What do centre-left politicians believe they are doing?

[Pessimist]

For my first thread I thought I would throw out a question that's been bugging me for a while.

I was wondering what centre-left politicians, particularly of the neo-liberal era, have as their goal or political vision. I mean, at least in the middle of the 20th century they could call themselves reformers, even if their reforms were for the purpose of making capitalism more efficient and politically sustainable.

But nowadays, what can someone like Francois Hollande plausibly see himself as standing for? I was reading recently about how he is weakening France's labour laws in cooperation with some of their unions, and this seems pretty typical to me.

One answer would be to say they are liars for claiming any kind of reforming vision (and that they are just bourgeois tools), but can this really be said about almost all of them? If they aren't lying en masse, why do they generally implement anti-worker policies, and what do they believe themselves to be doing (if they don't believe they are attacking workers)?

[Tim Cornelis]

They aren't liars, I think, they don't hide who they are. Generally they say "we need social and responsible policy making," the responsible meaning neoliberalism. I'd say they believe that state intervention and thus "socialism" has proven itself inefficient and therefore they seek to be "realistic" about economic growth, innovation, blah blah, yet want to retain a social character in their neoliberalism.

[DancingEmma]

I agree with what Tim said for the most part. I think most centre-left politicians (the ones at the high levels, at least) are fairly well off and thus see their economic interests as being aligned with the interests of the capitalist class. I think most of them also sincerely believe that a neoliberal politics with some welfare-statist attributes is the best bet for improving the lot of the majority of humanity. They see neoliberalism as promoting economic growth, which according to them creates a global rise in living standards that will eventually trickle down to the most marginalized in society. So I think they have mixed motivations. They have some awareness of their enmeshment with the capitalist class and motives arising from that, as well as some motivations arising from altruism warped by faulty political and economic conceptions.

[Pessimist]

If what you both are saying is generally correct, it seems to demonstrate that the political spectrum has become incredibly compressed. And yet people who stand at the heights of the system fail to see that and believe that their position is genuinely distinguishable from the right.

I suppose these politicians have always been enmeshed with the capitalist class, but if faulty political and economic conceptions are a major motivating force, does that mean neo-liberalism can be overturned by people with the right ideas (within the current system I mean)?

I ask this because I am torn between the idea of neo-liberalism as an ideological construct designed as a weapon against workers and the idea of neo-liberalism as just result of material conditions and inevitable. If it's isn't mainly about ideology but about conditions, then what would happen if a centre-leftist who was not compromised by the ideology attempted to implement a "progressive" (by actual leftist standards, but short of socialism) program?

[NGNM85]

I think DancingEmma is mostly correct. A majority of politicians, Left, and Right, come from privileged backgrounds. Even if they did come from working class roots, after a few years of glitzy galas, and posh fundraisers, I think their humble beginnings fade into the past pretty quickly. More importantly; most of these people have degrees in political science, or related disciplines, from ivy league universities, which means they are about as indoctrinated as a human being can possibly be. However; I do believe that most of these people genuinely believe in the process, and genuinely believe that the market is the best mechanism to spread prosperity.

[PigmerikanMao]

I'm just gonna leave this here... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way)

[Blake's Baby]

All politicians buy into the verbiage of the 'national interest'. They think that their policies will make it possible for business to flourish, people to be employed, and the country to become richer - right wing politicians think this is because some people are 'natural leaders/entrepreneurs' and should be rewarded (and they'll thereafter 'create jobs'), left wing politicians think this is best done giving slightly better benefits to the people at the bottom who will then spend money on the companies who will be able to employ more people etc.

The argument between left and right is essentially how best to manage national capitalism.

Neo-liberalism is a response to the failure of Keynesianism so evident by the end of the 1960s. (Neo-)Keynsianism was a response to the evident failure of (pre-)Neo-Liberalism in the 1930s.

There are only two tactics for managing capitalism, and neither of them works, because capitalism is an unstable system. But every couple of decades they have to have the Punch-and-Judy show of a change in policy, because the previous one is totally discreditted, hoping that people will forget that the new policy was discreditted last time.

[Ocean Seal]

They believe that they are helping out working class people against the terrible neoliberal politicians.

[Crabbensmasher]

All politicians buy into the verbiage of the 'national interest'. They think that their policies will make it possible for business to flourish, people to be employed, and the country to become richer - right wing politicians think this is because some people are 'natural leaders/entrepreneurs' and should be rewarded (and they'll thereafter 'create jobs'), left wing politicians think this is best done giving slightly better benefits to the people at the bottom who will then spend money on the companies who will be able to employ more people etc.

The argument between left and right is essentially how best to manage national capitalism.

Neo-liberalism is a response to the failure of Keynesianism so evident by the end of the 1960s. (Neo-)Keynsianism was a response to the evident failure of (pre-)Neo-Liberalism in the 1930s.

There are only two tactics for managing capitalism, and neither of them works, because capitalism is an unstable system. But every couple of decades they have to have the Punch-and-Judy show of a change in policy, because the previous one is totally discreditted, hoping that people will forget that the new policy was discreditted last time.

I would agree with this.
I know as a Canadian, that most modern centre-leftists seem more in line with Christian democrats. Their motives in respect to social policies seem genuine, but very minimalist. Kind of like the "Feed a starving man your bread" notion just stopped short of "Letting him into your home for a good meal". What I'm saying, is they're very moderate compared to their center-right counterparts. They don't cause debate or controversy as leftists usually have, and I would say their goals in office are less ambitious.

[piet11111]

They believe they are doing what is best for us proles because we are like children needing parental guidence from their enlightened minds.
With the crisis however they need to be "realistic" so they will feed us the poison of austerity in more measured doses.

[fabian]

All politicians are liars, they all basically work for capitalists. Political life is just a theatre, and all politicans, left, right, centre, they's all actors that entertain citizens.

[Blake's Baby]

Wasn't it Frank Zappa who said that politics is the entertainment division of the arms industry?

[fabian]

Yeah, found it- "Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex". Nice one.

[GerrardWinstanley]

In the case of the British Labour Party, they consider themselves authentic centre-left social democrats, which they regard as compatible with neoliberal economic policy (this is government by consensus, like how Labour and the Tories agreed on the postwar settlement until the late 1970's) and authoritarian social policies (immigration controls, mass surveillance, welfare "reform"). For them, what is in the interests of "business" (because businesses always know what's best for the economy) is in the interests of their core constituency of ordinary working people who reap the benefits of GDP growth and a healthy credit rating.

[Oswy]

In the case of the British Labour Party, they consider themselves authentic centre-left social democrats, which they regard as compatible with neoliberal economic policy (this is government by consensus, like how Labour and the Tories agreed on the postwar settlement until the late 1970's) and authoritarian social policies (immigration controls, mass surveillance, welfare "reform"). For them, what is in the interests of "business" (because businesses always know what's best for the economy) is in the interests of their core constituency of ordinary working people who reap the benefits of GDP growth and a healthy credit rating.

Yeah, the Labour Party in Britain today 'New Labour' has been successfully integrated into the capitalist system; at best they are now left-liberals, definately no longer socialist. If there's any silver lining to such processes of integration of formely left parties into the capitalist agenda it's that it might just accelerate the crisis - I like to think that capitalism is being given enough rope.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

I personally am annoyed with liberals talking about how we need "realistic" policy such as two percent growth in the income tax to reduce income inequality. And they celebrate these minor victories with such emotion. The Democrat party elite are nothing more than the left hand of capital, giving very minor concessions to pacify the social reformers to save their heads.