http://pratiquesciencessociales.net/exposes/S8.%20Globalization%20Welfare%20state%20and%20right-wing%20populism%20in%20Western%20Europe.pdf
We outline and test the argument that globalization contributes to the electoral success of the new far right in Western Europe. We also draw on the theory of embedded liberalism to advance and test the hypothesis that a comprehensive, generous and employment-orientated system of social protection lessens the economic insecurities attendant to internationalization and, in turn, weakens support for far-right parties. In empirical analysis of national elections in 16 European polities from 1981 to 1998, we find that the universal welfare state directly depresses the vote for radical right-wing populist parties and conditions the linkages between capital mobility, trade openness and foreign immigration on the one hand and electoral support for the new far right on the other. In conclusion, we consider our findings’ implications for understanding the domestic political effects of globalization and sources of right-wing populism as well as for policy reforms that promote political economic stability in an era of international integration.
This isn't for you guys so much as a search tag.
Borg level trolling. At least sell me some high heel Nikes.
I agree with both hypotheses:
Globalization increases the wealth of consumers who chose suppliers for goods and services outside of the country in question. This increases the wealth of both countries in the transaction but has the original suppliers in the country where the new products and services being sold are worse off. These folks instead of improving the quality of the their products or reducing the prices, take the easier way out and use propaganda to stir up envy of the people in the foreign country who have become wealthier.
The voter support for the welfare state is easier to understand. The people being supported by the welfare state have a high degree of interest in keeping the goodies coming while those who pay for it have much less interest in stopping the system. Those in favor of the welfare state that pays most of the money to upper middle class folks spend lots of the welfare state given resources to lobby for more welfare state.
blblblbllbla what?
The main conclusion is that if you oppose the welfare state, you support Hitler.
You can have welfare without the welfare state.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Another reason to be anti-welfare state.
Were you responding to me or Kelvin?
Why/how is that the conclusion?
You know what far right parties according to that paper are, right? Golden Dawn and so forth? Welfare suppresses them.
It doesn't seem to have suppressed them in Greece...
How much did Greece spend on social programs? How much does America? Almost twice as much?
And what's the popularity of extreme right wing parties (minus Stormfront.org's White Pride Worldwide-endorsed candidate, Ron Paul) in the United States versus Greece?
Let's take France as another example. During the 80s the FN began growing with the end of dirigisme and dismantling of the nationalized banks and manufacturing. After welfare programs expanded back, through the late 90s to early 2000s, support for the FN dipped back down and the party even suffered a split.
Then austerity kicks in, with public sector layoffs and declining benefits... and almost right on cue Marine le Pen hops in out of nowhere and becomes massively popular.
If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, that was very well done.
Define right wing parties. Does it include the republicans and the democrats? (Both arguably fascist and protectionist, and overly willing to increase police power, much like golden dawn.)
Golden dawn claims to base it's policies on metaxism, which includes in it's platform protectionism, corporatism and nationalism, which sounds pretty democrat/republican.
Reds/blues don't really ascribe to monarchism, but they basically consider a president to be a king anyway, so I'll put them on equal footing there as well.
That leaves anti-communism and anti-parliamentarianism. Not sure about anti-parliamentarianism, but anti-communism I'd put down for both parties as well.
alsdjfalsdjfos:You know what far right parties according to that paper are, right? Golden Dawn and so forth? Welfare suppresses them.
You support an incorrect version of history. Mussolini, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin and Mao all were huge belivers in the state. The only differences were in where these tyrants chose to focus their control. Hitler whom you claim was against the welfar state was head of the "National Socialist Workers Party" the critical term being socialist. The socialist state is simply the welfare state taken to its logical conclusion.
Here is a quote from Hitler who is supposedly against the welfare state that could have come from any other socialist dictator:
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Why are you here, Ban-Evader? What do you get out of this?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum