German elections return a centre-right government

It looks as if the SPD has suffered a substantial rebuff at the polls and Chancellor Merkel has been re-elected - this time with the option to form a coalition of the centre-right, rather than relying on the Social Democrats.

It's clear that Mrs Merkel is widely trusted by the electorate and now they have given her the chance to drive through her original plans.

German voters gave conservative chancellor Angela Merkel a second term today and allowed her to dump her centre-left coalition partners in favour of the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP), projections showed.

Her challenger in the vote, Social Democrat (SPD) Frank-Walter Steinmeier, appeared on television shortly after the first projections came out and conceded that his party had suffered a "bitter defeat".

What will this mean for Germany and the rest of Europe?

I really hope the CDU will finally ban video games, install cameras on all public places and some of those other nice policies their members seem to bring up again and again.

In other words, my hopes are actually on a strong FDP now, not sure their policies are all good and for the better, but we'll see about that.

Europe's Center-Left Parties Stuck in a Dead End
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...650812,00.html

I think the Liberal Democrats should get into power, it is worth it just for the total shock of it all. Maybe the opposition could be UKIP.

Having labour and tories in 3rd and 4th would be an amusing sight.

Just how "Christian" is CDU? Any Germans here that can answer that? I have read considerable amounts of news on them, mainly from the Economist but I fail to see how a Western European, rather secular nation can have a party named "CDU". To what extent does their purported religiosity influence their actions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Just how "Christian" is CDU? Any Germans here that can answer that? I have read considerable amounts of news on them, mainly from the Economist but I fail to see how a Western European, rather secular nation can have a party named "CDU". To what extent does their purported religiosity influence their actions?

---

Nothing special, or biggest/second biggest (currently tied with mr Wilders) is called the Christian democratic -don't know how to translate last word-.

i like the sound of the FDP, germany may be going somewhere useful now.

free-market
non-corporatist
pro-afghanistan
pro-nuclear

the only fly in the ointment is that that are pro EU-federalist, but then who isn't these days in euro politics.

i think the result is great, shame portugal didn't crown the moment by booting the socialists.

Well, at least they didn't elect another Hitler....

Always nice when the Germans don't do that.

i'm not sure if i can take that comment at face value HT, are you sure you aren't throwing out a sardonic riposte or some such witty repartee?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Just how "Christian" is CDU? Any Germans here that can answer that? I have read considerable amounts of news on them, mainly from the Economist but I fail to see how a Western European, rather secular nation can have a party named "CDU". To what extent does their purported religiosity influence their actions?

---

As Fragony pointed out, the christianity is mostly in their name and some general values. For some reason it still seems to attract some christian voters though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i like the sound of the FDP, germany may be going somewhere useful now.

free-market
non-corporatist
pro-afghanistan
pro-nuclear

the only fly in the ointment is that that are pro EU-federalist, but then who isn't these days in euro politics.

i think the result is great, shame portugal didn't crown the moment by booting the socialists.

---

I like some of that as well, but I want to know what will happen to people who have to work for 3EUR an hour...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, at least they didn't elect another Hitler....

Always nice when the Germans don't do that.

---

:laugh4:
I didn't vote by the way so I can't be blamed for nothing.
I really wanted to but am visiting my parents and cannot vote here, didn't have time to go for a postal vote due to having exams...must be a conspiracy to exclude me. :inquisitive:

Someone's already mentioned Hitler, so I might as well post these:

https://i269.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1254133734
https://i269.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1254133784

I guess making empty promises that appeal to pretty much everyone is not just a sympton of our time :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Just how "Christian" is CDU? Any Germans here that can answer that? I have read considerable amounts of news on them, mainly from the Economist but I fail to see how a Western European, rather secular nation can have a party named "CDU". To what extent does their purported religiosity influence their actions?

---

I'm pretty sure that most European countries have at least one christian democratic party, and that the UK is an exception.

Ours doesn't explicitly refer to the bible anymore when they want to get something done because that would alienate many centrist voters, but I suspect that a substantial part of them is just hiding their true colors.

This guy sums up my position very well, but be aware it's a bit more than a year old and in german.
He mentions how 70% said in a poll that they like Merkel and in the same poll 70% said they're not satisfied with the government. I was reminded of that when I saw an ad on a paper earlier that said "If you want Merkel, you have to vote CDU." which leads me to conclude a lot of people really have no idea who or what they're voting for. :dizzy2:

interesting round-up of headline responses to the Merkel victory from around europe:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...651726,00.html


one that interested me was La Liberation:

Quote:

---

France's Libération saw some contradiction in the fact that a pro-business party will now become the junior partner in Germany's ruling coalition. "The crisis shows the failure of a certain liberalism but, in Germany, the liberals have won," the paper wrote. It added that Germany's -- like France's -- left needed to get its act together: "To stop liberalism from spreading in Germany and elsewhere, there needs to be a strong and united left that can beat the right and tailor its policies to win votes in the center. The SPD has not understood the need to adapt. ... For the left in France and Germany, the Rhine is no longer a border."

---

how does the French left define "liberalism" such that it is seen as an alien orthodoxy?

I like Merkel. Boring politicians are the best politicians. I must echo the sentiment that I like Merkel, but not the CDU/CSU.

Happy to see the FPD go in. I somewhat equally dislike Christian democrats and social democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Nothing special, or biggest/second biggest (currently tied with mr Wilders) is called the Christian democratic -don't know how to translate last word-.

