TR Politics

[mulj]

Me personally find insulting characterizing certain political views as comservative, i call it common sence. Who defines what is coservative and by which normative?

 

[Nilgiri]

Me personally find insulting characterizing certain political views as comservative, i call it common sence. Who defines what is coservative and by which normative?

Broadly a conservative wants to keep things rooted to an existing or earlier paradigm (w.r.t society)...i.e he/she in favour of conserving that.

A progressive wants to change things to another paradigm they see as better or more ideal (and that they see as not existing in enough prevalence in society).

A liberal (classically) wants to find balance between these two by debate and argument and scope of freedom to engage in this. Either conservative or progressive can be a liberal too.

Thus given the long existence of some sort of market dynamic for bulk of society to exchange their goods and services for prosperity (versus say the immense consolidation/direction of this under a state control, which is a new phenomenon in human history)....you can see how these roughly align with right, left and centre in economic ideology/arguments as well.

 

[mulj]

Broadly a conservative wants to keep things rooted to an existing or earlier paradigm (w.r.t society)...i.e he/she in favour of conserving that.

A progressive wants to change things to another paradigm they see as better or more ideal (and that they see as not existing in enough prevalence in society).

A liberal (classically) wants to find balance between these two by debate and argument and scope of freedom to engage in this. Either conservative or progressive can be a liberal too.

Thus given the long existence of some sort of market dynamic for bulk of society to exchange their goods and services for prosperity (versus say the immense consolidation/direction of this under a state control, which is a new phenomenon in human history)....you can see how these roughly align with right, left and centre in economic ideology/arguments as well.

I find it ilogical and manipukative, who decide what is progress amd what is sa called rooted thing? That is fundamental issue i decline to be called conservative by ilogical and destructive political specter that calls itself progressive. It is just convinient tool to discvalify opponents by usually appeling on emotions.
Liberalism in political sense is also fake and totalitarian concept itself which is in logical constelation inconsistent and apsurd.

 

[Nilgiri]

I find it ilogical and manipukative, who decide what is progress amd what is sa called rooted thing? That is fundamental issue i decline to be called conservative by ilogical and destructive political specter that calls itself progressive. It is just convinient tool to discvalify opponents by usually appeling on emotions.
Liberalism in political sense is also fake and totalitarian concept itself which is in logical constelation inconsistent and apsurd.

Yes the "who" matters a lot given people have bias and often nefarious intent w.r.t people that disagree with them.

I am just giving the broad contours of the overall concept in my understanding. There is no absolute reference and perspective here.

I have various things about me arguably (IMO) from all 3 elements, conservative, liberal and progressive. But w.r.t society around me (at least as I perceive it), I am deemed somewhat more conservative I suppose. But what is conservative "here" is not what is conservative "there" etc.

Essentially maybe that is what is the relative reference we have at hand, what is the overall society opinion etc on some issues of note....and what is the range you use to define that immediate society....it can vary regionally within a country quite a lot.

 

[mulj]

Yes the "who" matters a lot given people have bias and often nefarious intent w.r.t people that disagree with them.

I am just giving the broad contours of the overall concept in my understanding. There is no absolute reference and perspective here.

I have various things about me arguably (IMO) from all 3 elements, conservative, liberal and progressive. But w.r.t society around me (at least as I perceive it), I am deemed somewhat more conservative I suppose. But what is conservative "here" is not what is conservative "there" etc.

Essentially maybe that is what is the relative reference we have at hand, what is the overall society opinion etc on some issues of note....and what is the range you use to define that immediate society....it can vary regionally within a country quite a lot.

You know, i just refuse labeling made by west what is progressive, conservative,liberal, they do not have monopoly on social constructing. Also, those constructs are staled and some new social paradigms should emerge.

 

[Nilgiri]

You know, i just refuse labeling made by west what is progressive, conservative,liberal, they do not have monopoly on social constructing. Also, those constructs are staled and some new social paradigms should emerge.

West is just a geography and broad culture....like any other.

I don't talk about conservative, liberal and progressive from a western definition at all, but a larger conceptual one that applies everywhere. Though I probably am most familiar with the western context and application of it (though I like studying others too).

No one has any absolute (moral or other) standing on any of this. We can argue and debate why and what the realised relative results are and why they come about....and take that on board in all our search for truth and order.

