Podemos backtracks on radical Manifesto pledges

[The Feral Underclass]

This is the limitation of bourgeois electoral politics -- eventually you have to compromise your principles. Podemos call it "pragmatism," but I think it looks more like spinelessness.


Spain's newest political party Podemos, riding high in opinion polls just 10 months after its launch, released an economic manifesto on Friday that rowed back on earlier pledges to cut the retirement age and default on the national debt.

[...]

"We don't believe it is the right time to open up a wide spectrum of desires, but rather to propose what could effectively be done immediately," Podemos said in the 68-page document, which reflects a change of tack as it builds up its party structure and gears up for the [general] election.

[...]

Podemos has also moved away from nationalizing Spain's main utilities and now only plans to regulate them more tightly and control competition and price-setting in sectors where former monopolies still hold a strong grip.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/28/us-spain-podemos-idUSKCN0JC1OC20141128

[BIXX]

Oh boy. Yet another example of bourgeois electoral bullshit. "Working within the system" is such bullshit.

[RedWorker]

Saying that bourgeois electoral politics are limited is fine, saying that they have compromised their principles is correct, but it's not the link of both which triggered this - cutting back on their original demands. Their demands were perfectly doable and the possibility of them getting an absolute majority was already in sight before they cut back on them. What actually made these demands go away is Pablo Iglesias' coup d'etat.

[The Feral Underclass]

Saying that bourgeois electoral politics are limited is fine, saying that they have compromised their principles is correct, but it's not the link of both which triggered this - cutting back on these demands. Their demands were perfectly doable and the possibility of them getting an absolute majority was already in sight before they cut back on them.

So they toned down their manifesto for fun?

[RedWorker]

So they toned down their manifesto for fun?

The taking over of Podemos (which was previously controlled by an USFI section, which then went into opposition, and then was illegalized as opposition) by Iglesias' clique has triggered this. Bourgeois electoral politics may be limited, but the party was not forced to cut back on these demands because of this.

[The Feral Underclass]

The taking over of Podemos (which was previously controlled by an USFI section, which then went into opposition, and then was illegalized as opposition) by Iglesias' clique has triggered this. Bourgeois electoral politics may be limited, but the party was not forced to cut back on these demands because of this.

I have no idea what point you're trying to make...Are saying that the evidence for them not being spineless is that they didn't have to tone down their manifesto in the first place?

[Red Son]

..this is upsetting if a little unsurprising. I keep hoping that electoral politics might contain within it just a spark of real principles and a desire to build socialism instead of social demcracy-kinda (and that that spark might catch fire..ugh, stupid metaphors, you get the point).
More and more I'm becoming pessimistic about the potential for any radical change seeing as 'lefty' regular politics and more revolutionary groups don't seem to attract the kind of support that would be necessary to orchestrate a real revolution...at least not for a long time to come.

[RedWorker]

I have no idea what point you're trying to make...Are saying that the evidence for them not being spineless is that they didn't have to tone down their manifesto in the first place?

You claimed that their backing down on several of their demands was down to the 'limitations' of 'bourgeois electoral politics', which is false. There's no reason for them to remove their previous demands, except Iglesias' ideological purge, as the party was already expected by many to achieve an absolute majority even before any demand was cut back. Bourgeois electoral politics may be limited or not, but how is that connected with this?

[The Feral Underclass]

You claimed that their backing down on several of their demands was down to the 'limitations' of 'bourgeois electoral politics', which is false. There's no reason for them to remove their previous demands, except Iglesias' ideological purge, as the party was already expected by many to achieve an absolute majority even before any demand was cut back. Bourgeois electoral politics may be limited or not, but how is that connected with this?

I see. So the back down isn't because the party felt they needed to compromise in order to gain power, it's because the party has been taken over by right-wing elements?

[Rafiq]

I see. So the back down isn't because the party felt they needed to compromise in order to gain power, it's because the party has been taken over by right-wing elements?

How is this difficult to understand, feral?

[The Feral Underclass]

How is this difficult to understand, feral?

