Right Wing Discussion Thread VII: As Easy As Reich Two Three

[The Serbian Empire]

Ahhhh, That explains your degeneracy.

Now, that's a little rich. It's hardly fair to call someone else a degenerate when you spend your spare time making Polandballs of yourself.

I'm looking for Perkele Perkelenen and he resembles a Finnish flag.

[Mattopilos]

Uh. What do you consider center right? because they're pretty strongly center left, at least.

Capitalism.

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum. The level of authoritarianism changes, but not the love of free markets. I would argue capitalism cannot survive without a state, however.

[Luminesa]

How about this? Let's have five people who all saw a crime scene and are being brought-in for questioning. You, Felrik, UMN, Italios, and Jochi. The crime scene was in the French Quarter. Two people got into a fight that turned into a riot. You were at Antoine's eating, Felrik was texting on his phone from the Flea Market nearby, UMN was looking through St. Louis (no Orthodox churches in the Quarter, UMN, sorry), and Italios and Jochi were at Hard Rock Cafe. All of you saw the incident from different locations. All of you have different viewpoints on the story. You and UMN happen to know some of the rioters. Are you going to all tell the exact same story about what happened? Probably not. Does that mean that what none of you saw was real? No. What you all saw was one event, two of you are likely to have some sort of bias about the people involved, and all of you are going to tell slightly different stories about how it started or what you saw.

There's a trope for that.
And it will take interviews and cameras and neutral observers to sort it all out.

There is indeed a trope for that, and I had it in mind when I wrote this. ^^

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Capitalism.

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum. The level of authoritarianism changes, but not the love of free markets. I would argue capitalism cannot survive without a state, however.

It needs one, and will make one where none exists.

There's a trope for that.
And it will take interviews and cameras and neutral observers to sort it all out.

There is indeed a trope for that, and I had it in mind when I wrote this. ^^

Looks like I'm not the only one who's hopelessly stuck on TV Tropesand nsg!

[Italios]

Show of hands, folks:

If there are two dozen people in a room with you, and the only people who see the massive swarm of slugs coming out of the door are you and the two guys you pay to back you up, do you consider the idea that what you're seeing might not be real? That it's more likely you're wrong than a disparite group of outsiders are all wrong for no reason?

When you have five other groups of conflicting and sometimes intersecting opinions and none of them see what you do, should you consider the idea that what you're seeing is a hallucination? A delusion?

FFS it's like Tumblrinas convinced that the world is out to get them. The only difference is one forms a voting bloc and the other doesn't.

How about this? Let's have five people who all saw a crime scene and are being brought-in for questioning. You, Felrik, UMN, Italios, and Jochi. The crime scene was in the French Quarter. Two people got into a fight that turned into a riot. You were at Antoine's eating, Felrik was texting on his phone from the Flea Market nearby, UMN was looking through St. Louis (no Orthodox churches in the Quarter, UMN, sorry), and Italios and Jochi were at Hard Rock Cafe. All of you saw the incident from different locations. All of you have different viewpoints on the story. You and UMN happen to know some of the rioters. Are you going to all tell the exact same story about what happened? Probably not. Does that mean that what none of you saw was real? No. What you all saw was one event, two of you are likely to have some sort of bias about the people involved, and all of you are going to tell slightly different stories about how it started or what you saw.

That's actually a very accurate way of describing things. In terms of having different political opinions, one would be influenced by preexisting attitudes for the sake of consistency (in parallel with the present location the witnesses were in) and as a result, convincing them of adjusting their view might mess up that consistency of what they already believe.

[Luminesa]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum. The level of authoritarianism changes, but not the love of free markets. I would argue capitalism cannot survive without a state, however.

It needs one, and will make one where none exists.

There is indeed a trope for that, and I had it in mind when I wrote this. ^^

Looks like I'm not the only one who's hopelessly stuck on TV Tropesand nsg!

Woo! *High-fives.*

[Victoria and Vacuna]

It needs one, and will make one where none exists.

Looks like I'm not the only one who's hopelessly stuck on TV Tropesand nsg!

Woo! *High-fives.*

*returns high-five*

[Mattopilos]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum. The level of authoritarianism changes, but not the love of free markets. I would argue capitalism cannot survive without a state, however.

