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.
Why are you here, Ban-Evader? What do you get out of this?
I get fascinating discussion and time well wasted.
Bogart: You support an incorrect version of history.
Bogart:
You support an incorrect version of history.
I don't support versions of history any more than I support versions of Windows. I support objective scientific analysis of the causes and effects of social phenomena. Clearly, whether you personally like Hitler or not, your political policies when actually implemented in the real, non-fantasy world strengthen those who carry on his "legacy".
The [national] socialist [german worker's party] state is simply the welfare state taken to its logical conclusion.
If that wasn't complete and desperate mayonaisse which totally ignored the case made in the OP, then expanding the welfare state would strengthen the nationalist-populist parties, not weaken them.
Ban-Evader:I get fascinating discussion and time well wasted.
I don't believe you. I don't think it's even a nice try. So maybe you'd like to give me the real answer instead.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
I represent Ron Paul's radical abolish-all-welfare platform to stop immigrants, minorities and Kenyan muslims from destroying this country.
That's an even worse lie. So maybe you'd like to give me the real answer instead.
But that aside, do you really see the point of abolishing all welfare to be to "stop immigrants, minorities and Kenyan muslims from destroying this country"? Or is this just more trolling? If it's trolling, surely you can do better than this - fail troll is fail.
But that aside, do you really see the point of abolishing all welfare to be to "stop immigrants, minorities and Kenyan muslims from destroying this country"?
It could be. Why do you think the stormfags endorsed your guy?
Hang on a minute. Why do you assume that Ron Paul is "my guy"? And just what do you mean by that term anyway?
I guess you never did support him, forum search turns up no incriminating evidence. Better make sure that you never say anything that might be construed as supporting what Ron Paul said in those investment letters.
Ban-Evader:I guess you never did support him, forum search turns up no incriminating evidence.
What exactly do you mean by "incriminating"? What exactly do you mean by "your guy"? Why exactly are you here?
Ban-Evader:Better make sure that you never say anything that might be construed as supporting what Ron Paul said in those investment letters.
Is that a threat? If so, then or else what?
Why am I here? Good question. Something like that would require deep thought.
The "your guy" one is a little easier, though, especially when coupled with some awareness of context clues. I had mistakenly assumed that you support Ron Paul's Re3VO_|ution.
Is that a threat? If so, then or else what? Or else Obama will take your guns. | Post Points: 20
Or else Obama will take your guns.
Ban-Evader:Why am I here? Good question. Something like that would require deep thought.
Go right ahead and engage in the deep thought required. But I'll repeat my question as I deem it necessary. I suggest not expecting me to forget about it.
Ban-Evader:The "your guy" one is a little easier, though, especially when coupled with some awareness of context clues [sic]. I had mistakenly assumed that you support Ron Paul's Re3VO_|ution.
"Context clues" my ass. I asked you a direct question, and I expect a direct answer. So I'll repeat myself again: what exactly do you mean by "your guy"?
Here's another question that I'll repeat, because you ignored it: what exactly do you mean by "incriminating"?
Ban-Evader:Or else Obama will take your guns.
So you're now threatening me ostensibly/allegedly on behalf of Obama? What affect do you expect that to have on me, exactly? Or would you like to be serious for a change? I understand it's hard for you, but I think you can do it.
alsdjfalsdjfos: Bogart:You support an incorrect version of history.I don't support versions of history any more than I support versions of Windows. I support objective scientific analysis of the causes and effects of social phenomena. Clearly, whether you personally like Hitler or not, your political policies when actually implemented in the real, non-fantasy world strengthen those who carry on his "legacy".
Bogart:You support an incorrect version of history.
I guess I'm just here to entertain myself. "Your guy", of course, means "someone you support". "Incriminating" means evidence that you support Ru Paul.