Erm, it's not, I'm asking for clarification...

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Podemos didn't compromise their principles. They put out some fairly bloodless social-democratic proposals in order to attract popularity, and now, in order to attract even more popularity, they're putting forward even more meaningless and anaemic proposals. That's how these groups generally operate.

And anyone who believes stories about "coups" is not paying attention. PORE did the same thing with the old Izquierda Unida, which started with r-r-radical rhetoric, particularly about the PSOE, and when the first elections came and went, and nobody actually voted for IU, settled for begging for a place as a junior partner to the PSOE.

[RedBlackStar]

Lord Acton: 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Whether this is a coup, some sort of populist policy purge or whatever, it doesn't really matter; it's simply unsurprising.

[The Feral Underclass]

Lord Acton: 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Lord Acton was a classical liberal of the worst kind and also wrong.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Lord Acton: 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'.

Whether this is a coup, some sort of populist policy purge or whatever, it doesn't really matter; it's simply unsurprising.

And here, again, instead of an actual analysis we have disembodied, supra-class "power", the power of Iglesias to... what, throw out someone from his little party? Some power. But pray tell, how was Iglesias "corrupted"? What Podemos is doing now is the same thing they were doing a few months ago, only it seems some sort of magical threshold has been crossed for many people on RevLeft, and populist bromides about the "elites" are A-OK if you also call for nationalisation of the utilities, as pursued by such dauntless socialists as Harold Macmillan, but populist bromides about the "elites" with no calls for nationalisation of utilities means you're an evil putschist who has betrayed everything good old Podemos once stood for.

[RedBlackStar]

Lord Acton was a classical liberal of the worst kind and also wrong.

Agreed on the first part, but this quote is pretty much spot on. Just because someone's a dick doesn't mean they can't be right about a few things.


And here, again, instead of an actual analysis we have disembodied, supra-class "power", the power of Iglesias to... what, throw out someone from his little party? Some power.

Your attempt to analyse the situation is causing you to miss my point. This backtracking on policy simply displays how one can use populist policies to further their gain in support, and then abandon it. They offered something before which they've gotten rid of now that they've got media attention. It's similar to what the Lib Dems have done in Britain.

[The Feral Underclass]

Agreed on the first part, but this quote is pretty much spot on. Just because someone's a dick doesn't mean they can't be right about a few things.

Why is it "spot on"?

[RedBlackStar]

Why is it "spot on"?

Power does corrupt an individual. They may begin with the best intentions but they will be inevitably corrupted. This can range from becoming a right bastard, to increasing recklessness due to the object which you have power over becoming less meaningful (in this sense that object is a human). And it is absolutely addictive.

Scientists have found it having a similar effect on the brain as cocaine.

Excuse my source, but it's a legitimate article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136547/Power-really-does-corrupt-scientists-claim-addictive-cocaine.html

[The Feral Underclass]

Power does corrupt an individual. They may begin with the best intentions but they will be inevitably corrupted. This can range from becoming a right bastard, to increasing recklessness due to the object which you have power over becoming less meaningful (in this sense that object is a human). And it is absolutely addictive.

What do you constitute as "power"?


Scientists have found it having a similar effect on the brain as cocaine.

Excuse my source, but it's a legitimate article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136547/Power-really-does-corrupt-scientists-claim-addictive-cocaine.html

If this study were true, it would mean that those who have a prolonged exposure to "power" would be unable to stop themselves from wanting power. If "power" creates the same addictive qualities as cocaine, that would mean that to stop someone wanting power you'd need some kind of medical intervention. How does this account for Western democracies?

[RedBlackStar]

What do you constitute as "power"?

Power, in a political sense, from what I understand, manifests itself somewhere between two levels; the lesser is a measure of authority/control over members of society; the greater is absolute control/authority over those members without them even realising that they're being controlled.


If "power" creates the same addictive qualities as cocaine, that would mean that to stop someone wanting power you'd need some kind of medical intervention. How does this account for Western democracies?