But each society is unique and has found and will find its own settings and references....and learn and evolve and get better in the long term (hopefully, God-willing). In that way they all have what is conservative, liberal and progressive for them in some snapshot....with the intent/duty of maximising Good and diminishing Bad.

There is thus some balance needed so you learn from best approaches and results of others (given even a society is ultimately diverse itself and "others" can always be found in it depending how you draw some line)...but without compromising on what works for you and (IMO) your core identities.

This is why for example in US, those (of power and means especially) that have abandoned the old principles in significant way and have "re-invented" or shape-shifted in some dishonest way posing as it anyway are often given "neo" moniker as in neo-liberal or neo-con etc. If it is one thing I hate, its dishonesty and hypocrisy....there is huge amount of it in the realms of power inevitably.

 

[mulj]

West is just a geography and broad culture....like any other.

I don't talk about conservative, liberal and progressive from a western definition at all, but a larger conceptual one that applies everywhere. Though I probably am most familiar with the western context and application of it (though I like studying others too).

No one has any absolute (moral or other) standing on any of this. We can argue and debate why and what the realised relative results are and why they come about....and take that on board in all our search for truth and order.

But each society is unique and has found and will find its own settings and references....and learn and evolve and get better in the long term (hopefully, God-willing). In that way they all have what is conservative, liberal and progressive for them in some snapshot....with the intent/duty of maximising Good and diminishing Bad.

There is thus some balance needed so you learn from best approaches and results of others (given even a society is ultimately diverse itself and "others" can always be found in it depending how you draw some line)...but without compromising on what works for you and (IMO) your core identities.

This is why for example in US, those (of power and means especially) that have abandoned the old principles in significant way and have "re-invented" or shape-shifted in some dishonest way posing as it anyway are often given "neo" moniker as in neo-liberal or neo-con etc. If it is one thing I hate, its dishonesty and hypocrisy....there is huge amount of it in the realms of power inevitably.

By the end of post you wrote what intrigue me most, who can tell what is what and label something as such, i can see some logic in that trio as possible needed balance in society but thing it is crumbling in front of us as concept, i reffer on west, usa particulary as they are still world leaders and norm makers (that particulary pisses me off), that is why i have opinion that we are moving fast towards postliberal constructs but still have no clear picture how it will look, first glimps does not paint it bright.

 

[Nilgiri]

By the end of post you wrote what intrigue me most, who can tell what is what and label something as such, i can see some logic in that trio as possible needed balance in society but thing it is crumbling in front of us as concept, i reffer on west, usa particulary as they are still world leaders and norm makers (that particulary pisses me off), that is why i have opinion that we are moving fast towards postliberal constructs but still have no clear picture how it will look, first glimps does not paint it bright.

It is a long subject to get into (US and Western politics and system).

Overall thing I have found with extended study is there is a mismatch going on w.r.t how Western societies used to grow (when the system was set up) and how they grow now....w.r.t such things as wealth and innovation...and the much higher capital concentration needed increasingly now (compared to before) to do this.

Earlier it was lot more naturally "grounded" and accessible (w.r.t work you put in and seeing quite directly how you have improved your livelihood compared to your father and his etc....as the work and livelihoods available diversified and shifted away from farmland to other activities).

The original constitutions and modern nationstates formed from western enlightenment era correctly saw the value of the individual and put many rights at that level...to have a system of first principles from the base of the pyramid.

What they could not predict is such things like the collectivisation of banking by the state (i.e a Central bank i.e the Fed in US case) and what would be needed to handle this from the constitution side (say staunch balanced budgets)

Without a well indexed referencing and basis (especially after gold standard was removed after the expensive vietnam war), certain levers moved from the collective good (of such centralisation) to a more speculative one rewarding political gain and vested interests of the wealth being created and where these were concentrated (and feeding into the political system)

Add to this, the crucial recent years (for the US) where the greatest enemy was defeated in early 90s (quite peacefully too) and a new one was not on the apparent horizon....affording a huge window of ego to build and not self-correct.

It was after all the bipartisan cooperation within the US that this enemy brought...that extended the impetus so that the flaws of the floorboards beneath did not surface during that time. The US did not realise this sufficiently, when they should have right after the Vietnam war.

