Page 11 of 13
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2015 7:37 pmby Mysterious Stranger
Shaggai wrote:Merizoc wrote:A lot of people consider me a reactionary, but by no means identify me as right wing (not that I consider myself to be reactionary, but….)
Eh. Multiple variations of how we interpret the spectrum. You look at it one way, I see it another. As long as it's coming from an informed point of view, I'm cool with it.
You're an anarcho-primitivist, according to your sig. I suppose you could describe that as reactionary, but if so it's so reactionary that left and right don't even really apply. Left and right only really apply when you're talking about positions that have been within the Overton Window in the past few hundred years.
I don't know, I think my views are fairly consistently classed as far left despite being far from the Overton Window. I think identification with communism tends to automatically carry that association, whether reasonably or not. Considering Stalin a leftist, for example, only really makes sense with respect to economics; in social policy and political structure he has far more in common with the far right.
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:44 pmby The Wisconsin Coalition
Burleson 2 wrote:The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:When we say "Liberals are left wing and Conservatives are right wing", we mean one is more left than the other. In the United States, they're both right wing groups, but Liberals are far more left than Conservatives.
Democrats are not right wing. Stop associating us right wingers with those Democratic nut cases. It's just insulting.
You have no idea how right the United States is, do you?
Keyboard Warriors wrote:The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:When we say "Liberals are left wing and Conservatives are right wing", we mean one is more left than the other. In the United States, they're both right wing groups, but Liberals are far more left than Conservatives.
Politics is relative; being more left than the other makes you a leftist party.
That's the point I'm making.
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2015 9:52 pmby Natapoc
Propaganda works and conservatives have been increasing the propaganda so much that you almost can't blame the average person for being a conservative and actively fighting against their own interests on behalf of billionaires.
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:19 pmby The Wisconsin Coalition
Natapoc wrote:Propaganda works and conservatives have been increasing the propaganda so much that you almost can't blame the average person for being a conservative and actively fighting against their own interests on behalf of billionaires.
You're going to blame it on... propaganda? I want to laugh, but I can't even crack a smile.
Here's an idea, look at info-graphics and realize that they're actually doing the
opposite.
Posted:
Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:54 pmby Kincoboh
The Wisconsin Coalition wrote:Natapoc wrote:Propaganda works and conservatives have been increasing the propaganda so much that you almost can't blame the average person for being a conservative and actively fighting against their own interests on behalf of billionaires.
You're going to blame it on... propaganda? I want to laugh, but I can't even crack a smile.
Here's an idea, look at info-graphics and realize that they're actually doing the
opposite.
Democrats have the advantage of not being a party of closeted fascists and theocrats. What Democrats are, however, is probably equivalent to the CDU in Germany, which makes them conservative. But you're right, conservatism is dying in the U.S., literally. Old people are dying and the newer generations are more socially libertarian. However, I think Natapoc was referring to economic policies, in which there is almost no difference between Ds and Rs.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:36 amby Tafhan
Yeah, I guess so. Liberalism has kinda been getting a bad rap. Probably because of the more extreme variations of it who get really touchy and uptight over everything. They also have been getting a very out of touch with the common person. Right wing spokespersons have also gotten pretty good at playing to people's fears. So in a sense it's the fault of both sides.
I'm center left by the way.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:41 amby Singaporean Transhumans
Leftism in general has submerged below the water, but has not sunk yet. It shall float to the surface someday and make an epic comeback.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 5:47 amby Old Tyrannia
Shaggai wrote:Merizoc wrote:No. Liberal and conservative both generally tend towards the right wing, but aren't that set in stone, and can have multiple meanings. When we talk pure economics, they fall on the right.
Left/right are not purely economic. If someone was a full-on reactionary, they would be right-wing regardless of their economic views. The problem is that the far-left tends to differentiate itself from the rest of the left by its economics, whereas the far-right tends to differentiate itself from the rest of the right by its political views. So left-right generally ends up talking about economics if you look only at the left, but ends up referring to traditionalism if you look only at the right.
So, then, how come those ideologies generally labelled as "far-right" (e.g. fascism) are not reactionary at all but in fact revolutionary?
The problem with the Left-Right spectrum is that, taken out of its original French revolutionary context, it doesn't really mean much. We continue to use it for familiarity's sake, but it makes no sense when people act as if it has some sort of underlying principle, because no one actually agrees what that underlying principle
is. Politics isn't a spectrum. As far as the thread topic goes, I'm not sure I'd say leftists are becoming a minority
per se; rather, I think politics is becoming more polarised in much of Europe as a consequence of people's increasing disillusionment with the mainstream political establishment. That means a rise in right-wing populist parties such as UKIP, Front National and the Dansk Folkeparti, but also in left-wing populist parties, such as the SNP in the UK, Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. I wouldn't like to comment on the state of affairs across the Atlantic.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 9:30 amby Lydenburg
Ikania wrote:Salutations, liberal hivemind of NSG and the conservatives brave enough to oppose them!