Anyway, gotta tag myself again.
http://natlex.ilo.ch/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---actrav/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_161354.pdf
2. Transitions towards right-wing populist orientations – eight central topics ... (2) “Foreigners take away employment from the Germans“ In addition to this culturally grounded rejection of foreigners we had several interviewees arguing rather from an economic perspective. In this case foreigners are perceived as competitors on the labour market. Contrary to a rather cultural rejection of supposed superfluous, non-integratable “underclass” foreigners, the economic rejection refers to immigrants who, due to their qualification, are perceived as real competitors. In such cases, the fear of losing the job leads to the claim that we should “first take into consideration the interests of our country”. Against the background of shrinking distributive margins the relationship between foreigners and non-foreigners is constructed as a fight over distribution with – necessarily – winners and losers. The consequences of such a construction are quite obvious: The enlargement of the EU is equally rejected as the EU-membership of Turkey; processes of economic globalisation are primarily perceived as a threat, the introduction of the green-card at best as the attempt to compensate for “what the industry (through lacking qualification) has messed up”. (3)”When savings, we have to save money with regard to the parasites of the welfare state“ The motive of the decreasing wealth which has to be protected against illegitimate claims is not only apparent in the context of labour market competition; in a different variation it is also apparent with regard to the welfare state and welfare state reforms. There is a large consensus among the interviewees that if savings have to be made they must not be made with regard to the performers but with regard to those who, without valid reason, take advantage of the welfare state. The construction of an “in-group” willing to work and an “out-group” of parasites refers not only to foreigners. It also refers to “lazy unemployed”, homeless, beggars or German recipients of social assistance. In most cases the rejection of “social parasites” goes hand in hand with a damaged sense of justice. This becomes obvious if those unwilling to perform are considered to be among the wealthier parts of the society. However, the chances to solve the lack of justice by referring to the privileged parts of the society are considered to be very slight. Instead the focus is put on the weaker groups of society. While fighting against “social parasites” it is considered legitimate to refer to right-wing populist parties. ... (6) “Politicians are gangsters; the entire system has to be changed“ There is a large consensus among interviewees concerning the identification of the scapegoat: the politicians. Among the well-bred employees the judgements are more or less differentiated. Most heavily criticised are the inability to find adequate solutions and the arrogance within politics. But the lower the position in the vertical hierarchy of the employment society, the harsher the judgements. Particularly those threatened of social falling and the precarious employees consider the entire “system” as corrupt. Politicians are seen as an over-paid, corrupt caste which repeatedly ignores the legitimate claims of “the population”. The politicians belong to those groups where money should be saved. The political class is compared with “social parasites” and foreigners not willing to adapt to the German culture. Some interviewees even see some politicians as “gangsters”. (7) “A bit less democracy can do no harm“ Serious doubts concerning the integrity of the political class merge in some cases into a critique of the political system as a whole. This critique seems at first sight rather moderate. A production worker speaks about “politicians in Germany” as “rather lazy”. This is due “to our political system, where we have constant elections”. Democratic procedures are seen as inefficient and expensive. This critique can in certain contexts obtain an openly authoritarian character. This is the case when the interviewees call for harsher prosecution of foreigners, their consequent expulsion from Germany or the vigorous fight against criminality. Criminality is the topic where politics should prove its credibility. An extreme position with this regard is that those who have become criminal should be put into a labour camp: “Working them to death so that in the evening they are unable to do anything. This is how the Americans treat their criminals”. Such authoritarian orientations do not lead to an open claim for a different political system beyond the party-democracy. However, for some interviewees the possibility of such a development seems rather realistic. In clear contradiction to the desire to get rid of the historical burden, some interviewees see the possibility that history could be repeated. “There are hard times” and also “Hitler benefited from high unemployment” can then be heard. But there are also other historical references. It is not by accident that employees from eastern Germany draw parallels between their current situation and the situation before the fall of the Berlin Wall: “If the unemployment situation doesn’t improve we will have a situation like in the past. We know this kind of situation from our experiences in the GDR”. ... (8) “Right-wing extremist parties are too extreme, but are talking about the right issues” It is exactly in this context that the opinions about right-wing populist (or right-wing extremist) parties have to be seen. Obviously no one within our sample openly admits being a partisan of a right-wing populist or extremist formation. The employees in question are politically “average people”. The majority vote for the CDU and SPD, some of them abstain from voting. It has, however, to be noted that the interviewed employees associate a positive function with right-wing populist or extremist formations. The smallest common denominator between the interviewees in that respect is that although such parties are too extreme and in fact without influence, they occasionally raise awareness for the right topics. More or less all the employees in question acknowledge that the rightist formations identify relevant questions and problems. The rejection of such formations results less from a substantial perspective but from their outsider status they represent extremist groups. There is not much confidence that these formations are capable of initiating real changes. At the same time there is no doubt among the employees that unemployment, immigration and the destruction of the “German identity” can only be stopped by fundamental changes. Thus their rejection of right-wing populist or extremist formations is based upon very weak foundations, and it seems quite obvious that some of the employees vote for the NPD (party of the extreme right in Germany) or other extremist right-wing parties. ... 