It was during this 90s decade and the next one that several crucial mistakes were made that the system really was not and is not designed to handle on top of the existing problems.

A massive peer competitor was underestimated (China) in the name of wall street greed and easy promise/projection of further continued assured innovation done by the US/West only.... (and assumption that the Chinese would stay in their economic lane and understanding always...and just provide cheap labour and nothing else).

The US then launched into not one but two expensive foreign wars that brought about the deficit spending and huge debt again.

There is just no easy way to grow/innovate without huge capital investment (that needs inevitable wealth concentration) these days...so it is catch 22 how do you allocate such resources when there are pangs and calls from more and more people for populist redistribution (while you engage in massive war spending that does not benefit them).

Thus the whole progressivism for progressivism sake also caught up big time (increasingly devoid of classical liberal referencing and relying on identity politics and wedge issues instead ), having been seeded and gestated all through the cold war already. This has brought about a huge reactionary countermovement as we saw in the most recent decade.

These are huge challenges. A Babylon situation is taking shape. We will see if they are able to deal with this all (they have much inertia and strength to harness still)...and what happens. I dont judge those that are either pessimistic or optimistic or neutral....they all have varied perception to be. I feel we simply do not know.

But path is much more clearer for growing countries that have lot more growing to do IMO....as they can better harness where they came from (in recent times) and where they are going to. This is such a fundamental thing in the human psyche.

So maybe long term, squashing up against the "easy" ceiling after you have filled your belly and forgotten a lot of your thin days..... is probably what will govern most cycles for societies in general....because how exactly are the needs to concentrate and push frontiers (when there is nothing "easy" left to get your people involved in) going to balance well with needs and clamour of the larger population that want more and more guaranteed? One needs to be very in tune to this....how the psyche changes downstream, what are the impulses and narratives shaping it compared to before.

So no my friend, the west is in absolutely no position to dictate or preach about their way being the best or some absolute standard. In the end every society is made of individuals that are good, neutral and bad. It is thus about learning from the larger system's good points but also the bad points. This goes for every society....there is no exclusive direction here.

Consequently IMO, it was the desired molding of others in their image (excessively) was the party time haze of the 90s to now (by the US and west political class)....while being ignorant or deluded about notable real problems outside and within already back then (and now grown even more).

This is what happens when you get too downstream of the principles that brought you success....you take it for granted and develop an ego....and ego is folly....maybe the biggest folly of all.

This is what I mean by a huge hypocrisy and dishonesty w.r.t neo-cons and neo-libs. They put ego above the principles they "inherited" and claim to hold. They hope everyone focuses on their words and deceptions, rather than actions and results. This is the dystopia in the power realm that can then extend to a larger one on the ground.

@Yankeestani

 

[mulj]

Well lets see how it will go, they reached unbearable point were wealth and individual rights are far beyond of the society rights to react and control individual ones, cool babylon analogy.

 

[Saithan]

CHP dissident Ince announces resignation from party

Former presidential candidate and main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) dissident Muharrem Ince announced his resignation from the party to...

www.dailysabah.com

 

[GoatsMilk]

last time he changed the constitution he promised things would improve, instead the economy tanked even more since then. He changes it again expect 1 dollar to = 20 lira in no time.

 

[Joe Shearer]

My 2 cents (I may be in error and be grateful for correction or addition):

Quoting example from: http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/64/1536/16861.pdf

.....The second Paragraph of the revised version of Article 14 of the Turkish Constitution repeats almost verbatim
Article 17 of the ECHR. According to the revised Article 14 of the Turkish Constitution....

Revisions (not just amendments) thus seem to have a process/framework in Turkey under current 1981 constitution+amendments (without say a coup/revolution)...so effectively you can edit/change/revise articles of the constitution.

I suppose this is unlike a number of other constitutions (esp common law) where stare decisis often (given precedence inertia) effectively limits to amendments only.

Civil law system its different, its lot easier to revise (articles) I believe....like how US dictated to Japan diet to do so for extra article 9 (till then there were just 8) after the conclusion of ww2. A lot more articles (for individual rights) were added after it....given 1 - 8 (original) articles concerned primarily the distribution of power between monarch and govt, and the set up of the govt itself etc.

But point is they could take this via direct article route instead of amendment route...though I am unsure if this in the end is just a naming convention thing in the end effectively (since US individual rights are similarly enshrined in their first 10 amendments, and their articles before it govern the functioning/role of the govt).