---

I think Dutch 'appèl' translates into English - rather surprisingly - as 'appeal'. :balloon2:

(French: appeler)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

one that interested me was La Liberation:

how does the French left define "liberalism" such that it is seen as an alien orthodoxy?

---

Liberalism in french means right wing free market fundamentalism.

Libération (left leaning) describes a feeling of frustration among the (French?) left. On the one hand, 'liberalism' has driven the Western economies into the biggest depression sinds the 1930's. Leftist parties have warned against this for two decades.
On the other hand, the very parties responsible for this debacle are winning elections.

I must say that I've made a sharp left-turn this past year. I still think of myself as centre-right, but perhaps this no longer applies. I can not ignore the insanity I see around me. For years, neo-liberalism has demanded that there be no regulation and no tax for haute finance. Then the card house collapses. And suddenly there should be taxes to help them out that my grandchildren will still be paying.


The folly of the Euro right has been the embracing of anglo ultraliberalism. The protection of corporations over people. This has undermined, amongst many other things, several of Europe's most cherised qualities:
- Meritocracy. Everywhere in Europe, social mobility is dropping to the level of the anglo world. Whereas in the UK and US your (grand)parents decide your succes, in Europe, hard work and talent is decisive.
- The quality of public services. Healthcare, education etc.
- A certain gentleness, social cohesion, civilization. The social gentleness of Europe has been swapped for the law of the jungle, for greed, envy, 'me me me and the finger to everybody else'.

The folly of the Euro left has been unbridled mass immigration. This has undermined social solidarity, and has destroyed socialism in Europe forever.

cheers Louis. :)

n.b. there is a difference between free market economics and corpratism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

- Meritocracy. Everywhere in Europe, social mobility is dropping to the level of the anglo world. Whereas in the UK and US your (grand)parents decide your succes, in Europe, hard work and talent is decisive.

---

Well this is just outright untrue. In the States merit rules the roost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Well this is just outright untrue. In the States merit rules the roost.

---

It doesn't though. If you are born middle class, you generally stay middle class, if you are born working, you generally stay working class, if you are born upper class, you generally stay upper class, if you are born unworking class, you generally stay unworking class.

There is basically almost no social movability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Well this is just outright untrue. In the States merit rules the roost.

---

Might be true, but apparently to a lesser extand than in some part of Europe. By northern Europe, they mean Germany, Netherland and the Scandinavian Countries.

Another OECD survey (can't find it atm) concluded that UK has a low social mobility, a bit better than Portugal or Italy, but similar to France's or Belgium's. It seems reality is quite far from the 'free-market creates more social mobility' mantra.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

n.b. there is a difference between free market economics and corpratism.

---

This is about as valuable as saying that communism is different from stalinism/maoism. Might be true in theory, but in practice, it's not, at least AFAIK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It doesn't though. If you are born middle class, you generally stay middle class, if you are born working, you generally stay working class, if you are born upper class, you generally stay upper class, if you are born unworking class, you generally stay unworking class.

There is basically almost no social movability.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh man, thanks for the joke. The backroom can be depressing at times without such witty jesters as yourself.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Just how "Christian" is CDU? Any Germans here that can answer that? I have read considerable amounts of news on them, mainly from the Economist but I fail to see how a Western European, rather secular nation can have a party named "CDU". To what extent does their purported religiosity influence their actions?

---

CDU, not really. CSU, more so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Another OECD survey (can't find it atm) concluded that UK has a low social mobility, a bit better than Portugal or Italy, but similar to France's or Belgium's. It seems reality is quite far from the 'free-market creates more social mobility' mantra.

---

I would argue that the free market does, but corporatism doesn't necessarily do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Oh man, thanks for the joke. The backroom can be depressing at times without such witty jesters as yourself.

CR

---

How 'bout posting some stats that show the US have a higher social mobility than europe? That will actually be a contribution, instead of just trying to ruin the discussion....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It doesn't though. If you are born middle class, you generally stay middle class, if you are born working, you generally stay working class, if you are born upper class, you generally stay upper class, if you are born unworking class, you generally stay unworking class.

There is basically almost no social movability.

---

That's true across the globe and it tells nothing about one's mobility within his social class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I'm pretty sure that most European countries have at least one christian democratic party, and that the UK is an exception..

---

Of course, I know that. But it seems that among the major nations, Germany is the only one with a self-described as "Christian" party. Of course, all nations likewise have some variant of the Nazi and the communist party, but you do not see those anywhere close to power. Usually.


Anyway, guys, check out another political oddity:

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM - I kid you not:


It actually, quite easily, makes sense, but they manner in which those nutjobs present it is simply farcical :laugh4:.

In any case, Louis, this proves Russian superiorly over your measly Frogs. (please do not ask me how much vodka it took for us to come up with this pile of manure)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Anyway, guys, check out another political oddity:

NATIONAL BOLSHEVISM - I kid you not:

---

You see that as crazy. I see it as a way to get rid of the NPD and Die Linke in one fell stroke.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

You see that as crazy. I see it as a way to get rid of the NPD and Die Linke in one fell stroke.

---

Hmmm, you certainly have a point, but would you truly like to have the two most radical parties of the Bundestag unite?

