They’re left-liberal which yes isn’t socialist by a long shot, OTOH it’s well within the overton window, thus actually able to be an electoral success. It’s also a position which is completely underserved because neolibs captured everything even close to centre.
Oh, for all the yanks out there: Left-liberal is when UBI (because no proper employment market without uncomplicated social net) and business politics for SMEs instead of multinationals and plenty of antitrust with plenty of teeth. Petite bourgeois with at least a form of class consciousness. And gay marriage of course.
Are you, by any chance, letting the perfect be the enemy of the not completely evil?
Nah I’m just tired of another liberal party posing as a left wing alternative just to cave against shareholder interests. This is the story of Social democrats and greens all over Europe, they promise the world and when they would actually have to stand up against the interests of the capitalist machinery they’ll do mental gymnastics to justify why they can’t do what they would really like to do.
But the real reason is that they’re afraid to lose power, see the social democrats in Denmark or even the Green Party in Germany, who do more right wing policy and sound more right wing than actual right wing parties some decades ago. I have zero trust in Volt being any different, they have a strong centrist corporate wing.
I stand by it, if you want an actual alternative that’s Mera25, not Volt.
Eine Regierungsstruktur für die östlichen und südlichen Gebiete der Ukraine auf der Grundlage des nordirischen Karfreitagsabkommens, um die politische Gleichberechtigung zwischen der russischsprachigen und der ukrainischsprachigen Bevölkerung zu gewährleisten.
The fuck. Without Russian invasion there would be no political inequality between Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians GTFO with those Kremlin talking points. Aside from that, demands that would allow Russia to re-invade at their heart’s content. “Mutual non-aggression treaty” they didn’t even have the decency to say “security guarantees by states that can roflstomp Russia”. Russia broke a fucking security guarantee they gave Ukraine when invading, shit’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
So much about standing up to genocidal regimes, eh. So much about anti-imperialism.
Yeah tbh I also don’t know what to think about the parts regarding Ukraine/Russia and I’m against the genocide against Ukrainians. I don’t think they endorse that or do any mental gymnastics to justify it, at least I didn’t see that. They are anti-war and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything that entails for them, it’s consistent.
For me, genocide is a red line and there’s barely any political party positioning themselves openly against the Gaza genocide or even calling it a genocide in the first place.
And now I don’t want to sound like a dick or twisting your words against you, but to pick up on this
Are you, by any chance, letting the perfect be the enemy of the not completely evil?
Imo being pro Ukraine but also pro Israel is just a warmongering position driven out of selfish, geopolitical interests. And I won’t support any party like that. Again I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Mera25 wants but they draw a red line where I would draw it. Btw being apologetic about Russias invasion would also be a red line. Anyway, here’s me making a compromise and I hope you just think about if you’re making your compromise at the right point. Again, really hope I’m not sounding like a dick here because I think our opinions aren’t so far away from each other.
Speaking Realpolitik: Currently, nothing is going to change Israel’s approach. They already are practically cut off from German arms productions (still able to get replacement parts for radar systems, air defence, such stuff), they could be cut off from US military support and be sanctioned and still continue. It wouldn’t make more Israelis demonstrate on the streets, there’s already plenty of those, it won’t make the Kahanites become any less genocidal.
…and what I just slipped in implicitly there is that the German government, as in at least the ministerial level, does consider the Gaza erm situation a genocide. At least a potential one. Because otherwise the export licenses would match the defence attorney tone before the ICJ, which it doesn’t. (“Your honour, it is true that my client commits plenty of war crimes but genocide, no, genocide requires intent and… shuffles papers intent cannot be established without a sound mind and they are acting out of PTSD, to wit, we caused it. My client pleads temporary insanity”). It also doesn’t get said openly, again Realpolitik: It wouldn’t change anything on the ground and have potentially negative effects when it comes to Germany’s ties into Israeli civil society. And, of course, if Scholz is good at anything then it’s at sitting things out.
