ignore the fact that BSW wants to leave the EU? Feels significant enough to atleast mention imo.
Sounds reasonable. the EU benefits nobody, it is exploiting productive nations like Germany and making unproductive nations like Poland dependent on foreign aid.
Politicians can't see the light but can feel the heat.
I find it weird how TLDR describes left wing parties focusing on civil liberties, human rights, and accessibility and social mobility as focusing on "identity politics“ or "cultural issues“. This isn’t the US-Democrats we’re talking about.
Granted, all of that applies to the Dems in the US as well, even if Fox News calls all of that "identity politics".
I've heard the argument that the terms "left" and "right" are irrelevant in political analysis today. I refused to believe that argument, but until hearing Boris Johnson described as left-wing economically in this video, I am starting to think that argument may have a point.
That'd be assuming that the video is _correct_ in calling Boris Johnson "left wing", which isn't the case. Johnson may have dialled back some of the Tories' most extreme thatcherite policies when the situation was really desperate for the lower classes in Britain, but that hardly counts as a turn to the left :P
The more I read/hear/watch about politics and social movements around the Western world, the more I realise there is no political home for me anywhere.....
Do these words even mean anything anymore? And is that even a bad thing?
Yes they do (?)
How is being socially conservative and being economically left wing not possible?
This is the way things have been for the majority of history. With progressives being individualists and liberals and conservatives being communitarian and left wing. The modern situation in western countries is a historical fluke.
I think we can comfortably drop the "W".
Also allegedly she doesn't want to be seen left anymore. So she is just an authoritarian populist claiming to be the only rational player.
We used to have them in Scotland - they were called the SNP.
Then Nicola Sturgeon came on and decided that sensible, popular policies weren't her bag, so drove the party into an insane liberal hole whilst also dragging it more economically right.
tbf I'd rather a socially leftist party who is economically on the right than vice versa.
Rights and the protection of our planet as a whole should be prioritised above everything else, then we can get to the rest.
@@striderwhiston9897 What do you mean by 'rights'?
@ Humans rights, the right to exist of which many conservatives are against for certain minorities.
@ Yeah, the wants of the tiny minority outweigh the needs of everyone. I remember that being a popular phrase.
@@drunkenhobo5039 It's more so rightists want to deny rights to minorities which would not negatively effect anyone who isn't a homophobic or racist weirdo in any way.
The hate for those different to themselves is unfortunately still rather common nowadays, and it's exclusively focused into the right, they find excuses to hate gay people, trans people, black people, neurodivergent people, disabled people and etc but in reality it's just pure unadultered inexcusable hate.
Unfortunately, US Democrats will watch this and say, "ok, we should stay neoliberal and sacrifice the trans community and immigrants" and completely ignore the parts about left economics being a key to success.
how can you be neoliberal without immigration? it doesnt work
left economics being a sucess lol. If you argue this bc of the Nordic countries, they actually are one of the most free markets economies in the world and that's why they are rich.
@@magicjuand you can be neoliberal and oppose unregulated illegal immigration. It was always the case, not opposition to the general immigration but an unregulated one that was responsible for swift socio-economic changes.
@@otaviourso They were free market and thats why they are rich. However the social democratic dream is going to end as competitivness is no longer a strong case for Nordics. That's why Sweden is trying to U-Turn on fracking laws to keep up with growing demand for economic growth so they could at least keep their social democratic model without crashing on debt ceiling.
@@thirdbrother4018 It's true that nordic countries (except Norway) aren't as competitive as before, but if they mantain a strong pro-business policy and a descent fiscal budget, they will continue to be rich. The part about the social democracy is absolutely true, especially with Sweden and it's middle east refugees crisis
because the pro immigration is not part of core left wing ideology and as such has developed in very different circles ( upper classes not working classes)
Honestly, this sounds like a winning formula. Embracing liberal economic policies and socially conservative values will have a much broader appeal to people outside of political enclaves.
Strasser is screaming from hell right about now
Heaven*
@@godleftelmo7710 hell
@SgtCandy: I assume you mean Otto rather than Gregor Strasser. While Gregor may belong in the upper strata of hell, Otto deserves a place in heaven, though not quite at the top
*Valhalla
@@SaadBinAlamgir3345 bruh your not even European
Correction: SMERS is in Slovakia, north of Hungary. Not Slovenia.
As a non-Westerner, the Western(West Europe and Anglosphere) definition of left and right is unique, and not the same as the rest of the world, even not the same as the West in the last century. It's something very new and unique but people just take it for granted.
