Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2012 07:35 UTC
In the News "Germany's upstart Pirate Party has overtaken the Greens to become the third strongest political grouping in the country, according to a new poll. The survey by Forsa for broadcaster RTL showed support for the Pirates, whose platform is based on internet freedom and more direct participation in politics, pushing up to 13 percent and outstripping the Greens for the first time." Not surprising. I have lots of close friends in Germany (especially in the former DDR), and for obvious reasons, I've noticed they tend to have a very firm grasp of concepts like privacy and government spying. The bit about six parties being a lot and troublesome for coalition building made me smile.
Thread beginning with comment 513650
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: What's in a name
by Doc Pain on Wed 11th Apr 2012 10:38 UTC in reply to "RE: What's in a name"
Doc Pain
Member since:

"Every time I see news about these "pirate" parties I keep thinking that using the word "pirate" in the name is not that good an idea.
Sure, we all know pirates (the swashbuckling kind) are cool but I'm pretty sure that's not the associating most people will make.

I agree, but I love the fact that names seem to become less important.

For german political parties, the names never really related to what they do. Letting people work for less money than unemployed get isn't christian. Acting against the will of the majority of the people isn't democratic. Letting employers in trouble vanish so they need to "set free" their employees, but artificially keeping greedy and unresponsible banks on life support from taxpayers' money isn't social. Opening the way for weapons exports to countries (that later surprisingly appear as "villain states" with "undemocratic regimes") isn't green.

There's nothing in the names. But if there is something in it, it's the opposite.

It has always been one of the biggest flaws.

It belongs to the play "democracy" which we can see for many decades. There are rules on how to play it. Showing some "diversity" and "disagreement" is important to keep the spectators on their places. When they sit and watch, they don't act, and that's good. Names belong to that rules. They say nothing.

Everyone associates different things with them and they are nothing more like a historical thing that has nearly nothing to do with reality.

Correct. When parties did identify theirselves in the part as "mass party" or "workers' party", it was because that has been their target audience - the people for who's rights they wanted to fight. Today, the target audience has changed, but the name has been kept. Nobody would like to vote for a "bankers' party" or "tax criminal party".

Reply Parent Score: 5