It sucks but the whole thing will have to play out. It may even end in an Israeli civil war, what’s certain is that there’s going to be a hell of a hangover. The US could have stopped the whole thing, but that would’ve required a) quick thinking directly after the October attacks and b) a better understanding of Israel than the US has. The US would have had to dock that aircraft carrier they sent to Israel, unloaded a battalion of marines, and go Hamas-hunting themselves. Side-line the IDF, keep an eye on them, witness directly what’s happening.
As to compromises: Why the hell are we talking about this the next EU elections are when, 2029. Both parties are going to be basically irrelevant on a member state level, maybe some municipal or even state seats but that’s it. Effectively this is some BSW-level “let’s make state elections about federal politics” shit, why didn’t Wagenknecht talk about brand-new state-owned ore mines to create new jobs for all those coal miners. About expropriating means of production. About fixing green fuckups by investing in district heating. Stuff, you know, state governments actually have the power to do.
I understand your point about Realpolitik, but for me, it’s not about what’s pragmatic or what will change the situation on the ground right now. It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.
I appreciate your honesty about the German government’s stance on the Gaza situation, but I think it’s still important to speak out loudly and clearly against genocide, even if it won’t change the situation immediately.
As for compromises, I understand that the next EU elections are a ways off, but for me, it’s not just about winning seats or gaining power. It’s about building a movement and creating a sense of community around our values.
I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression. I’d rather be part of a smaller movement that stands for something real than a larger movement that’s willing to sacrifice its principles for power.
It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.
I’m not much for moralising, I find it ineffective when it comes to influencing the world… though I guess your kind of take makes sure that takes like mine actually properly flesh out the strategic rationale.
I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression.
If I were to chose to not be complicit in systems of oppression then I’d have to boycott parliamentary democracy and no I’m not going to effectively hand my vote to Nazis by refusing to vote. That kind of refusal works on the small scale, on the larger scale, well. Compromises have to be made regarding means/ends unity to protect what has already been achieved. Meanwhile, properly means/ends unified action has to be insulated against getting besmirched by those compromises, that means acting, in addition, outside of the parliamentary system. Uncompromising, universally perfect moral action is only possible in a world full of perfectly moral actors in the mean time we have to wear different hats in different places.
So to circle back: If Volt can make a dent into New Labour and Christian Democrat acquiescence with ultimately quite unchristian things, popularise a liberalism which isn’t crypto-feudalism, then yes I wish them all the best. They, too, will need to be overcome but that’s a topic for the future, currently they’re convenient. In principle my stance to Diem is the same but politically they’re rather stale. As in: Too much smell of Soviet mothballs, the parliamentary left will have to re-invent itself before it’s able to inspire masses, again.
Based on your reply to this and to the other thread I think I understand now where you’re coming from and I think it’s fair enough. Thanks a lot for taking the time to flesh out your thoughts! Don’t know what else to say except that I enjoyed sharing opinions and that I agree with your views on the system.
Eventually, whether it makes more sense to try and do a slow transition from within in order to stop the current Nazi threat, or if it makes more sense to try and push for radical change at the very high risk of simply being ignored, I honestly don’t know. That being said I think I have nothing to add to your other post and agree with it.
Also it would probably come as a replacement for all other social security measures as is the liberal wet dream. This would reduce bureaucracy but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess. The problem with Volt is that we don’t even know their exact position on this because they’re mostly just blurting out feel-good marketing slogans.
but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess.
And the same thing cannot be said if you have means-tested welfare?
At least in the German discussion about this it’s generally understood that it’d replace regular unemployment and disability payments, but not abolish things like say money the blind get because braille displays are expensive. Our social systems already work with averages.
That the payment is sufficient is already included in the “B” term, btw. In German terms it’s supposed to cover the socio-cultural existence minimum: Enough to live and participate in society.
I think you don’t really understand where the idea of a negative income tax comes from and how it is imagined. Hint: Milton Friedman. If liberals talk about UBI, they mean a Chicago style solution.
Bullshit. Pirates are also liberals and most definitely prefer the UBI+flat tax model.
It might be inconvenient for the let’s call it tankie-adjacent left that liberals support an idea that’d actually be a net benefit for workers, OTOH a proper Marxist should be able to sort that under “yet another curious contradiction inherent in the system” and then vote in favour for it lest being considered an accelerationist.