Only Westerners use the left vs. right model to understand gender, immigration, foreign relations, and economic issues to that degree.
I think this rise is objectively a good thing for European people of any political belief. More choices, positioned more delicately across various political spectrums, can’t be bad for elections that better represent the people they serve.
And frankly, this aligns well with my political worldview of several years now. In this landscape, I too would place myself as conservative center-ish left
They're usually populist grifters.
they are still often corrupt pro-russian populist parties, which is not a good thing, i hope actual liberal left wing parties wake up and stop diluting their economics with neoliberalism
In Portugal we have PCP(Comunists) founded in 1921, it was always Left Wing and conservative.
ahahahahahah 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 ate cuspi o cafe
cringe af. being conservative is a disease.
Yeah, average stalinist (right-wing) moment
I would call that line "conservative socialism". The more you are conservative, the more you are on the right, independently of anything else.
Right-wing confusionism lures us into thinking that there is some left in right-wing policies. But the truth is that economic issues were the defining attributes of right and left in a specific political context, that might now belong to the past.
I supported left conservatism before that rise, and I am really proud of it.
Are there parties that are the opposite of this? conservative with their economic policies but liberal with their social & cultural policies
democrats in usa
Yes at least in my country. They tend to skew (non-US) libertarian where they find it important people can be whomever they can be as long as the taxes are low and business is booming.
In Portugal we have the Liberal Iniative which is an almost libertarian party in its economic proposals, however they also believe one cannot interfere with others freedom, then they usually approve progressive policies like abortion, among others. They kinda messed this up when Trump won the elections and they said it was a defeat of "woke culture", kinda ridiculous and I don't even understand what they wanted to say exactly
Yeah they're called mainstream parties
Good help us if that comes
PiS was >>NEVER
Americans when in most of Europe there are more then two parties: impossible
There are more than two parties in the United States, so you're wrong.
It is the winning combo
You should definitely make a part 2. As a Catholic I found these to be good criticisms of Charlie’s logic and of many churches.
I think "working-class conservatism" is a better word
i think N@zism is a better term.
I want to vote for her and I'm not even in Germany. This 'conservative left' thing sums up my own political evolution perfectly.
same
I want to note that she is is extremely friendly with the kremlin and has basically blamed Ukraine for the war that Putin started.
She also said she'd rather live under the GDR dictatorship than in the FRG.
Also she is way to narcissistic to the point where she would rather appear on TV debates than in parliament, making her also a burden on the tax payer who essentially pays an MP who doesn't even bother exercising their mandate.
Oh and did I fail to mention that she is one of Germanys MPs with the highest income from their other jobs? Surely I don't have to tell you what that means for how much I think she can be trusted?
As a leftist who has had to tolerate her shenanigans (which IMO held back the left) for the last two decades: I absolutely despise her, and doubt you'd be very happy with her for long.
Meh, wouldn't want a women who has been in a left-wing extremist party before making her own in government here.
“Conservative left” just ends up devolving into fascism. They end up blaming minorities (the more vulnerable and socially despised, the better) for any financial plights and economic inequality. Instead of actually addressing the issues of economic inequality, the enemy is made out to be trans people or Jews or immigrants, and that somehow brutalizing and demonizing these people will end economic inequality
I think the KKE is a good consistent example of a radical conservative left party.
5:27 That ended up being a lie to get elected
yeah to be honest, tldr is just playing into right wing cards by not disclaiming this... becuase its a right wing thing to do: lie about their economical strategy...
The biggest lie was "controlled immigration". Under BoJo the UK was flooded with scum.
Wait, this is actually a party I can identify with.
really? a pro-russian party?
I am a part of the Conservative Left
The Danish social democrats didn't pivot sharply to the right on immigration issues a few years ago. They started becoming aware of the negative consequences of unchecked muslim immigration several decades ago, so this has been a gradual development
The only reason there were refugee crises and, subsequently, an avenue for increased illegal migration, is because of the Libya and Syria wars. And what caused all that?
People want to talk about everything besides the elephants in the room.
They're not "left wing economics" they're populist economics. All the parties you've mentioned are really just right-wing.
spill that nonsense somewhere else - the last time the parties you would probably consider left in Poland (Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej (Democratic Left Alliance) who lost power in 2005) were in power they pursued almost laissez-faire policies - why? - because in reality they were a party protecting the interests of post-communists who appropriated big chunks of the economy in the so-called "transformation of the economy"
@@gumishq Ok?
Yeah, BSW really only claims to be left-wing but we see nothing of that.
I'm confused why you label green policies as social policies, I feel like they are much more economical.