So I guess in the end it depends country to country what the definition, status etc is of an article versus an amendment....and there may be core articles and core amendments within these...that are not that open (or open at all) to revision or change (within it's own framework).

BTW, Canada is an unique case where this kind of thing has come into extended study and debate (esp in 1990s) ever since 7 years war and montcalm's surrender and death during Annus mirabilis (for british) and annus horribilis (for French) in 1759.

This is due to Quebec keeping/orienting to a civil law system in 19th century after napoleons/french continental success. I believe this regards matters regarding revision of provincial constitution as well.... whereas federal law (and thus Canada's constitution) is common law basis from British heritage.

I don't think any other country has quite this kind of thing going on to this day (Canada debated in 1995 to doing a federal constitution revision to grant quebec more autonomy in an article itself, but stuck to its guns in the end and kept amendment process only).

Louisiana which also has civil law (and a parallel cousin reason to Quebec) has settled this much more definitively I believe....or the matter simply never took on the form like it has done in Quebec.

Again there could be some conflation on my end from what the legal analysis has done w.r.t terminology (loosely or precisely) of article vs amendment in each country.

@Joe Shearer

Will reply, but not today, not for a couple of days more.

 

[Nilgiri]

Will reply, but not today, not for a couple of days more.

Never a rush my friend, all in good time as and when you have it.

 

[the]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360125804966010882

Group Deputy Chairman Engin Altay:
"Mr. Erdogan, if you are affected by this letter and the threat and make concessions in the Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus, the Aegean, Syria and even in Libya, you are a coward, however if you will not make concessions, we will be behind you."

Does the CHP normally back AKPs foreign policy decisions?

 

[mulj]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360125804966010882

Group Deputy Chairman Engin Altay:
"Mr. Erdogan, if you are affected by this letter and the threat and make concessions in the Eastern Mediterranean, Cyprus, the Aegean, Syria and even in Libya, you are a coward, however if you will not make concessions, we will be behind you."

Does the CHP normally back AKPs foreign policy decisions?

i am actually suprised in pleasant manner about this statement, it shows maturity and high level of awareness about toxic usa approach towards turkey, very nice to see this opposing to treatment like you are banana republic.

 

[Saithan]

If Turkey is threatened or consensus is needed then all political parties except hdp (pkk supporters) support the president snd government.

 

[Saithan]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360265126906114049

I wonder if government being silent means they’re using softpower to achieve something, or is this a strategy to get more domestic production even if it is chinese companies.

 

[Deliorman]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1360265126906114049

I wonder if government being silent means they’re using softpower to achieve something, or is this a strategy to get more domestic production even if it is chinese companies.

What soft power and what production? AKP just gets credits and low quality vaccines from China... even the Third Bosphorus bridge was was sold to them so don’t expect Turkey’s Government to do anything for the Uyghurs.

If they were Syrians or Palestinians protesting you would see them 24/7 on Government TV channels and whole AKP and MHP members would be making propaganda how they are our brothers etc.

 

[Sinan]

@KKF 2.0

I waited for sometime, for moderation to open up the Boğaziçi Thread. But seems like they are bent on satisfying certain people here. Since they took away my right to reply your accusations, i'm going to reply you here.

"If he doesn't stop talking about the 'Erdoğan regime' as if he came to power without any democratic legitimacy and if he doesn't stop calling people who don't share his point of view AK trolls, spineless etc., how do you expect us to react to his oversensitive, childish, wannabe-white nonsense?

First of all "Regime" means.

So, if you are learnt what regime means we can pass on to other issues.

From the start of the thread, i only defended the constitutional rights of the Turkish people. I don't know what you expect me to react to people, who disrespects Turkish constitution and the Turkish people.

"Childish, oversensitive , wannabe-white".... i return all these words back to you since it shows your sub-concious.

 

[Sinan]

@dBSPL

Also same to you.... You wrote some many things, i generally didn't even bother to read because your posts are just too long, and there are no links, no video, no image, no proof. So, i think most of them are pure demagogy.

But, i saw that you accused me of "defending a PKK terörist".... First don't be ashamed of showing flags in your profile. Secondly, did your parents didn't teach you that it's not okay to slander people.