And who said I view them as crazy? I am voting for them as soon as I turn 18! Who would not want the greatness of Hitler Germany and Stalin Russia unite??

Well, on a more serious note, if they were to go free-market, I would be enticed by the nationalism. Too bad their agenda is nothing but the raving of intoxicated young males... I wish Russia could have an Empire, but can we? Can anyone? I doubt it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hmmm, you certainly have a point, but would you truly like to have the two most radical parties of the Bundestag unite?

---

The NPD isn't in the Bundestag, so hopefully their vote shares would then converge and they would rapidly lose influence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

The NPD isn't in the Bundestag, so hopefully their vote shares would then converge and they would rapidly lose influence.

---

Gah, sorry, I mixed up NDP with The Left. I believe they do have a seat, do they not?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

How 'bout posting some stats that show the US have a higher social mobility than europe? That will actually be a contribution, instead of just trying to ruin the discussion....

---

I didn't say the US had higher social mobility, I said Beskar's claim ("There is basically almost no social movability") was laughable. We do manage to avoid an 'unworking class' though, perhaps by not giving away welfare to life to anyone without a job.

And I could have listed many personal examples that proved that, but I didn't want to make such an effort to refute a claim that he clearly hasn't researched or thought about, but just repeated after reading it in Socialist Fancy or whatever.

CR
(Note, the above post contains hyperbole and generalizations. Take literally at your own risk)

How is it laughable?

Because there's a lot of social mobility, especially for those who work hard to improve their situation.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

It doesn't though. If you are born middle class, you generally stay middle class, if you are born working, you generally stay working class, if you are born upper class, you generally stay upper class, if you are born unworking class, you generally stay unworking class.

There is basically almost no social movability.

---

All Europeans live off the welfare system and Americas defense systems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Because there's a lot of social mobility, especially for those who work hard to improve their situation.

CR

---

Hahahahahano.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

Hahahahahano.

---

I have some people who would disagree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I have some people who would disagree with you.

---

And I know people who are working multiple jobs and still can barely make their bills, despite all their hard work. American Dream INDEED.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jabarto

And I know people who are working multiple jobs and still can barely make their bills, despite all their hard work. American Dream INDEED.

---

The decisons we make have allot to do with our financials. Working multiple jobs could just as eaisly be an indicator of someone who blows money on garden gnomes.

To say the USA (a country of 300 million mind you) has much less mobility than the rest of the west is disingenous at best.

But the US certainly hijacked a thread about german elections...
You can't deny their topical mobility.

That said, the US has a minimum wage, Germany doesn't, that makes the US the commies. :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

To say the USA (a country of 300 million mind you) has much less mobility than the rest of the west is disingenous at best.

---

There is something to say for it, has nothing to do with your way of life but just because it's BIG, social inequality can't be prevented. If you are born in a bad place in America you are worse of than in other western country's. There is no shame in that it's not an inherent flaw in your system, it would be impossible to guaranty a universal standard of living; in Western Europe things are much more compact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

There is something to say for it, has nothing to do with your way of life but just because it's BIG, social inequality can't be prevented. If you are born in a bad place in America you are worse of than in other western country's. There is no shame in that it's not an inherent flaw in your system, it would be impossible to guaranty a universal standard of living; in Western Europe things are much more compact.

---

That sounds like your typical defeatist attitude and is in complete contrast with all that supposedly makes out the USA, basically a struggle to be the best in everything, if they have poorer people than Europe then they clearly failed in that respect and instead of just accepting that they should use their genius, their unbendable will and their great hearts to fix that problem and land on top of the world. That's what the USA are about, not just admitting defeat and saying it can't be helped, that kinda attitude would have made them a japanese colony by now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But the US certainly hijacked a thread about german elections...
You can't deny their topical mobility.

That said, the US has a minimum wage, Germany doesn't, that makes the US the commies. :smash:

---

You're right; enough about the US.

So...How will the German elections affect relations with the US? :grin:

Frankly, I'm glad to see her remain in power. Someone said it best regarding boring politicians. I'll take one Merkel over three Obamas any day. I'm not sure how Germany has done it but it appears they are faring relatively well during this economic crisis. I believe one reason for this is that Germany has a better cultural or economic identity. The US is struggling with socialism vs. capitalism, the UK unitary system is starting to crack, and France has its problems with the second-generation immigrants.

In all, I still wouldn't mind retiring to Belgium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

But the US certainly hijacked a thread about german elections...
You can't deny their topical mobility.

---

We get it. Le Pen won, good for the fatherland.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Gah, sorry, I mixed up NDP with The Left. I believe they do have a seat, do they not?

---

No, the NPD kept roughly their vote share from last election. They have seats in various Landtags. Die Linke gained seats in the Bundestag. Sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Die Linke gained seats in the Bundestag. Sadly.

---

See?? I knew the Germans loved the Soviet Rule!!! Deep down, all of you liked our communism.

If you remained alive that is...

That said, the Germans were treated as the top priority by the Soviets. I am not saying life was great or good in East Germany, but believe me, the subsidies and pampering was comparatively immense. USSR knew Germans were used to higher standards and that they had more choice than Russian citizens.

In USSR, Russians got the least, then came the other "Republics", after that came nations Czechoslovakia, Baltic Republics as well as Poland, and on the top was East Germany. Many Russians came back from Poland or Baltic amazed at how much better the life was there, how many things were available for sale compared to the more meagre Russian department stores.