I would describe them more as existential
I think politicising green policy in the UK is a massive mistake. Pulling down electricity prices is the only short term bullet we have to increase the domestic economy
Hardly the only bullet. Nationalising public transport is another
"The Conservative Left" So Communitarians/PatCons?
What's communirarians?
No. "national" + "socialists" ;-)
They are moderate social democrats in the tradition of Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt.
@@angelochoameirelesnational socialist are right wing lol
Nazbols the correct name
You could have added PSD in Romania, literally the conservative left, they get along exceptionally well with the Romanian Orthodox Church, even better than the right-wing parties.
I wanted a term to explain my political views, and tbh this is the closest thing I could compare to my own views. Liberal on most economic issues, conservative on most social issues.
Liberal economic is not left wing. Liberalism is economicaly right wing hence the "economic liberarization"
Dude, that's just the right wing.
NPC
I'm european and i consider myself on the "left" side on every issue except for the acceptance of Islam
loser
Really if Europe just stayed out of the Islamic World, then Muslims could stay out of Europe. But this reality where Europe is heavily involved in the Muslim world and in denial, is just mental illness
This is why politics should be viewed in more of a 3d view, cause left and right socially and economically are very different and hold no bearing on each other
6:47
Actually, liberalism was not discredited in Poland During the 2008 financial crisis - it was discredited in the 90's during the economic downturn after communism.
People voted for the former Communists and Aleksander Kwaśniewski - the Leftwing President was elected with huge margin of votes.
Left only lost because of corruption scandal, and rampant crime, which is why Law and Justice was elected - They won the first time because people wanted to get rid of crime and corruption.
Later when Civic Platform took power, corruption had risen, but crime overall did lower, but people did get poorer and Civic Platform lost. But Civic Platform was a Centrist party.
Again, the main reason they lost was corruption. 2008 financial crisis actually made Civic Platform win their second election, because Poland got thru it with little economic loss, and it was praised as the success of theirs (I believe they actually got more votes in second term). It lost later because economic situation did not improve, and because of what happened in Ukraine during their tenure, as well as many other things that happened during their tenure.
Financial Crisis of 2008 did not actually influence Polish elections much - in fact it allowed the Civic Platform to continue their rule.
People want government spending but do not want to be replaced by illegal migrants, makes sense.
In the 2023 elections in The Netherlands, the media touted that the right had won with Geert Wilders PVV getting a lot of seats. However, if you take the classification of the Kieskompas of parties as left-right (economic) and progressive-conservative (social), what actually happened is that the average vote became a little more left and a lot more conservative. Mainly due to the decline of more economically right parties.
It is often forgotten (or overlooked) that politics isn't a straight-line spectrum, it's more of a ring ⭕
No, it’s multidimensional, and the dimensions correlate in weird ways sometimes. You can be opposed on one axis and aligned on another, but it’s bad to think they are the same.
There is no better example for “Conservative Left” then the party Levica in Macedonia
Also the Romanian PSD it's the definition of the conservative left. Economically they are left and socially they are as conservative as you get, against LGBT community, against civil unions, pro religion, etc.
North Macedonia*
@@starman1144 North Macedonia , South Yugoslavia, Western Balkans, Eastern Culture...Whatever dude I see just from one sentence you are nicely propagated by the propaganda
@@starman1144 salty Greek-Macedonian detected.
Although, they fell immensely short of all the predictions.
I refuse to call those parties left wing. If it's pro-capitalism, it's not leftist.
It just goes to show how far to the right the Overton window is.
If I could give this comment 10 likes I would
@@straft5759 It's the thought that counts!
I need to clarify for France because something wrong has been said. You need to really dig in their behavior before wrongly labeling them as "Conservative Left".
"Rassemblement National" (National Rally) is *NOT* a conservative left party. Not only their parliament votes in France and Europe translates to a right-wing economy, but they also don't try to hide this to their voters anymore; for example, they had all the pain in the world to vote with the left coalition (New Popular Front, Nouveau Front Populaire) about abrogating the unpopular pension reform, and they voted *against* it many times in commission, invoking absurd reasons as explanations. Now that they have risen enough support based on racism, xenophobia and hatred of gender minorities, they don't care about the left-looking economic views.
If BSW in Germany could be qualified as Conservative Left (as a matter of fact, based on what you describe), the truth is it doesn't apply to France. Conservative Left is not a thing. The left-wing coalitions have proven to be way more left-wing economically AND have tried to push further on this direction, but the National Rally has failed to... well... rally on this question and have recently voted against an economical budget in France which would have led to really redistribute the wealth.
