Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[scriver]

Er. Elite Liberal refers to the American kind of liberal, not Old World liberal. EU is certainly not Elite Liberal.

[10ebbor10]

The EU's more neo-liberal, IIRC.

But anyway, the differences between the European and American political alignment systems are so great that comparison is rather hard.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

No, it's really rather simple.
American Liberal=European Christian/Social Democrats
American Conservative=European Nationalist Right
European Conservative=No Analogue

[scriver]

Add some curves to those equal marks and I'd agree with you.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's politics, the ~ should go without saying.

[Helgoland]

You should put the ~ on top of the =.
=D

[XXSockXX]

The EU's more neo-liberal, IIRC.

In Germany "neo-liberal" is a term mostly used by those on the left to describe market liberalism in a negative way. Is that what you mean?

European Liberalism in all it's varieties doesn't have an American counterpart either really. Most could perhaps be described as moderate liberatarians, in the small government, market liberal, civil rights vs the state kind of way. Definitely not in the government hating, bunker building militia kind of way. The German liberal party is the only party here to really advocate market liberalism and small government, but is also pretty socially progressive, advocating gay marriage and extensive privacy rights.

Sometimes x-y-graphs on issues like economic and social policy are more helpful than the traditional ideological categories, most European parties are just not that ideological anymore.

It's pretty clear though that Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians and most US-Independents would all be considered right-wing in Europe.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

In Russia, Zhirinovsky has always had the reputation of a clown.

I'd say that he is a court jester and says stuff that the king (be it Yeltsin or Putin) can't say openly. Few consider him to be independent politician

Yep, Calling Zhirinovsky a nationalist (especially ultra) is something beyond my understanding. But it is rather typical. Too many different ideologies are labeled as nationalism

[Owlbread]

How would you define nationalism, Ukrainian Ranger? I consider myself a nationalist of sorts so I'm interested to hear your own definition to see how ours compare.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

IMO, The basis of nationalism doctrine is rather simple:

It's either
a) The belief that humanity will benefit more if nations* will live separately rather than mixed in larger, multinational countries. In a same way how it's better when family lives in it's own house, not in communal apartment with many families cramped together. 

or

b) The belief that nation as whole will benefit if nation* members will care about interests of the nation first their own interests second (It's almost the same as patriotism, but a country replaced with a nation. In fact in a national state that's the same thing)

*Were nation is defined as a large social group with some common traits.

Usually a and b go in one package but I think either of them is enough to be called a nationalist.
___________

And now where the fun begins. What traits define nation? Are there sub and super-nations? If yes, are they more or less important than a nation? Who is qualified to be a nation member? Should the b be enforced or voluntary? To what extent b should go. Are nations equal or not? Is that OK to suppress\exploit other nations for interests of your own? Can a person change his own nationality? And so on. Many, many questions. And many different answers. That's why Nationalism (as any other complex ideology) has many various branches who don't like each other

[Helgoland]

Seems pretty compatible with increased inter-state government like the EU, as long as the principle of subsidiarity is observed - though I don't think many other people would call that stuff nationalism.

[Owlbread]

I would broadly agree with those definitions, though the point that I was interested in was one of your questions; "Who is qualified to be a nation member?" I would suggest that anyone who lives in a country/nation permanently should be qualified.

My approach to separatism and such things would come under my belief in the following maxim: "The people who live and work in a place are best placed to make decisions about their own future." We should try to realise that in any way we can.

One issue people would have with that definition is that you could argue that, for instance, because the counties of Dumfries and Galloway in the Scottish borders vote Conservative while everyone else votes Labour/SNP they should become independent. I would say though in that case independence is unrealistic and unnecessary, rather, there should be a devolved "Borders" region of Scotland where they can handle their own affairs. I always believe that if independence is impossible then federalism and devolution should come in its place.

[XXSockXX]

a) The belief that humanity will benefit more if nations* will live separately rather than mixed in larger, multinational countries. In a same way how it's better when family lives in it's own house, not in communal apartment with many families cramped together. 

Actually that could also describe what our far-right parties today call "ethnic pluralism". That I don't find that problematic in itself, the controversial part is - as you said - in the enforcing of such a thing and in the question of equality.

"Who is qualified to be a nation member?" I would suggest that anyone who lives in a country/nation permanently should be qualified.

That's bascially the American model. Also, in theory, the French model, though the French also pretended that everyone who lived there was also culturally French. Historically the German model (similar to many other European countries) was, you're a nation member if you're ethnically German, no matter where you live, even over many generations. In recent years we are transitioning from the latter model to yours, but the concept of ethnicity had such a lasting impact that it will take quite some time to have that broadly accepted. (Politically it is accepted, but in the public conciousness I don't think so yet.)

Today I'd say it is quite easy to change your nationality (in the sense of citizenship), but you cannot change your ethnicity on your own. Ethnicity is an interesting construct in that it doesn't depend on your own perception much, but mostly on the perception of others. Your ethnicity can of course change, but that requires some generations worth of cultural assimilation and - most controversially - your physical appearance may play a role, which is where all the really bad stuff begins.

So yeah, the problem is to actually define what a nation is. Is it determined by territory, culture, ethnicity, religion (historically the case with Jews and sometimes Catholics vs Protestants), common history, a common idea, a combination of all of those?
It's basically an endless source of conflict and controversy. 

[Sheb]

The European Green Party have launched their open primaries for the European Elections.

[Max White]

The European Green Party have launched their open primaries for the European Elections.

There are two Green parties in Germany? What is the difference between "Bündnis '90 Die Grünen" and "Fyeg". What issues do they disagree over?