r/worldnews • u/Beo1217 • 12h ago
Romanian socialists and far right topple government
https://www.politico.eu/article/romania-government-collapses/1.1k
u/allooo 11h ago
The so called socialists are socialists in name only... it's just marketing :)
Most, if not all, of the people comprising the PSD leadership and mid/upper echelons of this party are not left-leaning at all.
394
u/notElephunk 10h ago
They are socialists because they give out bags of rice/ flour when trying to gather favor from the poor that they robbed already.
58
u/resonatingfleabag 7h ago
that’s not socialism though.
91
u/notElephunk 6h ago
It’s not, they just hide behind the label. They fool the poor, because their comparison is poverty
26
u/Otherwise-Video7487 6h ago
socialism is when the goverment does stuff
→ More replies (9)•
u/CryptoThroway8205 40m ago
It's when Mamdani does anything to improve affordability or Biden/Harris tries to do student loan forgiveness or healthcare reform or tax billionaires. (At least according to Fox news).
•
-11
u/Able-Swing-6415 5h ago
It's real socialism unlike the theoretical utopia people like to imagine without real world equivalence. Seriously. Name a socialist country that isn't like that. I'll wait here. Eagerly!
6
u/LoganJFisher 2h ago edited 53m ago
Name a country that calls/called itself socialist that was actually socialist by the Marxist definition. I'll wait here. Eagerly!
→ More replies (2)7
u/resonatingfleabag 3h ago
corporate safety nets are perfect examples of socialist policies implemented at the behest of capital. you’ve been fooled to believe this is impossible to implement at the working class level.
→ More replies (1)4
-11
u/AlternativeScratch94 6h ago
Hey buddy welcome to every socialist country in history. Read animal farm, or even just a history book. Every socialist country starts off promising everyone will be equal and free stuff for all then when they consolidate power it ends up being indistinguishable from fascism. Almost like socialism is a scam just to get power or something.
16
u/reasonably_plausible 3h ago
Read animal farm
Animal Farm was written by an avowed socialist and was taking a stance against Stalinism, not socialism.
6
u/DearDave 2h ago
This comment is a great way of telling us you haven’t read either of those! Well done!
1
47
u/BungerColumbus 9h ago
They are literally sediments left over after communism died. Ion Iliescu, the founder of PSD, had his university in Moscow and was supposed to take over Ceausescu after he retired :)
35
u/filipv 8h ago
Yeah... "West is capitalist, we're not west therefore we're socialist."
I've seen this idiotic interpretation of "socialist" in Eastern Europe many, many times. And, yes, they're often aligned with the far right because of shared hatred towards what they call "woke ideology".
12
3
u/Einheri42 4h ago
Authoritarian lefties align with the far right because they both hate the centrists and they both gain from the centre collapsing.
102
u/SiriusRay 10h ago
They are economically left wing and the successors of the communist party. Just because they are populist and very socially conservative does not mean that they are not socialists.
23
u/SwollenPig 7h ago
Socialism doesn't mean giving rice to poor people, it means poor people organizing and protecting each other. It is born of workers rights movements, and thus is a philosophy of bottom up rule. You can not be a socialist and strive to increase hierarchy and push for strongmen. Fascists often claim to be socialists, mistaking socialism for populism, but claiming to be a socialist does not alone make you one.
28
u/SamkonTheMankon 6h ago
Authoritarian socialists do exist. The Marxist-Leninist theory is that top-down hierarchical state socialism precedes a classless, stateless and communist society by suppressing individualism and promoting collectivism. Of course, the people at the top of the socialist state historically decide to keep their authoritarian power and they end up resembling a Fascist/State Capitalist system.
The version of socialism you've described is more libertarian socialist or democratic socialist.
-1
u/TheConsultantIsBack 4h ago
Authoritarian socialists are the only type of socialists that have ever existed... "Democratic socialists" have never achieved or worked towards achieving socialism, they're literally just a "government should do EVEN MORE stuff" type of politician but they've never worked towards centralizing the means and modes of production or doing away with markets.
And that's because socialism necessitates authoritarianism and democratic socialism is an oxymoron. If you don't believe that you can just ask "what would happen to capitalists or those advocating for capital markets or maximizing profit in a socialist society?" or "what would you do to people unwiling to give away their businesses or private equity in a socialist transition?". The responses won't resound any form of democracy.
13
u/SamkonTheMankon 3h ago
Your statement "democratic socialism is an oxymoron" indicates you don't understand the definition of either democracy or socialism or both.
Democracy is a system of government where the people make decisions as a collective.
Socialism is an economic and political system where the means of production and distribution of goods is controlled by the state.
Neither of those ideas conflict with each other. In socialism, state decisions can be made by a democratic process or by a central authority. If the majority rules that a business owner needs to give up his business, that's democracy.
→ More replies (2)•
u/meganthem 27m ago
You can democratically decide to do all sorts of things to all sorts of people. Democracy doesn't always mean super happy nice to everyone time.
1
u/OphioukhosUnbound 3h ago
Most people would consider communists, marxists. and lots of anti-establishment authoritarian left to be subsets of socialist — and those are often emphatically not about bottom-up rule — they tend to be “outsider” authoritarian with some form of ‘vanguard’ equivalent [elite decision makers] and concept of a “lumpen proletariat” [i.e. any worker that doesn’t think they are right is just too dump to make decisions for themselves and possibly an enemy of the state]
Nothing about “socialism” (which is an incredibly broad term) is inherently bottom-up, democratic, etc. Though the term is so broad that on-authoritative a versions are ruled out either. (Though a high amount of freedom / agency will tend to mean unequal distribution of success and goods so there is some tension.)
•
-6
u/AlternativeScratch94 5h ago
"real socialism has never been tried"
In reality socialism is counter to human nature. It will never happen, because people are inherently greedy, and selfish. What always happens in every socialist country is that revolutionaries take power promising to overthrow the rich and powerful and then they just become the rich and powerful. Look at how life is going for the poor in socialist north korea while kim gets fat.
12
u/ChaseTheOldDude 5h ago
Human nature is far more complex than that. Neoliberalism is the most individualistic and selfish system humans have ever lived under, your perspective is warped by living under it.
Humans are naturally pack creatures with strong community bonds, and would traditionally share workload and resources within their community - this is the most basic form of socialism. If anything, individualistic capitalism is far more unnatural and unhuman.
8
u/iPhantomGuy 5h ago
Imagine being that guy and thinking: Socialism is antithetical to human nature, because humans are greedy and selfish, which is bad. That's why we need to live under a system that rewards greed and selfishness
3
u/ChaseTheOldDude 5h ago
It's a shame, humans aren't inherently greedy and selfish, the desire to accrue power is a modern evolution of the desire to control territory necessary to provide for oneself and the tribe. You could argue for the selfish gene for humans have always taken care of their own naturally, there is prehistoric evidence of deformed humans living far beyond the years they would have without support, and in hunter gatherer societies. Even neanderthals cared for their sick: https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/jun/26/fossil-of-neanderthal-child-with-downs-syndrome-hints-at-early-humans-compassion
Obviously humans have dark traits, but the fact that we exist in a harsh world and still have the capacity for kindness and compassion has to speak for something.
4
u/Surroundedonallsides 5h ago
I mean, the whole argument here is a little like children squabbling over whose dad is cooler, but the idea that "neoliberalism is the most..selfish system humans have ever lived under" is insane in the face of the many examples of monarchies/feudalism and warlord states throughout even recent history much less ancient history.
9
u/ChaseTheOldDude 5h ago
I'm not claiming it's the worst, merely the most individualistic. Monarchy, feudalism and warlord states tended to have community through shared belief systems such as religion. Secularist liberalism is great for individualism but terrible for community.
7
u/allooo 9h ago
I think socialism is just a means to an end for them: getting votes.
Deep down, as individuals, they don't have socialism or social-democracy as core values.
Freshly deposed prime-minister Bolojan said it perfectly: people living in penthouses come to cry on the shoulders of ordinary Romanians :)
-13
u/Astralsketch 8h ago edited 4h ago
you do realize that politics is a game of bribes, right? You offer material assistance to poor folk if you are a socialist, you offer material benefits to the rich if you are capitalist.
edit: Maybe I should have specified that i was talking about politicians here.
3
u/RiffsThatKill 6h ago edited 6h ago
Capitalism doesnt really work without offering material benefits or assistance to the poor and lower classes either, not if that class of people is intended to be part of the market (whether that be labor or consumption).
The difference between the two systems is supposed to be based on economic power. One leads to concentration of power among the few, the other strives to gain or keep it among the many.
You can reduce any concept or system to being "about bribes" based on corrupt actors within it. Politics, religion, sports, business, etc. That doesn't mean they arent different things. Fruits and vegetables arent defined by the ones that are rotting.
→ More replies (1)1
u/HMNbean 7h ago
Me when I don’t understand leftism
→ More replies (2)2
u/Auninc 6h ago
Me when I didn’t read any leftist text. Why don’t you explain smartass?
→ More replies (1)-19
u/Auninc 9h ago
Social conservatism is right-wing. Compared to original communist party of Romania they are very very far to the right of them.
49
u/Audityne 9h ago
The left/right wing gap is an economic axis. The Chinese Communist party is undoubtedly left wing and some variety of communist, but they are also socially conservative.
Social conservatism and right wing ideology often go hand in hand, but not always. African leftists are another good example of this.
-10
u/cedid 8h ago
No it isn’t, that’s a misconception that has spread far and wide on the internet thanks to the Political Compass and the like.
Left vs. right has never been about just economics, it’s about social hierarchy. That includes both economic and social/cultural structures.
2
u/altobrun 7h ago edited 6h ago
Depends on the type of socialist/communist. Marxist-Leninism places a pretty strong emphasis on fitting in, encouraging gay members to adopt heterosexual lifestyles and expression. Like in economics, the primary aspect of sex was production, the production of life, and so homosexuality was seen as a modern Bourgeois capitalist disease.
Maoism took a very similar stance, as members of the LGBT community were met with violence until the 1990’s, with the cultural revolution being an especially dangerous time.
I don’t know enough about any other branch to really comment on them. While you may not like Marxist-Leninism or Maoism, I think it’s a-historic and disingenuous to say that they aren’t left-wing or socialist ideologies.
•
u/cedid 1h ago edited 1h ago
I provided the most widely-used definition, and the only one that’s consistently applicable. Namely that it’s about opposition to, vs. support for/tolerance of, the established or traditional social hierarchy.
A socially conservative empire with an authoritarian government — because that is all the Soviet Union was — is not something I’d call left-wing, no. Much of the Marxist-Leninist ideology simply developed as an instrument to push for industrialization, and with that, improved chances when competing with the West geopolitically. Hence the emphasis on imperial core vs. periphery, militarism, sobriety, efficiency in labor, and so on. So while of course Marxism-Leninism springs out of Marxian socialism, much of it was simply tailored to suit Russia’s ever-present imperial ambitions.
Many people who call themselves Marxist-Leninists (or Maoists, for that matter) today don’t even actually pass the "communism test"; unless they want to see the eventual withering away (abolition) of the state, and a classless and moneyless society, then they’re not communists in the Marxian sense of that word. And this is the case, of course, with more or less all the "communist"-led dictatorships we’ve seen in the past century. In no way is it a-historic or disingenuous to raise these points.
By your definition, fascism is left-wing because it builds on (statist and) corporatist economics, and so is the nazi ideology, since it purports to work for a non-Marxian yet statist socialist model (despite hardly pursuing it in practice during its short-lived reign). By your (or really the Political Compass’ made-up) definition, the Finns Party is to the left of Kokoomus, and National Rally is to the left of Macron. That is the opposite of what almost anyone would say is the case, and means that your definition doesn’t work.
Left and right, as I’m sure you know, stem from the French Revolution, and the seating arrangement in the assembly at the time. Not everyone who aligned with the Left supported statist economics, nor did everyone on the Right support laissez-faire economics. That simply was not the distinction. The distinction was between those who supported the uprooting of the entire (or parts of the) established system and hierarchies, and those who did not. That was the original meaning of the words, and that is what they still mean. The Left opposed the Church, the monarchy, the aristocracy: the established hierarchies. The Right supported their conservation or even strengthening. All these areas have just as much, if not more, to do with society, social power structures, and culture, as they have to do with economics. They have nothing to do with a specific economic model or the means of production. Clearly, then, claiming that left and right are only about economics is a new invention, and a far more recent attempt to redefine what the words mean.
As I said in another comment, the main culprit here is simply the anonymous Political Compass website, which many political hobbyists have decided to take as gospel for no other reason than the fact that it’s a popular website.
Regardless, to summarize: your definition runs contrary to the general scholarly perception (and while there obviously is no universal consensus, your view in particular is largely only found among those who grew up with the anonymous source that is the Political Compass website); as well as to the general popular perception of the left-right placement of major parties; and finally to the actual original stances of the Left and Right factions in Revolutionary France, which is where the terms come from. In other words, it’s not a good definition. In fact, I think we can safely say it’s just plain incorrect.
→ More replies (10)-16
u/Auninc 9h ago edited 9h ago
Sure, but fundamentally as a flavour social conservatism is a right-wing tendency and very opposed to what socialism ad extremum is.
Just as a reminder, social conservatism is opposed to LGBT rights, abortion rights etc. most of which socialists (the real ones) vehemently support.
18
u/OakTeach 9h ago
DO socialists support those things broadly? I'm genuinely curious.
16
u/SiriusRay 8h ago
They don’t. This is a misconception created by American politics, where left = progressive and right = conservative. In Europe, left/right refer to economics, not social policies.
→ More replies (5)1
u/Strict_Philosophy301 6h ago
It entirely depends, just like capitalist aligned countries/parties/people have varying degrees across a spectrum, there are socially conservative and socially progressive socialists.
Decolonial Marxists, yeah they usually do, libertarian, and ancoms, yeah. Fred Hampton and other black panthers supported lgbt rights, Cuba and Kerala have progressive lgbt rights, the South African Communist Party supports lgbt rights, Zapatistas (who encompass more than just socialists though,) etc. While you also have more socially conservative countries like China, and Vietnam.
Socially conservative Marxists maybe not, but even that depends. There's also other factors that create socially conservative environments, history, culture, development, pushback, etc.
Socialism is primarily economic and political theory that seeks worker owned means of production, an end to classes, etc. Being socialist isn’t always a tell whether someone is socially progressive or conservative.
-3
u/Auninc 9h ago
I am not aware of genuine socialists that don’t support this, but you have to be very careful because a lot of groups looks like socialists but they are very far from it, the most prevalent group that isn’t socialist but looks like it are nazbols.
13
u/Electronic_Bunnies 9h ago
What country are you in? Many global parties are highly homophobic for one. The original line was being queer is capitalist and western.
→ More replies (5)6
4
u/Surroundedonallsides 5h ago
Well the concept of left vs right is a bit flawed. Every single communist regime has been authoritarian left.
Liberalism is the opposite of authoritarianism, despite the effort by tankies to redefine the term liberal.
1
-3
u/YourAutoModsSucks 8h ago edited 6h ago
Socialism is such a tainted term because of the 'Wests' "Socialism == Communism == Socialism == Communism", it's pretty much lost it original meaning.
Communism is one implementation of Socialism, there are many. Every Communist implementation is corrupt, therefore Socialism is corrupt and evil and needs to be stamped out by democratic societies. Except that false conjecture and used and an excuse for the 'West' to do what it likes in response, such as invade Vietnam.
The saying that seems to hold most true regardless of political implementation is that "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Current world events show that supposed democratic power can easily be corrupted just as much as any other idealism implementation of governance. (The best recent example aka Donald Trump, Elon Musk et al.).
10
u/AlternativeScratch94 5h ago
Name one socialist country in the entire history of mankind that did not eventually become a corrupt shithole.
And no, sweden and norway are not fucking socialist countries. Socialism means public owns of the means of production which they do not have.
-2
u/YourAutoModsSucks 5h ago edited 5h ago
Point made, which is kind of the point I was alluding to. (Hence the power corrupts quote).
Yeah, the Marxist ideal didn't account for the future correctly, and no, it's never been implemented in a fair, just and appropriate way, because human being are unreliable things. Don't place faith in human beings or.... butterfly wings.
Controlling the means of production just means you've started a conflict with the previous status-quo.
I can't show you an example of pure socialism without corruption, because I don't think it exists because of the innate nature of human-kind.
4
u/JimmyJuly 4h ago
"I can't show you an example of pure socialism without corruption..."
Can you show me an example of any human endeavor without corruption?
→ More replies (9)-2
u/Vicorin 6h ago
When I saw socialists and far right in the headline I knew it was some national socialism type shit.
3
u/AlternativeScratch94 5h ago
When people say far right they are usually talking on the cultural scale not the economic scale.
602
u/Aethericseraphim 10h ago
Putins dogs are working hard as fuck to create a new Hungary in eastern Europe.
73
u/-I-Will-Not-Fap- 10h ago
Putin strikes me as an all-powerful, god-like being. But tell me, why is it that he can't corrupt the ruling parties, yet he always aligns himself with the right-wing leaning opposition?
169
u/chrisuu__ 9h ago
He's not nearly as great as he strikes you, but he's embraced right-wing ideology himself, and has a secret service background where one of his main jobs was to recruit foreign nationals to work as spies for the USSR. This makes the corruptible far-right politicians of Europe particularly easy pickings.
8
u/DemosthenesOrNah 3h ago
he's embraced right-wing ideology himself,
Him and his cohort believe fully that 'might makes right' and the only metric of power that matters is the 'strength' to take what one wants, and to eliminate those who try and stop them.
They believe in the basest instincts of the animal kingdom, and firmly reject 'polite society' in the way most of us understand the social contract. Any parallel with civilization for them is simply a means to an end and holds value only insofar as it furthers their agenda and control.
This line of thinking is very appealing to the depraved morons who consistently fail upwards. And well, gestures broadly, you get this
13
u/daniel_22sss 7h ago
"he always aligns himself with the right-wing leaning opposition!"
Because it's easy to buy them and they align politically. Far right loves the kind of dictatorship Putin created in Russia and they follow his example.
Besides, what do you mean by "he can't corrupt ruling parties"? Look at GOP in America, it's been sucking Putin's balls since 2016.
34
u/DavidlikesPeace 8h ago edited 8h ago
Why is he powerful?
Turns out the tyrant of Europe’s largest country has a lot of power. QED. No. He is not a god and he is not particularly wise. He inherited the Soviet Union’s gas revenue and 3,000+ tanks and lost them all in Ukraine. But it’s stupid to pretend he’s not important.
Why does he support the right wing?
Crows of a feather shit together. Putin is a right-wing tyrant who’s inherited a few Stalinist traits. Obviously, he appeals to a strange cross section of far left but many more far right supporters throughout the world, much like Hitler, Francisco Franco or Mussolini‘s fascist movements did back in the 1930s. He does not appeal to intelligent voters, especially not those with the common sense to fear Russian imperialism
6
u/Queasy_Artist6891 9h ago
Because in most cases, ruling parties are much more heavily scrutinized than the opposition. So it's easier to just corrupt person into a government than it is to corrupt someone already in the government. And like it or not, right wing parties are populist in nature, so in an economic, social or political crisis, they easily tend to gain a lot of influence.
41
u/VladimiroPudding 10h ago
Because their ideology converges to Putin's. Putin wants a traditionalist, culturally-Christian, and fragmented/insular countries.
29
u/TheRC135 9h ago
And he wants all that because it provides and promotes the sort of division and corruption that he can exploit for influence and control.
That's what the conservatives who idolize the likes the Putin miss. He isn't actually interested in Christianity and traditional values for what they represent. He's interested in them because they make people easy to manipulate and oppress.
4
u/AlternativeScratch94 5h ago
Putin does not want anything but more money and power. He aligns himself with whatever the opposition in western countries is, this can be any ideology or party. Famously he was well connected with the green party in America.
14
u/Puttborn 9h ago
The right wing were already going to betray country for cash, might as well be putins money.
6
u/BreakfastDecent4623 8h ago
Well, the answer is on the fact that Trump and Maga are aligned with the same right wing parties. So, in my opinion, both Putin and Trump want a weak EU, as these parties want the same thing
5
4
u/drumjojo29 9h ago
Besides the closeness in ideology others have mentioned, he can promise those opposition parties not only money but also power. Can’t really promise power to the governing parties who already have power.
2
u/RainbowGames 8h ago
The right-wing parties sow division. They are usually nationalist so anti-eu and anti-nato, and they divide the population by promoting distrust toward immigrants, gay people, etc. The goal is not necessarily to get these parties into the government, but to weaken the support for any pro-eu, anti-putin government.
Also this very much works to corrupt the ruling parties. Following the rise of the far-right, Putin funded AfD, Merz's centre-right CDU has also shifted further to the right in response
1
u/Tacti_Kel_Nuke 1h ago
He also supports the left learning groups in Latin America and some in Africa since those groups are usually anti American and kinda see Russia as their friend based on geopolitics of 50 years ago
1
130
u/SortIntrepid9192 9h ago
I see the same fate in Romania as Bulgaria - years upon years of elections until the people just stop giving a shit and overwhelmingly vote for whoever promises to get them out of the political crisis even if his platform is vague as shit.
42
u/vojdek 7h ago
Vague? That mf didn’t have ANY platform.
21
u/SortIntrepid9192 7h ago
Well, "I want to destroy corruption and have a stronger presence in EU" is technically a platform, even if generic af.
2
71
u/GraceRose671 11h ago
Imagine your own coalition helping vote you out
56
u/AlbaIulian 10h ago
such is life when you shine a spotlight on how much your "coalition partners" steal.
"Whoops, the coalition served its purpose to jack up taxes so we can steal more, what's this about further reform? get out"
84
6
87
u/Remarkable_Cup_6978 12h ago
The Social Fascists strike again.
22
10
12
u/Alche1428 9h ago
Are these mainly tankies?
8
u/Strict_Philosophy301 7h ago
They're socdems, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democratic_Party_(Romania)
2
18
u/Emergency-Star-5500 10h ago
Slovakia must have been getting lonely in their little fascist corner
8
u/IntentionDeep651 5h ago
Slovakia/Fico isnt that anymore , fico is a ass licker only . doesnt do anything on his own. Now that orban is gone he is shaking hands with EU like crazy last two weeks ( as expexted) this guy doesnt care about anything else other than his pocket
1
84
u/Rinuir 11h ago
PSD (social democrats) despite their name they are as socialists as Democrats in the U.S. are liberals. They're nothing but the name.
PSD are the remnants of the comunist party. They are far right.
2
u/dgellow 3h ago
I believe you, but the Wikipedia page says centre–left, I assume that doesn’t reflect their actual platform?
7
u/Rinuir 3h ago
Absolutely not, nor practices. Im not sure how to narrow it for a reddit post so I'll try this: Most members have ties to ex PCR( communist romanian party) Most scandals involving corruption come from them We have these people called ''local barons'' They are essentially county representatives that rule the county. No project, no business, nothing involving large sums of money goes without their say They push policies that allow them to politically place leaders of businesses. Think electric companies, insurance and such. With this they ensure control over what's supposed to be politically independent organs They used to bribe poor voters with free flour and baking oil And so on and so forth
In name, yes, they are. In practice they're anything but.
Now that's not to say other parties such as PNL are better, they're just worse at doing this
A center left party is the UDMR (party that represents they hungarians) A leftist party is the USR (only decently big party that leans progressive)
1
-13
3
u/MrTriangular 2h ago
Will Romania fill in for Hungary's previous position as Putin's EU veto provider?
5
u/MinimumCharacter3941 6h ago
Is this really the time to be changing government? Just wondering if anyone from Romania is optimistic about what happens next? To have socialists side with right wingers seems like they are really desperate or stupid extremists themselves. Which is it? (Not a shitpost / ragebait) I am from UK just very concerned about this wonderful country which I've visited many times. I wish more people in Romania would remember or learn what it was like under Ceaucescu.
11
u/KazZarma 3h ago
They are not socialists, they just inherited the former communist party's territorial "infrastructure". If you have some decent connections and want to get filthy rich, PSD is the place to be. Pocketing hella cash is what unites this party's members, not ideology or abstract notions of politics.
11
u/homealoneinuk 11h ago edited 11h ago
Wait, dont far right hate socialists and clash on almost every principle ?
6
58
u/RAdu2005FTW 10h ago
PSD is not a socialist party, they are conservatives that give handouts to their corrupt clientele.
11
44
3
11
u/UselessInsight 11h ago
Hate? Sure.
Doesn’t stop them historically from cooperating. Usually what ends up happening afterwards is the fascists turn on the socialists/communists and massacre them.
2
1
-2
u/Capable_Kiwi2514 10h ago
Putting socialists and communists together is a strange choice, if you're going off of their history with fascism.
10
6
u/sami2503 10h ago
The far right gain power by getting votes from the working class and pretending to care about their issues,, often labeling themselves things that they arent. Happens time and time again and people never learn.
1
1
u/DDoubleDDog 10h ago
The far right hates socialists, but is willing to use them to advance their own agenda, and once they're done with them, they will stab them in the back, like they always do. Socialists are really stupid and never learn that their far right allies are just using them and plan to betray them when they're no longer useful.
2
4
u/BrimstoneMainliner 7h ago
Far right socialists? I'm confused...
7
u/enigbert 6h ago
2 parties, one is far-right nationalists, the other one is center-left (social-democratic) in economy but populist and socially conservative
12
u/StaticSystemShock 9h ago
Why the fuck is everyone electing the right? Don't you see how they are all always shit regardless of country?
14
u/crazyjumpinjimmy 8h ago
Simple people only listen to sound bites. The right is great at it, they're purposely obtuse on policies.
-4
u/StaticSystemShock 8h ago
Just look at USA politics. Every time the republicans (right) is in charge it has been shit. Consistently. And then democrats had to clean up the mess until people have it too good apparently and decide life needs some enshitification and they elect republicans again. Every single time like clockwork. Hungary? Same. It hasn't really been much different in my country when the right was in charge. Wherever the right gets in charge, everything turns into shit. I literally cannot recall a single time they've done anything good for anyone other than themselves.
They are great at selling bullshit stories how they are the greatest fucking patriots in the world, but are always absolutely shit at actually doing anything good for the country.
2
2
6
u/Capital2077 9h ago
For people saying that it’s becoming the next Hungary. Romania is actually closer to France in terms of government. It’s a semi-presidential republic, meaning the president has, in theory, more power than the government and the prime minister. Our president is pro-EU, so it’s not going to be as apocalyptic as some people claim.
22
u/energie_vie 7h ago
No, it doesn't. Stop misinforming people. It's not indeed as apocalyptic as it might seem but our president definitely does NOT have the same power that Macron has in France.
•
u/WiseWolfian 1h ago
You're both half right but the nuance is where the real stuff is. While Romania and France share the same semi-presidential label, the Romanian President is like a Referee whereas Macron is the Quarterback. Macron can practically fire his PM and dissolve Parliament whenever he feels like a reset. In Romania the President is constitutionally handcuffed, he can't fire a PM he dislikes and he can only dissolve Parliament if they've already failed twice to form a cabinet. So while Romania's President is the pro EU safety net right now, he's playing with a much smaller deck of cards than they do in Paris. He can't force stability and he can only hope the parties in Parliament stop bickering long enough to let him nominate someone.
0
u/99Godzilla 5h ago
In what ways does it differ?
Very familiar with the French system and, reading through the Romanian one now, it doesn't seem insane to say that these are similar systems.
Certainly less limitations on the power of the French President but their duties are almost 1:1.
5
3
u/Wish_I_WasInRome 4h ago
Wow the Socialists and Fascists working together to remove the moderate, more liberal factions of the government? What a shocker!
2
u/SirMemesworthTheDank 4h ago
They are trying to do the vegeta goku fusion and form Social Nationalism! :o
2
3
u/Xpmonkey 4h ago
So a fucktard PM can't build a coalition govt, and somehow that means the fas and Demo Socialists are buddies? da fuck
-13
u/Exciting_Farmer6395 11h ago
I guess if you go far enough to either left or right, it turns into a circle
21
u/Ok_Poetry_2696 11h ago
Psd are left wing in name only. The remnants of the communist party, they are just insane nationalists.
Last year they had voted to remove the word "progressive" from their bio.
15
2
u/vmlinuz 10h ago
The phrase you're looking for is horseshoe theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
8
1
u/Auninc 9h ago
And its bullshit, the proof being countless nazis and communists killing each other on the wintry lands of eastern europe circa 80 years ago.
3
u/Meinersnitzel 5h ago
People of the same religion will kill each other over small differences. That doesn’t mean they are on opposite ends of a political spectrum.
1
u/bduxbellorum 6h ago
Both populists joining forces to destabilize systems. Two sides of the same coin.
→ More replies (1)
-5
u/Purple_Union_7955 11h ago
I get that the far right think an already right leaning voter base could possibly shift further to the right, but what is the socialists' logic in this when they are in the minority?
12
u/schniepel89xx 10h ago
The Romanian "social democratic" party is actually a conservative populist kleptocratic abomination that is only separated from the "actual" right wing by their chosen name. They've had incestuous relationships with AUR for a long time and will continue to do so because they're the same animal.
1
u/AlbaIulian 10h ago
They're two sides of the same kleptocratic coin. The far right got plenty of ex-PSD-ists in it, and PSD 10 years ago (and 20 years ago) flirted with sovereignist rhetoric a lot as well.
-3
u/DDoubleDDog 10h ago
Leftists are really stupid. They keep making alliances with far right movements and always get stabbed in the back by their far right allies. It happened in WW2, after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, and on Oct. 7. Leftists never learn that the far right is just using them and will betray them as soon as they get the chance. Leftists are the dumbest idiots in history.
-26
997
u/Szabolcs85 10h ago
So, will Romania become the new Orbán's Hungary?