And to be clear, I'm not pretending to say who has the truth about the economics in the country, but for sure, the National Rally left-wing economics are just a fog screen they used when they couldn't rely on simple hatred of others. In reality, when you scan the votes, they're totally on the right wing, including the economics. And the French voters, who turn to the National Rally for this fog screen begin to realize it and the elected deputes begin to be fed up to be seen as the current government auxiliaries.
OF COURSE the National Rally is right wing. They're not even right wing wing, they're far right wing. Just take a look at their group at the European parliament, look at the other parties they're together with. Anyone saying they're left is hopelessly politically gaslighted.
Essentially fascists. Lot of bullshit about "fighting for the worker" blahblah, but when push comes to shove, they always side with the capital against the worker. Historically, fascism was the answer for the growing left sentiment, capital would rather lose rights and have dictatorship than lose power and money.
France is a lost cause. We should share the screen with other European countries. That place is a mess
This is how I feel more and more nowadays... Not all the way but I get it. It makes sense why people feel this way.
This is why we need to split left and right into social and economic values
I understand that Sahra Wagenknecht has defined her new party as "conservative" but I take issue with it being labeled "right wing" on social matters. Even her labeling of the party as "conservative" is, I think, mainly just based on the extremely distorted definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that have taken hold especially in the past 10 years. She's working together with Alice Schwarzer on some campaigns; the most famous feminist icon of Germany who worked with radical feminists such as Andrea Dworkin in the past. Just how "conservative" can Sahra Wagenknecht really be, when working with the most prominent feminist of the country with ties to radical feminism? Is feminism "conservative" now? I'm not saying any of this as a critique by the way, but rather as a defense. I still consider myself very liberal, broadly speaking, but find Sahra Wagenknecht to be much more sensible than the "woke" lefty types, for lack of a better term. I think so-called "wokism" is essentially a perversion of liberalism, and why some genuine liberals are now using the "conservative" label for themselves after all.
It seems like she's going for the "we're going to protect women's, LGBT and minority rights, but not obsess over culture war" angle.
who would've guessed the working class supports preserving their way of life & improving their material conditions?
We all love Strausserism, don't we, folks?
Man, someone should look up whatever happend to that guy.
@RunawayTrain2502: I am sure no one has ever heard of "that guy" Strausserism
*Strasserism
Thank you for your work !
So they’re nationalist and socialist, interesting.
its national bolshevism, not national socialism.
In an ideal world it should not be controversial to use the words Nationalist and Socialist together.
But unfortunately the use of these words by a certain Austrian painter in the first half of the 20th century means they are now so tainted that they can never really be used together again.
They were not socialists. In German conservatism "socialism" means something very different.
x_aquatix_x Stop saying things you don't know. Not all social nationalists are Nazbols. Nazbols are specifically people who wish to synthesize Italian Fascism with Stalinist USSR (Bolshevism). These people are just socialist conservatives.
@@hcbs1986 i will not listen to someone with an anime profile picture. You can go back from where you came from.
Great, I actually consider myself exactly that - conservative left. I am very much against big business, and pro social reforms, and minimum wage. I am against immigration, and I think governments should focus on making most of the native population for work. I'm glad that conservative left is on the rise, and can prevent fascist parties like the AfD from taking over votes of regular poor people.
Where is the line of calling the AfD fascist, but not the conservative left when they share blaming immigrants for their problems. The blaming of an out-group for the in-group’s socioeconomic status is a core tenant of fascism
@@UGMD because blaming immigrants is not what constitutes a fascist. On their secret meetings AfD were saying very racist things, and conspiring to deport large amounts of "undesirable" population. That's why I call them that. Stopping immigration in favour of investing in the local population is VERY much needed across Europe. Currently large European companies prefer to allow cheap low skilled migration to lower their costs, while forgetting about the local population and adjusting themselves to the locals. This is unacceptable. That's why Europeans all across the continent are saying: not a single migrant more. They have a point. We must invest to increase birthrates, and not just sweep the demographic problem with importing people who will never assimilate into our societies.
Why would you want to prevent a national socialist party like AfD if you are conservative left?
@@WorthlessWinner they seem to attract the more toxic sides of the ideology. Moreover, it's important to distinguish between national socialism (left wing socialism), and national populism - which the NSDAP also was. AfD just brings bad vibes to me, especially that I'm from Poland.
@@MiSt3300 Is the PIS ok? they did oversee large improvement but i'm not quite sure, at least both of your major parties are anti migration (complete opposite in both countries I live in)