But we’re not talking about the pirates or Marxists or anyone, we’re talking about Volt and what they would implement. Since they aren’t telling us what they’d do we can only speculate, and I’m telling you this is what liberals usually want. And unless Volt delivers any proof that they’re different, I’m going to assume the default.
If you look at the German program they’re mentioning increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem and are specifically mentioning the increase in low-wage work as a mistake. They want to make the tax system more progressive as well as bring taxation of capital gains more in line with existing taxation on income. In translation, that means tax hikes for the rich. Also stuff like cracking down on tax evasion and tax havens, also targeted at the rich (practically impossible to evade taxes as a worker, here).
Generally speaking there’s a ton of points in there which make them a red flag for parties in ALDE. Greens/EFA (which Volt are part of) might occasionally have neoliberal bouts, but their heart isn’t in it, just as with SocDems and Christian Democrats. Have you considered that your image of liberals in general might be unduly coloured by neolibs? There are liberals who understand that capital can be used to attain the very privileges liberals, back in the days, were keen on denying the nobility. Individually, who have about the same opinion of multinationals as the average worker does of the bosses.
While it’s true that their German program mentions increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem, their proposed solutions seem to be more focused on tweaking the existing system rather than fundamentally changing it.
Tax hikes for the rich are a good start, but it’s not enough. We need a more radical transformation of our economic system, one that prioritizes people and the planet over profits. And I’m not seeing that from Volt.
By the way, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mera25’s proposals, such as the unconditional pension guarantee, the four-day workweek, and the universal basic dividend. Do you think these ideas have merit, or are they too radical for your taste?
Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
individuals earning below a set threshold receive payments instead of paying taxes
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.
They’re left-liberal which yes isn’t socialist by a long shot, OTOH it’s well within the overton window, thus actually able to be an electoral success. It’s also a position which is completely underserved because neolibs captured everything even close to centre.
Oh, for all the yanks out there: Left-liberal is when UBI (because no proper employment market without uncomplicated social net) and business politics for SMEs instead of multinationals and plenty of antitrust with plenty of teeth. Petite bourgeois with at least a form of class consciousness. And gay marriage of course.
Are you, by any chance, letting the perfect be the enemy of the not completely evil?
Nah I’m just tired of another liberal party posing as a left wing alternative just to cave against shareholder interests. This is the story of Social democrats and greens all over Europe, they promise the world and when they would actually have to stand up against the interests of the capitalist machinery they’ll do mental gymnastics to justify why they can’t do what they would really like to do.
But the real reason is that they’re afraid to lose power, see the social democrats in Denmark or even the Green Party in Germany, who do more right wing policy and sound more right wing than actual right wing parties some decades ago. I have zero trust in Volt being any different, they have a strong centrist corporate wing.
I stand by it, if you want an actual alternative that’s Mera25, not Volt.
The fuck. Without Russian invasion there would be no political inequality between Ukrainian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians GTFO with those Kremlin talking points. Aside from that, demands that would allow Russia to re-invade at their heart’s content. “Mutual non-aggression treaty” they didn’t even have the decency to say “security guarantees by states that can roflstomp Russia”. Russia broke a fucking security guarantee they gave Ukraine when invading, shit’s not worth the paper it’s written on.
So much about standing up to genocidal regimes, eh. So much about anti-imperialism.
Yeah tbh I also don’t know what to think about the parts regarding Ukraine/Russia and I’m against the genocide against Ukrainians. I don’t think they endorse that or do any mental gymnastics to justify it, at least I didn’t see that. They are anti-war and while I don’t necessarily agree with everything that entails for them, it’s consistent.
For me, genocide is a red line and there’s barely any political party positioning themselves openly against the Gaza genocide or even calling it a genocide in the first place.
And now I don’t want to sound like a dick or twisting your words against you, but to pick up on this
Imo being pro Ukraine but also pro Israel is just a warmongering position driven out of selfish, geopolitical interests. And I won’t support any party like that. Again I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Mera25 wants but they draw a red line where I would draw it. Btw being apologetic about Russias invasion would also be a red line. Anyway, here’s me making a compromise and I hope you just think about if you’re making your compromise at the right point. Again, really hope I’m not sounding like a dick here because I think our opinions aren’t so far away from each other.