Recently, on a long car trip back home from out of town, I contemplated the rise of various parties like UKIP, the Front National, and especially the Hawkish, theocratic wing of the Republican party. It seems that in America and especially Europe (but not quite Canada), we're seeing a growing voice for radical right wing parties. UKIP is now the most talked about party in Britain, and will probably place 3rd in May's elections. The Front National in France, headed by Marine Le Pen, is also seeing their approval ratings rise while the Socialist Hollande's drop (in November he was at 18%, but after Charlie Hebdo he shot up to 40).
Since the birth of left-right politics, both sides have been on about equal levels, with one shining more than the other at times. But is it actually possible that more people are subscribing to conservative politics, and that the liberals are becoming the minority?
In comments sections everywhere, we see hateful comments towards Muslims, and many people espousing anti-Liberal rhetoric. We keep waving them off as trolls, but they're quite a majority compared to the left-wing, level-headed commenters. In the EU elections in June, who was at the head of the tide? UKIP. It seems that the anti-immigration and typically anti-equality parties, which many compare to the National Socialist Party of 1930s Germany (by their harsh stances on immigration and civil rights), are becoming extremely popular. While opinion polling in the UK at least shows UKIP at a distant third, it is quite possible that support for these extremist viewpoints will be our leaders in the future.
That's because the largest proportion of the real world doesn't spend their days on NSG.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 12:52 pmby Krumbia
Firstly, the term "leftist" seems too simplistic and I suppose it's attempting to identify the swathes of people that would be left of centre on something like the Political Compass.
Whether they're becoming a minority is hard to say. Evidently, in the US, they've always been a minority, especially since the post-War Communist witch hunt. The words "socialist" and "Communist" are as bad a "Nazi" in most cases. On the other hand, in some places such as Greece, Cyprus, France, Malta, etc., "leftists" are still very much a large part of political life, if not in government. In the UK, even, parties such as the Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and the Green Party have been enjoying considerable success recently.
I wonder how it is possible to define whether "leftists" are becoming a minority for a simple reason: very few people, in the terms of an entire population, would be able to identify themselves accurately on a political spectrum. How then can these people be considered either a majority or a minority if they only vote based on tribal or familial tendencies? A lot of people don't vote at all, and of those that do, very few will be in-touch with political theory or even political happenings of the day. They would have voted Republican or Labour because their parents did, and because their neighbours do, and because their friends do. Because they read biased tabloids and see articles about Ed Miliband eating bacon sandwiches and say "He can't be Prime Minister! I must vote Conservative!" And they do these things without a second thought.
What it all boils down to is who have the most vested interests and rich backers, who are willing to finance long term propaganda campaigns in order to sway voters one way or another. In most cases, it's people like the Conservatives or the Republicans. Why? Because these are the kind of parties that cut taxes for the rich, or turn a blind eye to tax evasion, or even endorse corporatism. Therefore, people who have vested interests in these sorts of things will be keen to get these parties in power. Therefore, they support them at every turn - through tabloid medias and large donations and any other means available. That is why "leftists" may be in decline.
Because a) most people do not identify on the political spectrum as either "leftists" or rightists and b) people's votes are influenced by either tribal voting tendencies or political propaganda.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:27 pmby Shaggai
Old Tyrannia wrote:Shaggai wrote:Left/right are not purely economic. If someone was a full-on reactionary, they would be right-wing regardless of their economic views. The problem is that the far-left tends to differentiate itself from the rest of the left by its economics, whereas the far-right tends to differentiate itself from the rest of the right by its political views. So left-right generally ends up talking about economics if you look only at the left, but ends up referring to traditionalism if you look only at the right.
So, then, how come those ideologies generally labelled as "far-right" (e.g. fascism) are not reactionary at all but in fact revolutionary?
The problem with the Left-Right spectrum is that, taken out of its original French revolutionary context, it doesn't really mean much. We continue to use it for familiarity's sake, but it makes no sense when people act as if it has some sort of underlying principle, because no one actually agrees what that underlying principle
is. Politics isn't a spectrum. As far as the thread topic goes, I'm not sure I'd say leftists are becoming a minority
per se; rather, I think politics is becoming more polarised in much of Europe as a consequence of people's increasing disillusionment with the mainstream political establishment. That means a rise in right-wing populist parties such as UKIP, Front National and the Dansk Folkeparti, but also in left-wing populist parties, such as the SNP in the UK, Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. I wouldn't like to comment on the state of affairs across the Atlantic.