Also, many Russians moved to Ukraine or Moldova, because once again, more subsidies were given to other republics. In no manner I am suggesting USSR was altruistic, it is just that they knew that while Russians had no choice but their own government, the other nations could rebel, something that was more crucial in Eastern Block Allies and very crucial for East Germany. And of course, the living standards were still behind Western countries, although there was more equality in USSR (yes, I know high-level Party members dined on caviar and drank fine scotch, but in general, you had few divisions).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

See?? I knew the Germans loved the Soviet Rule!!! Deep down, all of you liked our communism.

---

Ostalgia. Lots of people in the East are incapable of looking back and seeing just how much worse off they were. That and the SPD is weak in many places in the East, making Die Linke the go-to leftist party.

Interestingly enough East Germany was probably one of the most spied-on Eastern countries (by the State).

Quote:

---

That said, the Germans were treated as the top priority by the Soviets. I am not saying life was great or good in East Germany, but believe me, the subsidies and pampering was comparatively immense. USSR knew Germans were used to higher standards and that they had more choice than Russian citizens.

---

This is true, personal experience of mine certainly backs this up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

[on support for Die Linke]
See?? I knew the Germans loved the Soviet Rule!!! Deep down, all of you liked our communism.

---

No sympathy for communism from me. But...it was also twenty years ago. Nations move on, people need to move on. West Germany wasn't fully denazified either.

A whole lot of Germany can be traced back to dictatorial times. To however dismiss everything originating or supported by previous dictatorships would be a dead-end street. Die Linke may draw heavily on Ostalgia, and have an altogether too large communist influence, but it also enjoys support from a democratic leftist electorate.


Both Germany's got a fine deal after the war. The Eastern Bloc used the GDR (? - East Germany) as a 'showcase'. The West needed to prop up the GFR(? - West Germany) to prevent the rest of Europe of being turned into a showcase for communism too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Ostalgia.

---

I would and do understand the manifestation of this in former Soviet Republics, but Germany?? Life in Germany is vastly better than in Eastern Europe and the contrast should be immense. The main problem in nations such as Russia or Ukraine is the lack of stability as well as remembrance of a time when Russia was a superpower. Germany is not unstable, nor did it lose its power or status since the fall of Berlin Wall. If anything, it gained it. So why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Interestingly enough East Germany was probably one of the most spied-on Eastern countries (by the State).

---

Duh. East Germany was the most likely candidate for rebellion - former Nazi, just out of a war, formerly a great power, was still becoming used to being subjugated, was the closest to the West, was split from a single nation - possibly eager to reunite. I would be surprised if it was not spied on the most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

This is true, personal experience of mine certainly backs this up.

---

If you are being sardonic then -

I am not saying Germany was loved by USSR. Nor am I saying that life was great back then. Neither is true. What I am saying is that USSR attempted to keep its holdings by making life there better than it was in Russia. Life in Russia was **** in Russia compared to other republics. The Party did not care what happened inside their most secure holding. Just read the statistics. Ask anyone from former USSR who has been outside of Russia.

My grandfather was a merchant, a person who traveled all around Soviet-friendly nations buying and selling, despite the fact profiteering was illegal. He amassed quite a fortune, and many stories as well. So did my parents, who visited Poland and Czechoslovakia to buy goods that they would later sell in Russia, where you could not find such consumer products. Such as hair-straighteners, or a whole host of minor kitchen appliances.

Everyone who came back from Baltics or Poland was always amazed at the comparative quality of life there. All the pensioners spoke about it. It was common knowledge. Even in Moldavia, for instance, life was very good compared to Russia. It was part of USSR, so many Russians moved there, including my grandfathers on both sides. That is how most of my family is in Moldova now, even though life is crap there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

A whole lot of Germany can be traced back to dictatorial times. To however dismiss everything originating or supported by previous dictatorships would be a dead-end street. Die Linke may draw heavily on Ostalgia, and have an altogether too large communist influence, but it also enjoys support from a democratic leftist electorate.

---

It isn't quite the same though. It isn't that they just draw on Ostalgia and the East German state, it is that they are the successor party to the SED. It would be like the Nazi Party renaming itself, and gaining some influence from relatively "normal" people on the same side of the political spectrum years later.

Aemilius Paulus, my post was not so hostile to you as it might have seemed when you first read it. I'd recommend reading it again before taking that tone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Aemilius Paulus, my post was not so hostile to you as it might have seemed when you first read it. I'd recommend reading it again before taking that tone.

---

Sorry, but I did not write as hostile, but mildly exasperated. Knowing the mods here (well, actually, in the Frontroom - Banquo is a very reasonable and fair person), I will have to change it before I get an infraction.

Thanks for the warning :bow:

In any case, were you being sarcastic? At first I did not think so, but knowing you I doubted you would actually admit something good about USSR. In addition, you hinted at your experience as if it was a jab in my direction, knowing that I had no experience. Perhaps you were angered by my discourse on a subject you experienced firsthand (if you actually did). That is quite annoying, as what I said (the subsidies and favour-seeking) before was fact, not opinion. No Western author denies that life in Soviet Eastern Block 'Allies' was at least noticeably vastly superior to the mudpit of Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

In any case, were you being sarcastic? At first I did not think so, but knowing you I doubted you would actually admit something good about USSR.