3.1. Employment and unemployment within the right-wing populist axiomatic All the topics sketched above cannot be explained by exclusively referring to the work experiences of the interviewees. The latter express views, attitudes and judgements which are on the contrary highly persistent with regard to situation-specific influences and experiences. One might support the prevention of immigration because s/he is living in a region with only very few foreigners. The perception that foreigners take jobs away from Germans is, for instance, expressed by interviewees who consider their own job to be safe. And the exclusion of “social parasites” is formulated, surprisingly, by those who live in good economic circumstances and who do not compete for welfare state resources. It has to be noted that neither the social position in the labour market nor work experiences are direct driving forces behind the right-wing populist axiomatic. These “bridges” towards right-wing populism have their origin much more in the mode of constituting political opinions which Bourdieu identified as “systematic political conception”. These conceptions are relatively consistent schemes of interpretation with which the individuals perceive and decode their daily experiences at work and elsewhere. Within the right-wing populist axiomatic, opinions and attitudes concerning work and unemployment play an important role. The fact that dealing with competition in the labour market leads to particular nationalistic, ethnical, racist and sexist classifications must neither be scandalised nor be treated as something pathological. The opposition of a liberal universalism and national, ethnical or gender specific particularism is in a certain sense inherent in the world wide capitalist economy. Processes of economic globalisation corresponding with market-liberal universalistic ideas go at the same time hand in hand with particular frames, whose function consists in legitimating the placement of labour forces on certain positions in the hierarchy of the employment society. From the perspective of the working population this ideological ambiguity is the indication of a structural contradiction within the production regime of a capitalist market economy: “on the one hand working and living conditions are held in constant mobility and destabilised in order to guarantee competition in the labour market and to constantly gather new labour forces from the ‘industrial reserve army’...; on the other hand labour forces are stabilised during long periods in order to ‘educate’ them for work and to ‘render them loyal’ to the enterprise” (Balibar 1990: 256). It seems quite likely that this structural contradiction obtains a new dynamic under the conditions of a flexible and market-centred production regime (Dörre 2002). Put differently: the strengthening of market-oriented modes of governance and control of employment has the effect that originally legitimate forms of labour division become more and more obsolete and finally replaced. Castel’s zone model marks the broad character of this new labour division. The fight for inclusion in this new regime is only at first sight an “individualistic” matter. Individuals compete with each other in the labour market. However, they undertake their competition through – real or imaginary – group building. Individuals and groups react to disintegrative effects resulting from the erosion of formerly legitimate modes of labour division through interest-motivated and symbolically conveyed strategies of integration – even if it is only a type of imaginary integration. Nationalistic, xenophobic and racist classifications are attempts to get in touch with “in-groups” in order to strengthen the own position in the competition for material resources and social recognition. ... All the employees where we find transitions towards right-wing populist orientations perceive the market-oriented flexibilisation of employment relations and work modes primarily as an external constraint which affects the living and working conditions in a negative way. In all different employment situations the employees perceive themselves as being confronted with increasing cost and productivity pressure. It is interesting to note that mainly those in lower and middle management positions perceive this pressure as a particular burden. Many of the interviewed employees convey the impression of an increasing pressure of flexibility and performance which contradicts the public discourse on savings and flexibility fundamentally. The statement of a foreman in the construction industry in eastern Germany illustrates this: Q: “What is your opinion about the political suggestion of fighting unemployment by more flexible work?” A: “I have to say that we are completely flexible at work. We don’t speak about flexibility at work. If the company says ‘you have to go there for work’ then we go there. We never discuss that. (...) Our guys even go to Antwerp, to Italy or to western German regions. I have to say that we are highly flexible.” ... Real requirements at work and the public discourse on flexibility have nothing in common in the eyes of most interviewed employees. The hardship of the “real working life” has no voice in the sphere of political representation. On the contrary: The reforms of the labour market represent an additional pressure