Best way to go off a drug like that is probably cold turkey, speaking from the experience of my dad being an ex-addict who failed getting clean multiple times.

As for applying this to Western democracies; the problem of power is present in all hierarchies and all representative democracies are essentially facades covering hierarchy in society.

[The Feral Underclass]

Power, in a political sense, from what I understand, manifests itself somewhere between two levels; the lesser is a measure of authority/control over members of society; the greater is absolute control/authority over those members without them even realising that they're being controlled.

You're describing authority, not power. Authority and power aren't the same thing. 'Authority over someone' is a subjective, abstract concept. If we are to understand your definition.

I have authority over my child, but does that mean I have power over them? A doctor has authority over a lay-person, does that mean they have power over them?

For power to 'be', it must derive from something objective. Having authority over someone is a consequence of power that 'is', having derived from something. For example, the ruling class has power over the working class because it controls the means by which we subsist. Whomever controls the means of production has power, and ergo their authority derives from that fact.

Power isn't some mysterious force that people "have" that changes their "human nature," it is the consequence of material forces at work in historical context.


Best way to go off a drug like that is probably cold turkey, speaking from the experience of my dad being an ex-addict who failed getting clean multiple times.

As for applying this to Western democracies; the problem of power is present in all hierarchies and all representative democracies are essentially facades covering hierarchy in society.

Your argument was that if someone has power they will become addicted to it, yet Western democracies are stable representative democracies. If we are to believe the article, how is that possible?

Also, your argument is that "power corrupts" and you define it as being some kind of malevolent force, yet equally power could corrupt someone for good. Someone could become addicted to the power because it means they can do good things with it.

Also, I'm not sure I accept the premise of what you're saying i.e., that addiction equals corruption.

[synthesis]

If this study were true, it would mean that those who have a prolonged exposure to "power" would be unable to stop themselves from wanting power. If "power" creates the same addictive qualities as cocaine, that would mean that to stop someone wanting power you'd need some kind of medical intervention. How does this account for Western democracies?

That's not really how addiction works. You seem to be dismissing the entire concept of a high-functioning addict here. (Not that I think that's necessarily how "power" works. I have however seen some studies that purport to demonstrate that occupying positions of power can engender symptoms of psychopathy in people who don't demonstrate them already, and a case could be made that the symptoms become worse and/or more entrenched proportional to the height of one's position, and empirically I would say that there's at least a little validity to this hypothesis. I'm not referring to the prison experiment, that's old news.)

[RedBlackStar]

You raise an extremely good point comrade but I fully disagree with your underlying message. Any authority, which I do not choose to follow (for instance on matters of health I will choose to consult my doctor and take his advice, as he is an expert and so has a type of authority, but it is one of choice) is power and all power leads to hierarchy; it can only be negative among adults, as I concede one must have authority over a child.

You are correct that power must come from somewhere though, but authority over someone is still the result (I suppose this authority would be the means to an end). Perhaps I should reword my statement: the important effect of power is authority.

The reason that addiction equals corruption is that, if one gains power, it must be taken from elsewhere. This is how dictatorship forms.

And while Western democracies are stable they are still flawed, corrupt and fundamentally disgusting.

[neiswander]

So why do you say Lord Action was wrong? Because he disagrees with your philosophy? History has actually proven him quite right.

[The Feral Underclass]

That's not really how addiction works. You seem to be dismissing the entire concept of a high-functioning addict here.

I don't really understand what you mean...

[The Feral Underclass]

You raise an extremely good point comrade but I fully disagree with your underlying message. Any authority, which I do not choose to follow (for instance on matters of health I will choose to consult my doctor and take his advice, as he is an expert and so has a type of authority, but it is one of choice) is power and all power leads to hierarchy; it can only be negative among adults, as I concede one must have authority over a child.

How does this relate to power corrupting? You said power corrupts and you provided a study that shows some links between addiction and power, defining it as having "authority" over someone. I am saying to you that "power" is an objective force, it's not the consequence of someone being able to tell someone want to do. Telling someone what to do is not power. Even forcing someone to do something isn't "power."