---

I'm not sarcastic, nor am I saying anything good about the USSR. Keeping the Eastern satellites happy was a necessity.

Life in Soviet Russia overall might not have been great compared to the rest of the Eastern Bloc, but in Moscow it was pretty damn good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

No sympathy for communism from me.

---

I am sure you got it, but just in case, perhaps for other Orgahs, I was not at all serious when I said See?? I knew the Germans loved the Soviet Rule!!! Deep down, all of you liked our communism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Life in Soviet Russia overall might not have been great compared to the rest of the Eastern Bloc, but in Moscow it was pretty damn good.

---

That is debatable. The main pro of Moscow was the fact that the stores were relatively well-stocked in normal years and better-stocked during the Deficit Eighties (deficit referring to the lack of goods in stores, and not to an overall economic state of budget). However, Moscow could not compare to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lutehnia, Czechoslovakia, or GDR - mainly in non-edible products.

The produce, the food items were rather abundant in Moscow, but other consumer products, such as any sort of devices (such as those hair straighteners or kitchen appliances) were painfully deficient. The one incontrovertible benefit of Moscow were the "special stores" for Party members. The high-ranking ones that is - almost everyone was a member of the Communist Party - joining was highly encouraged and numerous difficulties arose for non-members.

Otherwise, Moscow had little other benefits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

That is debatable. The main pro of Moscow was the fact that the stores were relatively well-stocked in normal years and better-stocked during the Deficit Eighties (deficit referring to the lack of goods in stores, and not to an overall economic state of budget). However, Moscow could not compare to Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lutehnia, Czechoslovakia, or GDR - mainly in non-edible products.

The produce, the food items were rather abundant in Moscow, but other consumer products, such as any sort of devices (such as those hair straighteners or kitchen appliances) were painfully deficient. The one incontrovertible benefit of Moscow were the "special stores" for Party members. The high-ranking ones that is - almost everyone was a member of the Communist Party - joining was highly encouraged and numerous difficulties arose for non-members.

Otherwise, Moscow had little other benefits.

---

I remember Moscow of the 80s reasonably well. Stores were loaded with Soviet-made manufactured goods and occasionally got shipments from other Warsaw pact countries. People obviously tried to avoid just about anything that had a "Made in the USSR" tag, because for the most part it was quite frankly crap. Anything made in the other Soviet Bloc countries was highly prized and always in demand.

As for "almost everyone" belonging to the Communist Party, that's nowhere near the truth. Not in the 80s anyway. In fact, in the 80s the majority of people did *not* belong to the party, as the benefits of membership were only relevant if one was seeking a highly prestigious government job. The regular rank'n'file members would just be stuck paying the party dues and attending countless and absolutely meaningless party meetings. Needless to say, not many people cared for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I remember Moscow of the 80s reasonably well. Stores were loaded with Soviet-made manufactured goods and occasionally got shipments from other Warsaw pact countries. People obviously tried to avoid just about anything that had a "Made in the USSR" tag, because for the most part it was quite frankly crap. Anything made in the other Soviet Bloc countries was highly prized and always in demand.

---

Have you lived there for more than a year? My parents have, and they often speak of those times, as I ask them. Sure, Moscow had all sorts of goods, but the lines were immense and few could get hold of the deficit goods. Remember that Moscow is a gargantuan city of millions of people - it is #7 in population today, although that is based on the "city proper", and not the general metropolitan area.

It does not matter what it had, there was still woefully too little of it. Even in the Soviet films, if you happen to watch them, shortages are a common issue in the lives of people. If the Party did not deny it, and went as far as even flaunting it, then you know it was bad. You would normally expect such problems to be minimised, at least in films, but they were not.

Nor was the "made in USSR tag" comment true either. There were plenty of reversals of that, as well as other factors. I am not even certain if a broad generalisation of your position would be true here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

As for "almost everyone" belonging to the Communist Party, that's nowhere near the truth. Not in the 80s anyway. In fact, in the 80s the majority of people did *not* belong to the party, as the benefits of membership were only relevant if one was seeking a highly prestigious government job. The regular rank'n'file members would just be stuck paying the party dues and attending countless and absolutely meaningless party meetings. Needless to say, not many people cared for that.

---

Alright, now you are seriously detached from reality, to put it mildly. Everyone had to join the Young Pioneers, then the Komsomol, and then the Party itself. Few avoided it, for ideological or more often, religious reasons. They payed dearly, as their prospects were low - few occupations were open to them. Also, if they became involved in anything shady, punishment would be extra-harsh, on top of what a strong party member.

Can anyone support me here please? C'mon this is common truth. Angela Merkel is mentioned not joining the Party and her biographies state that was a serious action, condemning her to a life of greater drudgery than majority of other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Everyone had to join the Young Pioneers, then the Komsomol, and then the Party itself. Few avoided it, for ideological or more often, religious reasons. They payed dearly, as their prospects were low - few occupations were open to them. Also, if they became involved in anything shady, punishment would be extra-harsh, on top of what a strong party member.

---

Just about every kid became a poineer, yes. Most did join the Komsomol. Then it dropped off *sharply*. Once Gorbachev came to power people have very little tolerance from the ideological mumbo-jumbo, and as a result most didn't ever bother joining the Communist Party. There was a HUGE difference between a 1984 USSR and a 1985 USSR. HUGE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Once Gorbachev came to power people have very little tolerance from the ideological mumbo-jumbo, and as a result most didn't ever bother joining the Communist Party. There was a HUGE difference between a 1984 USSR and a 1985 USSR. HUGE.