not only on the weakest parts but also on the traditional performers in society. The same foreman: “I don’t know why these measures always refer to little people. (...) Those who take these decisions have to be shot down. They push people into poverty. These can only be ideas by people living high.” In the eyes of many interviewed employees there is substantial injustice concerning the existence and distribution of work-related risks and inconveniences. This feeling of injustice can even be found among employees who are not suspicious of any right-wing populist tendencies. However, in the group of right-wing populists we can observe a particular aspect. The injustice in the relationship between “above” and “below” is considered to be unchangeable because “politics” not only ignores but produces this injustice. In the eyes of the interviewees, the political system and its representatives prove incapable of solving this fundamental problem of justice. The stronger the feeling of powerlessness, the stronger the inclination to ask for authoritarian solutions which shall be executed even at the expense of scapegoats. ... In a dynamic and highly regulated labour market many women being “additional earners” had no problems about accepting insecure jobs with low salaries. This is the reason why in the course of a decreasing employment dynamic, contemporary modes of precarious jobs could easily spread. The traditional gender specific division of labour suggested the “voluntary” decision for such jobs, and thus atypical employment has become primarily a female domain. Our type 7 “the content ones” can be seen as resulting from this development. It is the identification with the role as a housewife and mother which makes the arrangement with precarious jobs necessary but also convenient. We call this “secondary integration potential”. A characteristic of non-voluntary flexibilisation is that it influences the secondary integration potential of the “additional earner”. This shall be illustrated by referring to a saleswoman of a small retail shop. This woman locates her job at the lower end of the social status scale. She goes to work for financial reasons but she obtains most of her satisfaction from her roles as housewife and mother. Her “dream” is to choose her working time in order to be able to fulfil these roles in the best possible way. But in fact this dream does not come true: “The best situation for me would have been to work three days one quarter and the other three days three quarters. This was my big wish because in this case I would have been at home for my children three days a week.” ... Our study indicates that right-wing populism relates to very different, partly contradictory motives and interests. When referring to theoretical explanations this means that the supposedly irreconcilable polarisation between deprivation approaches favoured by Castel and culture of dominance approaches (Rommelspacher 1995, Held et al. 1991) which take a clear distance to so-called “deficit theories” might only refer to different empirical phenomena. The culture of dominanceapproach assumes that individuals who “identify with the dominating values of money, professional career and success” and who “glorify the principle of performance and reduce human relationships to their functionality for their own interests” are particularly susceptible to racist and authoritarian-nationalist attitudes (Rommelspacher 1995: 86). Therefore neoracism is in its “systematic appearance mainly a problem concerning the established and those expected or expecting to belong to the establishment in the future – with all the necessary efforts” (ibid.).
2. Transitions towards right-wing populist orientations – eight central topics
...
(2) “Foreigners take away employment from the Germans“
In addition to this culturally grounded rejection of foreigners we had several interviewees arguing rather from an economic perspective. In this case foreigners are perceived as competitors on the labour market. Contrary to a rather cultural rejection of supposed superfluous, non-integratable “underclass” foreigners, the economic rejection refers to immigrants who, due to their qualification, are perceived as real competitors. In such cases, the fear of losing the job leads to the claim that we should “first take into consideration the interests of our country”. Against the background of shrinking distributive margins the relationship between foreigners and non-foreigners is constructed as a fight over distribution with – necessarily – winners and losers. The consequences of such a construction are quite obvious: The enlargement of the EU is equally rejected as the EU-membership of Turkey; processes of economic globalisation are primarily perceived as a threat, the introduction of the green-card at best as the attempt to compensate for “what the industry (through lacking qualification) has messed up”.
(3)”When savings, we have to save money with regard to the parasites of the welfare state“ The motive of the decreasing wealth which has to be protected against illegitimate claims is not only apparent in the context of labour market competition; in a different variation it is also apparent with regard to the welfare state and welfare state reforms. There is a large consensus among the interviewees that if savings have to be made they must not be made with regard to the performers but with regard to those who, without valid reason, take advantage of the welfare state. The construction of an “in-group” willing to work and an “out-group” of parasites refers not only to foreigners. It also refers to “lazy unemployed”, homeless, beggars or German recipients of social assistance. In most cases the rejection of “social parasites” goes hand in hand with a damaged sense of justice. This becomes obvious if those unwilling to perform are considered to be among the wealthier parts of the society. However, the chances to solve the lack of justice by referring to the privileged parts of the society are considered to be very slight. Instead the focus is put on the weaker groups of society. While fighting against “social parasites” it is considered legitimate to refer to right-wing populist parties.
