Jump to content

Political Logos


Waffles

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 340
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Going through this thread I realized how common is the use of personal branding in N. America.

 

In Spain it's just the opposite. The candidates don't have their own branding, and most of the camapign signs consist on a picture of the candidate, a motto and the party logo.

That was the usual until the 2016 Basque parliamentary election, in which the candidate of the "Partido Popular" (People's Party), Alfonso Alonso, ran for the election using his personal branding:

 

1400x450.jpg

 

As you can see, the branding consisted on the canidate's surname followed by the party's logo (which, BTW, is quite similar to the Democrats' logo). The "A" features the European, Spanish and Basque flag altogether, symbolizing the party's ideology and goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On November 12, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Morgo said:

 

If that's a 'nuanced confederate flag' so is this...

 

X0OW0LI.png

 

When I first looked at the Trump President-Elect logo, the first connection I made was to the Confederate Flag. Not the same with the Blue Jackets shoulder patch. I don't know what is is. Maybe the colours and the thickness of the outlines? The colour balance as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please keep the discussion focused on design and not politics.

 

As for the CSA flag comparisons....I doubt a Republican President-elect from the Northeast is purposefully trying to evoke the Confederate battle flag :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/22/2016 at 4:01 PM, Ice_Cap said:

Ok Americans, here's some Canadian political history.

 

Can you explain Social Credit? I've tried reading about it from several sources and I STILL DON'T GET IT

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, the admiral said:

Can you explain Social Credit? I've tried reading about it from several sources and I STILL DON'T GET IT

So be forewarned. The professor who served as my MA thesis advisor is from rural Alberta (the hotbed of the SoCred movement) and he wasn't able to fully explain it to me when I asked. So here's the best I've got.

 

The overall gist of the ideology is that the goal of production is consumption. That ultimately a thing is only made so it can be consumed in some way. The problem, as the SoCreds saw it, was that the price for basic goods often outpaced wages on a weekly basis. Thus throwing things "off balance." That's the root of Douglas' quote "systems were made for men, and not men for systems." That if the price to consume produced goods outpaces wages used to buy produced goods then it becomes a case of the tail wagging the dog.

 

The "social credit" philosophy holds that each person holds an inheritance of communal capital. Since production just exists to feed consumption, and consumption is a natural function of society, then it's the right of all people in any given society to partake in consumption. If wages are unable to meet the threshold required for an individual to consume what he needs? Then he has "social credit" he can tap into. His piece of inherited communal capital can be used to augment his wage so that he can consume what he needs to.

How would that work? It would come from something SoCreds like to call a "National Dividend." Think of it as "basic income" tied to productivity. The "political community" (ie a combination of the state and the "aristocracy of producers") would pay it out to every individual, and it would fluctuate based on the productivity of the economy.
The theory claims that this divided, combined with reduced prices that would result from trickle-down tax breaks for producers, will, at the very least, be enough for each individual to meet their basic economic needs.

Douglas believed that this would result in consumer control of production via the democratic purchasing power that would be unleashed once every individual was free to fully exploit their own personal purchasing power.

 

The party thrived in Alberta for a time, and even governed during the Depression. Their attempts to put their theories into practice fell short, however, when Liberal PM William Lyon Mackenzie King used the powers of the PMO to strike down SoCred legislation, forever killing off the Liberals a political force west of Ontario and east of BC.

It was also very socially conservative. That, and its experimental approach to economics, endeared it to the more centrist and right wing federally-minded Quebecois. The Social Credit Party is perhaps the only example of people in the prairies and Quebec agreeing on anything for an extended period of time :P

 

The party saw diminished returns until it just sort of vanished as a political force in the early 80s due to infighting. Various factions embraced Western separatism, Christian Dominionism, or antisemitism. They all just cannibalized one and other, until there was nothing left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guaranteed basic income is probably a good endgame for a world where robots do all our work, but we need to accomplish it without  "Western separatism, Christian Dominionism, or antisemitism," the hat trick of being dumb.

 

But thanks! It sounds like a weird right-wing Marxism.

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.