---

There was a difference, yes. After Gorbachev, yes, yes. But "ALL CAPS" huge? I doubt it, although I will have to research this. You may as well be right about Party membership in Gorbachev's time. Despite this, I still have doubts, as it was always true that you could not advance far without Party Membership.

What do you define as "HUGE"? If by that you mean 20%, then yes. If more, then probably not. Probably, maybe. Like I said, I will have to research this.

EDIT: By 1933, the party had approximately 3.5 million members but as a result of the Great Purge party membership was cut down to 1.9 million by 1939.[citation needed] In 1986, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union had over 19 million members or approximately 10% of the USSR's adult population. - Wikipedia. Not true about pre-1986 membership rates. I have hear 19 million statistic mentioned in my American Government book, but that was definitely not true. I could swallow 40% though.

Why would you NOT join the Party? You do not have to be sincere about it. Principles snobbery is a stupid, vile thing. Do not like the Party? You do not have lick its rump if you are a member. Join it, attend a few meetings, and your life will be greatly improved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Why would you NOT join the Party? You do not have to be sincere about it. Principles snobbery is a stupid, vile thing. Do not like the Party? You do not have lick its rump if you are a member. Join it, attend a few meetings, and your life will be greatly improved.

---

With Gorbachev the rules of the game had changed. The Communist Party was only relevant if you were to pursue political power. For the average Joe (or average Ivan, I should say) it made no difference. None. So, once the punitive aspect of not joining was gone, nobody cared to join because most had nothing to gain from joining.

Official CDU poster. Well, issued by her party colleague Lengsfeld. Merkel apparantly was not amused.

It reads 'CDU. We've got more to offer.'



https://img24.imageshack.us/img24/7043/merkel.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

I remember Moscow of the 80s reasonably well. Stores were loaded with Soviet-made manufactured goods and occasionally got shipments from other Warsaw pact countries. People obviously tried to avoid just about anything that had a "Made in the USSR" tag, because for the most part it was quite frankly crap. Anything made in the other Soviet Bloc countries was highly prized and always in demand.

---

That's very true. A chemical company my father was a manager of in the 70's and 80's made a fortune in Russia. They worked in 3 shifts and the still couldn't satisfy the demand. He also said he was very surprised at the price when he saw the products in the stores in Moscow. Not only they were 5-6 times more expensive than the Russian equivalents, they were also 3-4 time more expensive than what he sold them for, but they sold like crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

No, the NPD kept roughly their vote share from last election. They have seats in various Landtags. Die Linke gained seats in the Bundestag. Sadly.

---

I still think 8 EUR minimum wage couldn't hurt, although they want 10 and have some whacky ideas in other areas but so do some of the other parties, like the CDU/CSU... :rolleyes:

Alternatively I like the idea of the FDP which wants to introduce "Bürgergeld", money you get in addition to your job to guarantee a certain minimum income. I have however not seen a number for this minimum income or a plan to make this so that taking a job is actually preferable over just taking all the money from the government, if done correctly this could be a great idea but I have not seen this brought up anywhere except in that quiz about the elections where you can see what the individual parties want in certain areas. :shrug:
Overall though I would never work for 3 EUR an hour unless my work consisted of watching movies and writing 2 sentence summaries...I also didn't got for a 5 EUR per hour job even though I really needed one, I'm just not into slave labour I guess. :sweatdrop:

To be clear: "Ostalgia" is a play on words? Nostalgia for the Ost (east) - as in a longing for the good old days of the DDR ?

@Husar: so your choices of voting were to cast a ballot in your home district, or apply for, then mail in a postal ballot? Are the postal ballots in wide use yet? Do they get counted before or after the votes cast at polling stations? What kind of turnout was there for this election (% of eligible voters actually voting). Sorry for all the ??'s, but you know me, always interested in the mechanics of governance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

To be clear: "Ostalgia" is a play on words? Nostalgia for the Ost (east) - as in a longing for the good old days of the DDR ?

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

@Husar: so your choices of voting were to cast a ballot in your home district, or apply for, then mail in a postal ballot? Are the postal ballots in wide use yet? Do they get counted before or after the votes cast at polling stations?

---

I don't know when they are being counted, I think they have to have arrived by election day though.
But you're almost right about the choices, I could have voted in another locale in the same district by getting some papers the sheet I got says,but my parents live in a different district so that wouldn't have worked for me either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

What kind of turnout was there for this election (% of eligible voters actually voting). Sorry for all the ??'s, but you know me, always interested in the mechanics of governance.

---

According to "Der Spiegel" the turnout was 70.8% compared to 77.8% in 2005.
Oh and feel free to ask.

Hmm, I suppose rvg was correct in the Gorbachev era statistics. I admit my surrender :bow:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Hmm, I suppose rvg was correct in the Gorbachev era statistics. I admit my surrender :bow:.

---

It was an interesting time, to say the least. The Soviet civilization was truly unique and I think that on a certain level I even miss it. Back in those days the world was a simpler, I daresay, less evil place than it is today.

