You have though.
Along with a continued misunderstanding between left and right values. Don't think I didn't notice you saying the right would be okay with human work being properly rewarded.
Right loses hard in Chile
- Thread starter crimson5pheonix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Along with a continued misunderstanding between left and right values. Don't think I didn't notice you saying the right would be okay with human work being properly rewarded.
If you add up all the seat totals (source) for the parties and independents you get to 138.
Sure. Some of La Lista Del Pueblo may be moderates. Given their platform, it seems to me very few would be meaningfully right wing. But then, some of the alliances in 2017 were centre-left and would have contained centreists too.
Arguing about "parties" is something of a distraction. When the new constitution is debated, the candidates will go in with their political inclinations. You can argue that there may be little uniformity amongst the left about the shape of the new constitution. But you can be absolutely sure they intend to gut the Pinochet restrictions and not replace them with other corporate-friendly nonsense.
Really? That workers should be the first to benefit from the creation of wealth? An active state for the eradication of poverty? Yeah, those don't tend to be high up the list of priorities for right-wing governments.
This is besides the point. It's patently obvious the List of the People is left-wing. Denying that is just a distraction.
That's from this election. not 2017. If you add up "previous election" totals from that same page, it adds up to the full 155.
Some of it will change, but corporate-friendly is a good thing when done right. Having nothing corporate friendly would be patently stupid, and I have faith the people of Chile are smart enough to understand that.
Everyone wants workers to be properly rewarded. Everyone wants workers to see the first benefits. We just likely have different conceptions of what a proper reward is, and I spend a fair amount of time arguing with communists who don't believe workers should be the first rewarded, but rather the only ones rewarded. The phrase "first to benefit" necessarily implies that others will also benefit from the labor, which I can personally assure you is fighting words when arguing with communists. A business that fails to pay it's workers what was agreed upon is gonna get shut down by left-wing or right-wing all the same.
As far as an active state for the elimination of poverty, you're not going to find right-wingers suggesting that the elderly or disabled should be left to die in the streets, or the homeless should just be ignored, or that the state can't help people make a better life for themselves. The problem is that systems that effectively pay people for being poor and helpless don't eradicate poverty, they encourage it, as people are incentivized to meet the standards for benefits. Hence, people choosing to be unemployed when high dollar perpetual unemployment is an option. That's why, of all things, UBI (as a replacement for existing welfare) appeals to lots of right-wing folks, because it helps people who need it without asking people to be poor to receive it.
Regardless, none of this is what left and right wing are about anyway, so when they build themselves a similar constitutional hierarchy to what they had already, we'll have the answer.
Oh, that's true, you won't find them suggesting that's what should happen! You'll just find them implementing policies that bring those end-points about.
You find poverty and homelessness in every nation on earth, to some degree. The highest rates are among African countries (I think 9 of the top 10?), all of which without exception were subject to European colonial government for the largest part of the last ~200 years.
The highest rates among countries on other continents are in South/ Central America: Guatemala, Argentina, Colombia and a few others, most of which were run by right-wing military juntas until the mid-twentieth century. After their overthrow, most of since been run by left-wing, populist governments... although the US has often covertly destabilised/ attempted to overthrow the elected left-wing leaders in these states (e.g., Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile, Panama, etc etc). Nevertheless, poverty in South/ Central America has generally decreased under the rule of the left-wing populists who succeeded the juntas.
In short, you're talking out of your ass, and this is generally irrelevant to the point that the right-wingers in our countries-- the US, UK, and Western Europe, for most forum-members-- tend to stand squarely in the way of state-run efforts to tackle poverty & homelessness.
You mean they stand in the way of your preferred state-run efforts to tackle poverty and homelessness. The solution, in my mind, to a large part of the homelessness problem is the return of mental institutions. If you oppose that, should I say you are standing in the way of state-run efforts to tackle homelessness? Republicans believe in fiscal policy that promotes voluntary business and prosperity among the people (it's not a huge conspiracy to give rich people more money), and you oppose that, should I accuse you of standing in the way of state-run efforts to tackle poverty? In places where we disagree on policy, from my perspective, you would stand in the way of efforts to tackle poverty and homelessness, because I don't think your preferred policies are effective. But I would never say you're standing in the way in those words, because I recognize that isn't your intent.
Indeed. It's a loosely coordinated public relations campaign to give rich people more money.
Not at all, because if you depend on voluntary business and general prosperity to tackle poverty and homelessness, those aren't state-run approaches. It's obvious that "state-run" means the state is directly addressing the problems with government funding and government initiatives, not indirectly addressing the problem via business/voluntarism.
(Though when you mention voluntary approaches, it's worth noting that here in the UK, the Conservative Party can be pretty hostile to charities working on homelessness and poverty as well. It's not just that they don't think the state should do it; they simply don't give a shit).