(6) “Politicians are gangsters; the entire system has to be changed“ There is a large consensus among interviewees concerning the identification of the scapegoat: the politicians. Among the well-bred employees the judgements are more or less differentiated. Most heavily criticised are the inability to find adequate solutions and the arrogance within politics. But the lower the position in the vertical hierarchy of the employment society, the harsher the judgements. Particularly those threatened of social falling and the precarious employees consider the entire “system” as corrupt. Politicians are seen as an over-paid, corrupt caste which repeatedly ignores the legitimate claims of “the population”. The politicians belong to those groups where money should be saved. The political class is compared with “social parasites” and foreigners not willing to adapt to the German culture. Some interviewees even see some politicians as “gangsters”. (7) “A bit less democracy can do no harm“ Serious doubts concerning the integrity of the political class merge in some cases into a critique of the political system as a whole. This critique seems at first sight rather moderate. A production worker speaks about “politicians in Germany” as “rather lazy”. This is due “to our political system, where we have constant elections”. Democratic procedures are seen as inefficient and expensive. This critique can in certain contexts obtain an openly authoritarian character. This is the case when the interviewees call for harsher prosecution of foreigners, their consequent expulsion from Germany or the vigorous fight against criminality. Criminality is the topic where politics should prove its credibility. An extreme position with this regard is that those who have become criminal should be put into a labour camp: “Working them to death so that in the evening they are unable to do anything. This is how the Americans treat their criminals”. Such authoritarian orientations do not lead to an open claim for a different political system beyond the party-democracy. However, for some interviewees the possibility of such a development seems rather realistic. In clear contradiction to the desire to get rid of the historical burden, some interviewees see the possibility that history could be
repeated. “There are hard times” and also “Hitler benefited from high unemployment” can then be heard. But there are also other historical references. It is not by accident that employees from eastern Germany draw parallels between their current situation and the situation before the fall of the Berlin Wall: “If the unemployment situation doesn’t improve we will have a situation like in the past. We know this kind of situation from our experiences in the GDR”.
(8) “Right-wing extremist parties are too extreme, but are talking about the right issues” It is exactly in this context that the opinions about right-wing populist (or right-wing extremist) parties have to be seen. Obviously no one within our sample openly admits being a partisan of a right-wing populist or extremist formation. The employees in question are politically “average people”. The majority vote for the CDU and SPD, some of them abstain from voting. It has, however, to be noted that the interviewed employees associate a positive function with right-wing populist or extremist formations. The smallest common denominator between the interviewees in that respect is that although such parties are too extreme and in fact without influence, they occasionally raise awareness for the right topics. More or less all the employees in question acknowledge that the rightist formations identify relevant questions and problems. The rejection of such formations results less from a substantial perspective but from their outsider status they represent extremist groups. There is not much confidence that these formations are capable of initiating real changes. At the same time there is no doubt among the employees that unemployment, immigration and the destruction of the “German identity” can only be stopped by fundamental changes. Thus their rejection of right-wing populist or extremist formations is based upon very weak foundations, and it seems quite obvious that some of the employees vote for the NPD (party of the extreme right in Germany) or other extremist right-wing parties.
3.1. Employment and unemployment within the right-wing populist axiomatic All the topics sketched above cannot be explained by exclusively referring to the work experiences of the interviewees. The latter express views, attitudes and judgements which are on the contrary highly persistent with regard to situation-specific influences and experiences. One might support the prevention of immigration because s/he is living in a region with only very few foreigners. The perception that foreigners take jobs away from Germans is, for instance, expressed by interviewees who consider their own job to be safe. And the exclusion of “social parasites” is formulated, surprisingly, by those who live in good economic circumstances and who do not compete for welfare state resources. It has to be noted that neither the social position in the labour market nor work experiences are direct driving forces behind the right-wing populist axiomatic. These “bridges” towards right-wing populism have their origin much more in the mode of constituting political opinions which Bourdieu identified as “systematic political conception”. These conceptions are relatively consistent schemes of interpretation with which the individuals perceive and decode their daily experiences at work and elsewhere.