What Is Wrong with Social Democracy?:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...652231,00.html

Quote:

---

Germany's Social Democrats are in crisis. And they are not alone. Across Europe, social democratic parties are struggling to connect with a new generation of voters. What's the problem?
German Chancellor Angela Merkel's re-election this weekend confirms what many already knew: Europe's social democratic parties have failed to distill any political benefit from the association between the right's reverence for unfettered markets and the economic crises that grip the continent.
Historically, Europeans turn to conservatives in times of crisis. But today, the situation is more complex. In Germany, Merkel's Christian Democrats also fared worse than in previous elections. Instead, voters opted for the far-left Left Party, the liberal Free Democrats and the Greens. These parties tapped into modernizing demographic trends: the rise of a progressive younger generation, the continuing rise in educational levels, the growth of the professional class, the increasing social weight of single and alternative households and growing religious diversity and secularism. Despite the defeat of the social democrats, then, one can discern the emergence of new constituencies that favor progressives. These trends are repeated across much of Europe.
But why do these groups not vote for the social democrats?
The Shortcomings of Social Democracy
One can discern four reasons, common to many social democratic parties in Europe, each rooted in shortcomings of the Third Way.
First, European social democrats have done a poor job of defining what they stand for or how it differs from conservatives. The Third Way reconciled progressive thought with the market economy, individualism and globalization. This helped Bill Clinton in the US, Tony Blair in Britain and Gerhard Schröder in Germany establish political hegemonies in an era of conservative dominance. All three projects were egalitarian, but in rejecting many signature policies of social democratic thinking, they allowed conservatives to blur the differences between themselves and social democrats. Moreover, the social democrats' current difficulties in defining an alternative economic paradigm stem from gaps in Third Way thought, most notably with regards to industrial renewal.
Second, social democrats have failed to connect with the values of voters and thus struggle to respond to the populist anger that is typically rooted in these values. The Third Way's rejection of ideology was once a strength; it has now become a weakness. Social democratic politicians often suffer from "seminaritis" -- treating the political process as a matter of compiling data, evidence and the best ideas. But voters need more than a list of policy positions. Focusing on responsibility and technocratic reform, social democrats appear uninterested in the values and emotions of the working class and emerging progressive constituencies. As a result they are outflanked by parties to their left and right, and by the Liberals and Greens.
No Convincing Response
Third, social democrats now find themselves confronted by a raft of new policy challenges that the Third Way did not foresee. The Third Way emerged at a time of profound optimism. The end of the Cold War, and the dot-com boom led many to believe ideology (and conflict) was over, and that the post-modern West could live off services while consuming goods produced by the developing world. But, the entrance of a billion new workers into the global economy has not been without its consequences. While the benefits of globalization have been broadly distributed, the costs have been born by a specific few -- usually working class communities that were once the base of social democratic parties.
These trends have been exacerbated by the current crisis, and social democratic parties have failed to offer any convincing response. Add growing concerns about immigration, crime and Islamic terrorism, and European electorates have become vulnerable to a politics of fear and populism. Social democrats are currently trapped between appearing tone deaf -- singing the virtues of globalization or multiculturalism without admitting their difficulties -- or alienating part of the electorate they need to win office. On the economy and immigration, their heartland vote is tempted by the emotional messages of right and left wing competitors.
Had Its Day
Finally, social democrats have failed to modernize the way they do politics. The appeal of many new ethical or progressive movements is that they are open and less hierarchical. The days of a command and control structure that manages the 24-hour new cycle, and policy and message development are gone. The advent of new social media and the "blogosphere" make such an approach impossible. Moreover, voters are now less deferential and want to play a more active role in the political process.
While the Third Way was an essential stage in the renewal of social democratic thinking, most notably because it reconciled an electorate acclimatized to conservatism to the possibility of progressive politics, it has clearly had its day. If social democratic parties are to recover, then they must move to a new phase of progressive governance.
For social democrats to profit from the emergence of new social groups and constituencies that are potentially favorable to them, they will need a new agenda, new passion, and a new politics -- one open to collaboration with other parties, and new constituencies.
For those versed in the politics of the Third Way, this transition will be hard, but the work must start now.
This article is based on a longer paper, "The European Paradox," written by Matt Browne, Ruy Teixiera, and John Halpin which will be presented at a meeting of US and European progressives in Madrid, Spain. It was kindly provided to SPIEGEL ONLINE by the Heinrich Boell Stiftung.

---

What's wrong with the social democrats?

They've stopped being social democrats.

They've given in to the privatization and anti-immigration schemes of the conservatives instead of staying true to their old ideology. Those who want to vote for parties like that will find better options further right, and those who don't want those policies will be scared away. Our social democrats just won the election here. Why? Because they haven't given in to the privatization hype they were on a few years ago, they've stayed social democrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

And I could have listed many personal examples that proved that, but I didn't want to make such an effort to refute a claim that he clearly hasn't researched or thought about, but just repeated after reading it in Socialist Fancy or whatever.

---

Who cares about personal examples? I've been to the US for 14 days and I could have listed many personal examples that proved that social mobility is quite low, as in, lower than in most western Europe, despite all the 'American dream' mumbo jumbo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SFTS

All Europeans live off the welfare system and Americas defense systems

---

This is something I can somewhat agree with. Although most europeans don't live off the welfare system (in which case Europe would be a third word area by now), it's quite true that said welfare system could only become possible because the US funded the defense of western Europe.
Europeans could never have afforded to defend themselves against a possible soviet invasion while setting up workable welfare states.
This is often forgotten by Europeans and Canadians.