Speaking Realpolitik: Currently, nothing is going to change Israel’s approach. They already are practically cut off from German arms productions (still able to get replacement parts for radar systems, air defence, such stuff), they could be cut off from US military support and be sanctioned and still continue. It wouldn’t make more Israelis demonstrate on the streets, there’s already plenty of those, it won’t make the Kahanites become any less genocidal.
…and what I just slipped in implicitly there is that the German government, as in at least the ministerial level, does consider the Gaza erm situation a genocide. At least a potential one. Because otherwise the export licenses would match the defence attorney tone before the ICJ, which it doesn’t. (“Your honour, it is true that my client commits plenty of war crimes but genocide, no, genocide requires intent and… shuffles papers intent cannot be established without a sound mind and they are acting out of PTSD, to wit, we caused it. My client pleads temporary insanity”). It also doesn’t get said openly, again Realpolitik: It wouldn’t change anything on the ground and have potentially negative effects when it comes to Germany’s ties into Israeli civil society. And, of course, if Scholz is good at anything then it’s at sitting things out.
It sucks but the whole thing will have to play out. It may even end in an Israeli civil war, what’s certain is that there’s going to be a hell of a hangover. The US could have stopped the whole thing, but that would’ve required a) quick thinking directly after the October attacks and b) a better understanding of Israel than the US has. The US would have had to dock that aircraft carrier they sent to Israel, unloaded a battalion of marines, and go Hamas-hunting themselves. Side-line the IDF, keep an eye on them, witness directly what’s happening.
As to compromises: Why the hell are we talking about this the next EU elections are when, 2029. Both parties are going to be basically irrelevant on a member state level, maybe some municipal or even state seats but that’s it. Effectively this is some BSW-level “let’s make state elections about federal politics” shit, why didn’t Wagenknecht talk about brand-new state-owned ore mines to create new jobs for all those coal miners. About expropriating means of production. About fixing green fuckups by investing in district heating. Stuff, you know, state governments actually have the power to do.
I understand your point about Realpolitik, but for me, it’s not about what’s pragmatic or what will change the situation on the ground right now. It’s about taking a moral stance and being clear about what’s right and wrong.
I appreciate your honesty about the German government’s stance on the Gaza situation, but I think it’s still important to speak out loudly and clearly against genocide, even if it won’t change the situation immediately.
As for compromises, I understand that the next EU elections are a ways off, but for me, it’s not just about winning seats or gaining power. It’s about building a movement and creating a sense of community around our values.
I’m not interested in making compromises that would water down those values or make us complicit in systems of oppression. I’d rather be part of a smaller movement that stands for something real than a larger movement that’s willing to sacrifice its principles for power.
I’m not much for moralising, I find it ineffective when it comes to influencing the world… though I guess your kind of take makes sure that takes like mine actually properly flesh out the strategic rationale.
If I were to chose to not be complicit in systems of oppression then I’d have to boycott parliamentary democracy and no I’m not going to effectively hand my vote to Nazis by refusing to vote. That kind of refusal works on the small scale, on the larger scale, well. Compromises have to be made regarding means/ends unity to protect what has already been achieved. Meanwhile, properly means/ends unified action has to be insulated against getting besmirched by those compromises, that means acting, in addition, outside of the parliamentary system. Uncompromising, universally perfect moral action is only possible in a world full of perfectly moral actors in the mean time we have to wear different hats in different places.
So to circle back: If Volt can make a dent into New Labour and Christian Democrat acquiescence with ultimately quite unchristian things, popularise a liberalism which isn’t crypto-feudalism, then yes I wish them all the best. They, too, will need to be overcome but that’s a topic for the future, currently they’re convenient. In principle my stance to Diem is the same but politically they’re rather stale. As in: Too much smell of Soviet mothballs, the parliamentary left will have to re-invent itself before it’s able to inspire masses, again.
Based on your reply to this and to the other thread I think I understand now where you’re coming from and I think it’s fair enough. Thanks a lot for taking the time to flesh out your thoughts! Don’t know what else to say except that I enjoyed sharing opinions and that I agree with your views on the system.