Fascism is a reactionary movement which eschews facts for a mythologizing narrative. Just because they're factually wrong doesn't mean that their ideology isn't reactionary.
Left and right are abstractions for fairly loose political coalitions. It's certainly not any sort of underlying principle. However, the coalitions are certainly things that exist in the world today, and it's useful to have words for them.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:30 pmby Pandeeria
In the US, the left-wing is increasing. This is a natural and inevitable occurrence; all first world countries ultimately become more and more liberalized. Western Europe (arguably central Europe to), Scandinavia, and Canada have already experienced this. The right-wing in the US at this time is moving closer and closer to the center in an attempt to modernize and remain relevant.
Historically, this is nothing new.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:33 pmby New Skaaneland
If you were to make the correct distinction and ask wether or not the government should be able to taxate people I believe there would be a lot of leftists.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:44 pmby Nord Amour
It's my hope that all major parties on either side of the left/right dichotomy fall into rapid decline.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 2:53 pmby Arkolon
Shaggai wrote:Old Tyrannia wrote:So, then, how come those ideologies generally labelled as "far-right" (e.g. fascism) are not reactionary at all but in fact revolutionary?
The problem with the Left-Right spectrum is that, taken out of its original French revolutionary context, it doesn't really mean much. We continue to use it for familiarity's sake, but it makes no sense when people act as if it has some sort of underlying principle, because no one actually agrees what that underlying principle
is. Politics isn't a spectrum. As far as the thread topic goes, I'm not sure I'd say leftists are becoming a minority
per se; rather, I think politics is becoming more polarised in much of Europe as a consequence of people's increasing disillusionment with the mainstream political establishment. That means a rise in right-wing populist parties such as UKIP, Front National and the Dansk Folkeparti, but also in left-wing populist parties, such as the SNP in the UK, Syriza in Greece and Podemos in Spain. I wouldn't like to comment on the state of affairs across the Atlantic.
Fascism is a reactionary movement which eschews facts for a mythologizing narrative. Just because they're factually wrong doesn't mean that their ideology isn't reactionary.
Left and right are abstractions for fairly loose political coalitions. It's certainly not any sort of underlying principle. However, the coalitions are certainly things that exist in the world today, and it's useful to have words for them.
I don't mean to butt in, and I haven't read through your conversation, but fascism most definitely wasn't a reactionary ideology. For its time, it was quite the opposite. You should read into national syndicalism and the Third Position if you don't believe me.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:01 pmby Lleu llaw Gyffes
New Skaaneland wrote:If you were to make the correct distinction and ask wether or not the government should be able to taxate people I believe there would be a lot of leftists.
No. Modern political Jargon defines "low tax" as low tax on the rich and correspondingly high tax on the poor; MpJ defines "high tax" as ANY tax on the rich at all.
"Low tax" is used as a Right wing slogan.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:03 pmby New haven america
No, in the US the smaller right-wing minority groups are just screaming and bitching louder due to the growing left-wing population.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:15 pmby Nord Amour
New haven america wrote:No, in the US the smaller right-wing minority groups are just screaming and bitching louder due to the growing left-wing population.
What evidence exists that the leftist population is growing? I'm not making an argument, I'm just wondering.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:18 pmby Romalae
Nord Amour wrote:New haven america wrote:No, in the US the smaller right-wing minority groups are just screaming and bitching louder due to the growing left-wing population.
What evidence exists that the leftist population is growing? I'm not making an argument, I'm just wondering.
Probably the fact that the Millennial generation is notably more left-wing than the three older generations.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:18 pmby New Skaaneland
I don't think the left wing is growing. It's just that everybody else disappears.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:20 pmby Nord Amour
Romalae wrote:Nord Amour wrote:What evidence exists that the leftist population is growing? I'm not making an argument, I'm just wondering.
Probably the fact that the Millennial generation is notably more left-wing than the three older generations.
But what is the evidence that they are more "left-wing?"
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:24 pmby Willamette Valley
Nord Amour wrote:Romalae wrote:Probably the fact that the Millennial generation is notably more left-wing than the three older generations.
But what is the evidence that they are more "left-wing?"
http://www.gallup.com/video/181361/gall ... stent.aspx
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:26 pmby Romalae
Nord Amour wrote:Romalae wrote:Probably the fact that the Millennial generation is notably more left-wing than the three older generations.
But what is the evidence that they are more "left-wing?"
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:27 pmby Imperial Esplanade
Technically speaking, both leftists and rightists are political minorities, with the overwhelming majority of people being centrals (or, moderates, if we're using lay language). Remember that the terms 'left' or 'right' are entirely subjective, denoting that one is to the left/right of the current established political landscape. 'Left' in the late Soviet Union would've been completely different than 'left' in the United States.
Posted:
Sun Apr 26, 2015 3:28 pmby Nord Amour