Within the right-wing populist axiomatic, opinions and attitudes concerning work and unemployment play an important role. The fact that dealing with competition in the labour market leads to particular nationalistic, ethnical, racist and sexist classifications must neither be scandalised nor be treated as something pathological. The opposition of a liberal universalism and national, ethnical or gender specific particularism is in a certain sense inherent in the world wide capitalist economy. Processes of economic globalisation corresponding with market-liberal universalistic ideas go at the same time hand in hand with particular frames, whose function consists in legitimating the placement of labour forces on certain positions in the hierarchy of the employment society. From the perspective of the working population this ideological ambiguity is the indication of a structural contradiction within the production regime of a capitalist market economy: “on the one hand working and living conditions are held in constant mobility and destabilised in order to guarantee
competition in the labour market and to constantly gather new labour forces from the ‘industrial reserve army’...; on the other hand labour forces are stabilised during long periods in order to ‘educate’ them for work and to ‘render them loyal’ to the enterprise” (Balibar 1990: 256). It seems quite likely that this structural contradiction obtains a new dynamic under the conditions of a flexible and market-centred production regime (Dörre 2002). Put differently: the strengthening of market-oriented modes of governance and control of employment has the effect that originally legitimate forms of labour division become more and more obsolete and finally replaced. Castel’s zone model marks the broad character of this new labour division. The fight for inclusion in this new regime is only at first sight an “individualistic” matter. Individuals compete with each other in the labour market. However, they undertake their competition through – real or imaginary – group building. Individuals and groups react to disintegrative effects resulting from the erosion of formerly legitimate modes of labour division through interest-motivated and symbolically conveyed strategies of integration – even if it is only a type of imaginary integration. Nationalistic, xenophobic and racist classifications are attempts to get in touch with “in-groups” in order to strengthen the own position in the competition for material resources and social recognition.
All the employees where we find transitions towards right-wing populist orientations perceive the market-oriented flexibilisation of employment relations and work modes primarily as an external constraint which affects the living and working conditions in a negative way. In all different employment situations the employees perceive themselves as being confronted with increasing cost and productivity pressure. It is interesting to note that mainly those in lower and middle management positions perceive this pressure as a particular burden. Many of the interviewed employees convey the impression of an increasing pressure of flexibility and performance which contradicts the public discourse on savings and flexibility fundamentally. The statement of a foreman in the construction industry in eastern Germany illustrates this:
Q: “What is your opinion about the political suggestion of fighting unemployment by more flexible work?” A: “I have to say that we are completely flexible at work. We don’t speak about flexibility at work. If the company says ‘you have to go there for work’ then we go there. We never discuss that. (...) Our guys even go to Antwerp, to Italy or to western German regions. I have to say that we are highly flexible.”
Real requirements at work and the public discourse on flexibility have nothing in common in the eyes of most interviewed employees. The hardship of the “real working life” has no voice in the sphere of political representation. On the contrary: The reforms of the labour market represent an additional pressure not only on the weakest parts but also on the traditional performers in society. The same foreman: “I don’t know why these measures always refer to little people. (...) Those who take these decisions have to be shot down. They push people into poverty. These can only be ideas by people living high.” In the eyes of many interviewed employees there is substantial injustice concerning the existence and distribution of work-related risks and inconveniences. This feeling of injustice can even be found among employees who are not suspicious of any right-wing populist tendencies. However, in the group of right-wing populists we can observe a particular aspect. The injustice in the relationship between “above” and “below” is considered to be unchangeable because “politics” not only ignores but produces this injustice. In the eyes of the interviewees, the political system and its representatives prove incapable of solving this fundamental problem of justice. The stronger the feeling of powerlessness, the stronger the inclination to ask for authoritarian solutions which shall be executed even at the expense of scapegoats.
In a dynamic and highly regulated labour market many women being “additional earners” had no problems about accepting insecure jobs with low salaries. This is the reason why in the course of a decreasing employment dynamic, contemporary modes of precarious jobs could easily spread. The traditional gender specific division of labour suggested the “voluntary” decision for such jobs, and thus atypical employment has become primarily a female domain. Our type 7 “the content ones” can be seen as resulting from this development. It is the identification with the role as a housewife and mother which makes the arrangement with precarious jobs necessary but also convenient. We call this “secondary integration potential”.