Eventually, whether it makes more sense to try and do a slow transition from within in order to stop the current Nazi threat, or if it makes more sense to try and push for radical change at the very high risk of simply being ignored, I honestly don’t know. That being said I think I have nothing to add to your other post and agree with it.
But they are not for a UBI, right? Because I think they want a negative tax, not something that is a universal income.
Also it would probably come as a replacement for all other social security measures as is the liberal wet dream. This would reduce bureaucracy but it would also be a way of shutting people up, you don’t have enough money to get by? Well you get your UBI so it’s got to be enough, if it isn’t then tough luck I guess. The problem with Volt is that we don’t even know their exact position on this because they’re mostly just blurting out feel-good marketing slogans.
And the same thing cannot be said if you have means-tested welfare?
At least in the German discussion about this it’s generally understood that it’d replace regular unemployment and disability payments, but not abolish things like say money the blind get because braille displays are expensive. Our social systems already work with averages.
That the payment is sufficient is already included in the “B” term, btw. In German terms it’s supposed to cover the socio-cultural existence minimum: Enough to live and participate in society.
I think you don’t really understand where the idea of a negative income tax comes from and how it is imagined. Hint: Milton Friedman. If liberals talk about UBI, they mean a Chicago style solution.
Bullshit. Pirates are also liberals and most definitely prefer the UBI+flat tax model.
It might be inconvenient for the let’s call it tankie-adjacent left that liberals support an idea that’d actually be a net benefit for workers, OTOH a proper Marxist should be able to sort that under “yet another curious contradiction inherent in the system” and then vote in favour for it lest being considered an accelerationist.
But we’re not talking about the pirates or Marxists or anyone, we’re talking about Volt and what they would implement. Since they aren’t telling us what they’d do we can only speculate, and I’m telling you this is what liberals usually want. And unless Volt delivers any proof that they’re different, I’m going to assume the default.
If you look at the German program they’re mentioning increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem and are specifically mentioning the increase in low-wage work as a mistake. They want to make the tax system more progressive as well as bring taxation of capital gains more in line with existing taxation on income. In translation, that means tax hikes for the rich. Also stuff like cracking down on tax evasion and tax havens, also targeted at the rich (practically impossible to evade taxes as a worker, here).
Generally speaking there’s a ton of points in there which make them a red flag for parties in ALDE. Greens/EFA (which Volt are part of) might occasionally have neoliberal bouts, but their heart isn’t in it, just as with SocDems and Christian Democrats. Have you considered that your image of liberals in general might be unduly coloured by neolibs? There are liberals who understand that capital can be used to attain the very privileges liberals, back in the days, were keen on denying the nobility. Individually, who have about the same opinion of multinationals as the average worker does of the bosses.
While it’s true that their German program mentions increasing income and wealth inequality as a problem, their proposed solutions seem to be more focused on tweaking the existing system rather than fundamentally changing it.
Tax hikes for the rich are a good start, but it’s not enough. We need a more radical transformation of our economic system, one that prioritizes people and the planet over profits. And I’m not seeing that from Volt.
By the way, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Mera25’s proposals, such as the unconditional pension guarantee, the four-day workweek, and the universal basic dividend. Do you think these ideas have merit, or are they too radical for your taste?
Negative tax is a way to implement UBI. It’s mathematically equivalent to paying out a flat sum and taking a flat tax which is easier to administer but then there’s the political opinions of the mathematically uninclined asking “why are we giving billionaires money”. (And yes both schemes are progressive, flat tax alone wouldn’t be).
They’re even in favour of doing it on the EU level, and argue that the TFEU already contains the language necessary for the EU to do it.
Sure, but their’s is not flat
So it is not universal. It is not UBI. The difference it not billionaires but the middle class. The upper middle class may not need a UBI, but if you give it to them, they would be inclined to vote to keep it. If you only give a non-universal/progressive negative-tax/income, the middle class would be inclined to vote to vote to keep UBI way below “basic”. Like tax breaks offered to the middle class, I hate them, but they are basically impossible to reverse because they are so popular. A UBI and whatever you want to call this is very different policies.