Which is why, of course, there's a massive media campaign on right-leaning news outlets about the poor coal miners in Alabama being shut down by big government when asking for their compensation to reflect the work they put into rescuing their mining company.
So you don't think "opportunity zones" qualify as a state-run program to address poverty? You don't think people in La Lista Del Pueblo would accept programs that incentivize behaviors as government intervention, for lack of being direct action?
In the very loosest sense they would count. I certainly don't think anyone advocating for direct state intervention to tackle poverty and homelessness would consider them sufficient, and I'd give the side-eye to anyone claiming to support state-run solutions if all they were doing was ultimately leaving it up to private businesses.
Correct. In other words, the seat totals available for election decreased from 155 in 2017 to 138 in 2021 because 17 seats were reserved for indigenous groups. From this we can therefore work out that although the combined totals of leftist parties/lists decreased by 3 seats 2017-2021, as a proportion of elected seats the left actually increased their seat share.
As I stated.
Mmm.
Except the very rich people and corporations lobbying the shit out of government, especially right-wing parties, to do otherwise. And therefore implicitly from that the people who vote for right-wing parties who enable the right-wing parties' corporate masters to get their way.
Or perhaps we could say that the right wants people to be "properly" rewarded. It's just that what they view as "proper" is that the employer has total liberty to decide what an employee is worth, and if it's less than the employee needs to afford a decent minimum quality of life, that's just tough titties for the employee.
Oh! I got it, I misunderstood you. But man, you said it dumb.
Add to that the fact that I had already acknowledged the drop and you were disagreeing with me, it looked very much like you were saying there were only 138 seats available in 2017. Regardless, the problem with your math is still the heinous double standard applied to independents, not what the total was. You only believe the left increased seat share by taking a list of independents that seems vaguely left-wing and bunching them together while only considering the single major right-wing party as right-wing. The combined totals of leftist parties didn't decrease seats by 3, they decreased by 30, and you're choosing to view a list of independents as specifically part of that voting bloc in spite of them specifically running as not part of that voting bloc, while treating all other independents as neutral.
And all of that is extra silly, because you were the one talking about how "well the right wing party having the biggest representation doesn't matter without the 1/3rd veto power because they won't want to have to convince independents to side with them", and out of the other side of your mouth you are basically claiming that left-wing parties are automatically entitled to a certain number of independents.
I could be more interested in your unnecessarily poisonous comment, had it not been for the fact that the rest of my comment adds context to make your interpretation illogical. I'm not sure what bug you had up your backside to be that aggressive, but whatever.
You're right, it is nominally a list of independents. But it is a coalition of independents which clearly sets out a series of common values held by its members, and they are left-leaning values. Therefore, it should be considered a left-leaning alliance.
* * *
For instance, you talk about them "strengthening families" as if that's US Republican-y. But what do they actually mean by that?
Okay, this isn't US Republican-y at all. Unions? State pensions? Higher, living wages? Social housing? State pensions? Ensuring full healthcare access? This is stuff further left of half the US Democratic Party! Note that call to "respecting [families'] wide diversity", "different types of family in parenting": compare to the perennial hostility of Republicans towards non-nuclear families - single parents, gay couples, etc.
Their view of "strengthening the family" is nothing like the US Republicans at all.
I don't think that was particularly aggressive or poisonous, to say I misunderstood and then explain how based on the section that caused the miscommunication. If "dumb" is sufficient to put you on the defensive, I don't know how you talk to anyone else on the forum.
You're wrong for considering it an alliance. The Chilean election system is a proportional representation system that doesn't support infinitely fractured candidate positions. The major coalitions are already themselves groups of parties that can have pretty far ranging views. These lists are people that reject membership in any of like 20 major parties, and banded together for electoral advantage. By being in a list together, they effectively pool their votes to win seats, and then are only competing in votes with one another for the seats they collectively win. Joining an independent list is not loyalty to the common values of the group, it isn't a political party, it's "grouping with these people is acceptable enough to me in order to gain the electoral advantage". An individual in La Lista Del Pueblo need not agree with every member of that list, they need only be able to rationalize how their membership is appropriate. And like, it's not as though parties lack that aspect, there are plenty of examples of members of political parties who are part of that party because that is how they win, despite having major mismatches with the party's stated values. Treating a single party as a united voting bloc is already questionable, but thinking of a list of independents in that sort of election system as united is far overstating what that list is.
It is an alliance: a bunch of people grouping together for mutual gain.
This is of course how political parties started: factions of individuals with similar ideas on how things should be, before they created centralised organisation, membership, manifestos, etc. and became a party. But we don't pretend these factions are therefore meaningless or don't tend to represent certain outlooks or values. Especially when they create a very nice website to spell out what these values are. You would expect short of outright dihonesty that someone who signed up a group with a specific set of ideals clearly should have some belief in the greater part those ideals, and if they did not, would surely face some difficult questions when out campaigning.