A characteristic of non-voluntary flexibilisation is that it influences the secondary integration potential of the “additional earner”. This shall be illustrated by referring to a saleswoman of a small retail shop. This woman locates her job at the lower end of the social status scale. She goes to work for financial reasons but she obtains most of her satisfaction from her roles as housewife and mother. Her “dream” is to choose her working time in order to be able to fulfil these roles in the best possible way. But in fact this dream does not come true: “The best situation for me would have been to work three days one quarter and the other three days three quarters. This was my big wish because in this case I would have been at home for my children three days a week.”
Our study indicates that right-wing populism relates to very different, partly contradictory motives and interests. When referring to theoretical explanations this means that the supposedly irreconcilable polarisation between deprivation approaches favoured by Castel and culture of dominance approaches (Rommelspacher 1995, Held et al. 1991) which take a clear distance to so-called “deficit theories” might only refer to different empirical phenomena. The culture of dominanceapproach assumes that individuals who “identify with the dominating values of money, professional career and success” and who “glorify the principle of performance and reduce human relationships to their functionality for their own interests” are particularly susceptible to racist and authoritarian-nationalist attitudes (Rommelspacher 1995: 86). Therefore neoracism is in its “systematic appearance mainly a problem concerning the established and those expected or expecting to belong to the establishment in the future – with all the necessary efforts” (ibid.).
So you`re saying that if the the welfare state was dismantled, protectionism, fiat-monetary system, trade regulations, central banking etc was abolished, i.e. actual free trade/immigration etc was permitted, than Hitlers followers would gain influence? If so, why do you think that?
Because 1) the working class would be further pissed on and 2) the ideal system you speak of will never actually be implemented and the only purpose it serves is vulgar liberal apologetics.
What was the inflation rate in Germany the Nazis made their electoral breakthrough in 1930? What was the unemployment rate? Was Germany on the Gold Standard? Did Germany have public healthcare and universal welfare then?
Unemployment was the problem that Adolf claimed to be able to solve. Had the government in 1932 lowered interest rates and started its own New Deal, Hitler would have had much less to stand on.
Ban-Evader:I guess I'm just here to entertain myself.
You "guess"? Either you are or you aren't? Which is it? Make up your mind already.
If you really are here to entertain yourself, I really don't see how you're succeeding.
Ban-Evader:"Your guy", of course, means "someone you support". "Incriminating" means evidence that you support Ru Paul.
"Support" in which way(s), exactly? And what took you so long to answer my questions exactly?
By the way, this isn't 4chan. Sorry if that's a newsflash for you.
Ban-Evader:Anyway, gotta tag myself again.
Wait a minute. What exactly do you mean by this?
Ban-Evader:the ideal system you speak of will never actually be implemented
Prove it, O Clairvoyant One.
alsdjfalsdjfos: Johnny Doe:So you`re saying that if the the welfare state was dismantled, protectionism, fiat-monetary system, trade regulations, central banking etc was abolished, i.e. actual free trade/immigration etc was permitted, than Hitlers followers would gain influence? If so, why do you think that?Because 1) the working class would be further pissed on
Johnny Doe:So you`re saying that if the the welfare state was dismantled, protectionism, fiat-monetary system, trade regulations, central banking etc was abolished, i.e. actual free trade/immigration etc was permitted, than Hitlers followers would gain influence? If so, why do you think that?
alsdjfalsdjfos:and 2) the ideal system you speak of will never actually be implemented
alsdjfalsdjfos:and the only purpose it serves is vulgar liberal apologetics.
alsdjfalsdjfos:What was the inflation rate in Germany the Nazis made their electoral breakthrough in 1930? What was the unemployment rate? Was Germany on the Gold Standard? Did Germany have public healthcare and universal welfare then?
alsdjfalsdjfos:Unemployment was the problem that Adolf claimed to be able to solve. Had the government in 1932 lowered interest rates and started its own New Deal, Hitler would have had much less to stand on.
Are you afraid to respond to my last post, Ban-Evader? Why would that be?