Quote:

---

To say the USA (a country of 300 million mind you) has much less mobility than the rest of the west is disingenous at best.

---

Now I don't see how the population is relevant. I'm not sure it has much less mobility than the rest of Europe, but I think the 'american dream' is kind of a fairy tale now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EMFM

Ostalgia. Lots of people in the East are incapable of looking back and seeing just how much worse off they were. That and the SPD is weak in many places in the East, making Die Linke the go-to leftist party.

---

I don't see how having a state-guaranteed job, a monthly income and living in a decent appartement is 'much worse' than being unemployed. Not to mention that East Germany had a disproportionnate weight on the international scene (being the showoff of USSR), while reunited Germany used to be pretty much nonexistant (things are changing lately, mostly because Germany decided to loosen its ties with France). Then again, there's the fact that social and economical inequalities were not nearly as bad as they are now (even though Germany is doing fine on that departement). You don't really care if you're poor, as long as you still can live decently, and as long as your neighbour isn't 10 times wealthier than you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What's wrong with the social democrats?

They've stopped being social democrats.

They've given in to the privatization and anti-immigration schemes of the conservatives instead of staying true to their old ideology. Those who want to vote for parties like that will find better options further right, and those who don't want those policies will be scared away. Our social democrats just won the election here. Why? Because they haven't given in to the privatization hype they were on a few years ago, they've stayed social democrats.

---

How "left" are they? I typically hate parties on either end of the spectrum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I don't see how having a state-guaranteed job, a monthly income and living in a decent appartement is 'much worse' than being unemployed. Not to mention that East Germany had a disproportionnate weight on the international scene (being the showoff of USSR), while reunited Germany used to be pretty much nonexistant (things are changing lately, mostly because Germany decided to loosen its ties with France). Then again, there's the fact that social and economical inequalities were not nearly as bad as they are now (even though Germany is doing fine on that departement). You don't really care if you're poor, as long as you still can live decently, and as long as your neighbour isn't 10 times wealthier than you.

---

:dizzy2:

I like how you can sit there in your comfortable French apartment and theorize about how glorious (or at least not that bad) socialism in East Germany ones, but a rational look at East Germany will reveal a very different conclusion. It wasn't a pleasant place to live in, however much people - even those who lived there - may look back at it and think it was. Anyone who keeps two eyes open can see why and how we are better off now by a mile.

I'm not saying Ostalgia isn't stupid. Honestly, I've only met a few east-Germans, and most of them are too young to remember anything about this era, yet they still felt East-Germany has been ripped off since the reunification.

What I'm saying is that I can understand this feeling. It seems that most of East-Germany will have a hard time catching up West-Germany. The area is less populated by now than in 1989, and the unemployement rate is much higher than in the rest of the country. Most young people are moving to the west and the convergence with Western germany still seems hardly achievable.

On the other hand, communist East-Germany used to be the jewel of the eastern bloc. Pretty much everyone had a job, and even though life wasn't awesome, it was still decent. Everybody was looking at East-Germany, because it was the main battleground between the West and the East. Now, nobody cares about it anymore, young people are leaving, factories are still closing and unemployement is still going strong.

The same thing is happening in Russia, by the way. Some people think life was better off 30 years ago. Some even think life was better off under Stalin's ironfist. When they see things are not going very well, people imagine life was much better a while ago. That's how the human mind works: myth of the golden age and all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

How "left" are they? I typically hate parties on either end of the spectrum.

---

By american standards? Communist baby-killers.

By our standards? Centre-left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I'm not saying Ostalgia isn't stupid. Honestly, I've only met a few east-Germans, and most of them are too young to remember anything about this era, yet they still felt East-Germany has been ripped off since the reunification.

---

I disagree - the former West has sunk much more money into the former East than it probably should have. That doesn't mean the East isn't still behind, because outside of places like Dresden, it is. The problem isn't with how much money the West has put in, but how it has been spent in my opinion.

Quote:

---

The same thing is happening in Russia, by the way. Some people think life was better off 30 years ago. Some even think life was better off under Stalin's ironfist. When they see things are not going very well, people imagine life was much better a while ago. That's how the human mind works: myth of the golden age and all that.

---

I see what you mean now, and I agree with that. It's true that East Germany was better off than most other communist states, but I'd much rather be in the West.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

I disagree - the former West has sunk much more money into the former East than it probably should have. That doesn't mean the East isn't still behind, because outside of places like Dresden, it is. The problem isn't with how much money the West has put in, but how it has been spent in my opinion.

---

It's about perception. East Germany went from being THE focus to A focus. The fact is that East Germany was bound to loose from reunification in the short term. The western part had the infrastructure, jobs, culture, etc that will take time to restore in the East.

This phenomenon is nothing more than sour grapes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's about perception. East Germany went from being THE focus to A focus. The fact is that East Germany was bound to loose from reunification in the short term. The western part had the infrastructure, jobs, culture, etc that will take time to restore in the East.

---

Look at how the West sees those who vote for Die Linke though. Westerners look at the new freedoms and possibilities that were given to the East and see them as ungrateful, because in the long run, they will be better off. I'm saying this in my role as an "Easterner", though I'm not really either East or West.

Quote:

---

This phenomenon is nothing more than sour grapes.

---

Exactly.