You are correct that power must come from somewhere though, but authority over someone is still the result (I suppose this authority would be the means to an end). Perhaps I should reword my statement: the important effect of power is authority.

I don't really understand what you're saying.


The reason that addiction equals corruption is that, if one gains power, it must be taken from elsewhere. This is how dictatorship forms.

But what if someone became addicted to power and was doing good with it? Or are you saying that power only ever corrupts negatively?


And while Western democracies are stable they are still flawed, corrupt and fundamentally disgusting.

Right, but heads of state and leaders of governments have power, so if power corrupts, why are those democracies stable?

[synthesis]

I don't really understand what you mean...

Well, your analysis suggested (to me) that addiction intrinsically leads to a point where intervention is required to keep it from getting worse. That's not the case, of course, but I'm thinking I might have misread your post.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, your analysis suggested (to me) that addiction intrinsically leads to a point where intervention is required to keep it from getting worse. That's not the case, of course, but I'm thinking I might have misread your post.

Well intervention is normally required if you want to stop being addicted to something, even if it's auto-intervention.

[synthesis]

Well intervention is normally required if you want to stop being addicted to something, even if it's auto-intervention.

What's "auto-intervention"?

[The Feral Underclass]

What's "auto-intervention"?

Lol, it's a shorter, more pretentious way for saying "intervening on yourself."

[synthesis]

Lol, it's a shorter, more pretentious way for saying "intervening on yourself."

I got that part; I guess I'll jump straight to the point here. What I'm asking is, where did you pick up on the concept of "intervening on yourself," and what do you mean by it? (I'm only pressing this question because if power can't be addictive in the same way as booger sugar because intervention would then be required to stop it, the only way this could be true is if we accept the notion of "auto-intervention" or "self-intervention.")

[The Feral Underclass]

I got that part; I guess I'll jump straight to the point here. What I'm asking is, where did you pick up on the concept of "intervening on yourself," and what do you mean by it? (I'm only pressing this question because if power can't be addictive in the same way as booger sugar because intervention would then be required to stop it, the only way this could be true is if we accept the notion of "auto-intervention" or "self-intervention.")

I've not picked up a concept, I've witnessed people put themselves through cold Turkey. The point being that some kind of intervention is required if you're addicted to something. So if power is an addiction and people in power become addicted, then presumably some sort of intervention is required.

Did I answer your question?

[synthesis]

I've not picked up a concept, I've witnessed people put themselves through cold Turkey. The point being that some kind of intervention is required if you're addicted to something. So if power is an addiction and people in power become addicted, then presumably some sort of intervention is required.

Did I answer your question?

I don't think so, but I also don't think it's an important issue to press, not here at least. Full disclosure: I've tapered, I've gone cold turkey, I've navigated the addiction industry's profit-driven bullshit for some time now, and basically, I don't believe you can justifiably call it an intervention if the only person involved is the addict, and I don't think anyone else would either - most people I know would just call that an epiphany. But I think that even if we accept the concept of self-intervention, we've still overcome the proposition that someone addicted to power would need medical help to get over it, which was the only quibble that led to me self-intervening in this thread to begin with.

[FSL]

Saying that bourgeois electoral politics are limited is fine, saying that they have compromised their principles is correct, but it's not the link of both which triggered this - cutting back on their original demands. Their demands were perfectly doable and the possibility of them getting an absolute majority was already in sight before they cut back on them. What actually made these demands go away is Pablo Iglesias' coup d'etat.

No, their demands were never doable.
They didn't need to tone down their rhetoric. They could have kept it all the way up to the elections and then followed through with "tighter regulation".

That they do tone down their rhetoric is pretty much a spit in the face to those few trully naive people that follow them.


You shouldn't judge parties based on "demands". There is a very clear line between private property and markets and social property and planning.
The parties that want private property and markets could have the greatest, most radical demands. They wouldn't amount to anything. Capitalism can only be capitalism.