It needs one, and will make one where none exists.

There is indeed a trope for that, and I had it in mind when I wrote this. ^^

Looks like I'm not the only one who's hopelessly stuck on TV Tropesand nsg!

Yeah, which is why AnCap is seen with disbelief among anarchists - private industry itself would become its own vertical governmental system.

TV Tropes is life! :^D

[New confederate ramenia]

Capitalism.

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum.

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum.

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Monopoly on violence-type, personally.

[Grand Britannia]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum.

>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism

We're reaching meme levels that should not be possible

[Mattopilos]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum.

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Mutualism is left-market anarchism. Get it right.

And I worded it badly - I meant 'free-market systems are on the right'. Mutualism is hardly a 'free-market system' - it is an artificial market system (don't ask what that means I haven't read the theory).
I mean 'state' as in "noticeably vertical hierarchical system". So kinda all of those meanings.

[The Serbian Empire]

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Mutualism is left-market anarchism. Get it right.

And I worded it badly - I meant 'free-market systems are on the right'. Mutualism is hardly a 'free-market system' - it is an artificial market system (don't ask what that means I haven't read the theory).
I mean 'state' as in "noticeably vertical hierarchical system". So kinda all of those meanings.

Indeed, thus I fit in with the an-caps and the anarcho-communists when it comes to keeping the government small and non-intrusive, but the disagreements come with what economic patterns to carry out.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism

We're reaching meme levels that should not be possible

Nazism for the Africans! Nazis for the Europeans! Nazis for the Americans! Everyone gets to act like an indignant, paranoid asshole who's out to genocide someone and give their money to the general public.

[Italios]

>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism

We're reaching meme levels that should not be possible

That was a lot of buzzwords for one sentence.

[New confederate ramenia]

Why does everyone hate mutualism so much?

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Monopoly on violence-type.

Alright, it probably does tbh.

[Mattopilos]

Mutualism is left-market anarchism. Get it right.

And I worded it badly - I meant 'free-market systems are on the right'. Mutualism is hardly a 'free-market system' - it is an artificial market system (don't ask what that means I haven't read the theory).
I mean 'state' as in "noticeably vertical hierarchical system". So kinda all of those meanings.

Indeed, thus I fit in with the an-caps and the anarcho-communists when it comes to keeping the government small and non-intrusive, but the disagreements come with what economic patterns to carry out.

Pretty much. That is where all anarchists agree, but resource management and the presence of a market and the type of market is what divides the ideologies.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Why does everyone hate mutualism so much?

Monopoly on violence-type.

Alright, it probably does tbh.

Never heard of mutualism.
Okay, I looked at the Wikipedia summary and I still don't understand it really. I don't hate it.
After all, in ancapistan, one corporation suing another would probably be unable to make the other pay up if they didn't sign up to the same court. Or they might try, and fail spectacularly, I dunno.

[New confederate ramenia]

We're reaching meme levels that should not be possible

Nazism for the Africans! Nazis for the Europeans! Nazis for the Americans! Everyone gets to act like an indignant, paranoid asshole who's out to genocide someone and give their money to the general public.

>neo-Pharanism is Nazi
Nazism is modernist as fuck though, while Neo-Pharaonism wants a return to the ideals of pre-Islamic, even to an extent pre-Hellenic Egypt.

[New confederate ramenia]

Why does everyone hate mutualism so much?

Alright, it probably does tbh.

Never heard of mutualism.
Okay, I looked at the Wikipedia summary and I still don't understand it really.

It's the oldest type of anarchism, and a meme on instagram.

[Conscentia]

Capitalism is pretty much the whole right of the spectrum.

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Mattopilos said "pretty much" which implies that some is not - this would cover feudalism, which only a very small and unusual minority advocate a return to. Distributism and "right-wing socialism" both retain the capitalist mode of production - what they reject is liberal capitalism. "Hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism" seems like something you just made up. Mutualism is left-wing. Primitivists tend to be left-wing, and any hypothetical right-wing primitivist would be part of an even smaller and more unusual minority than those who advocate the resurrection of feudalism and would similarly be part of the minority implicitly acknowledged by "pretty much".

[Mattopilos]

Why does everyone hate mutualism so much?

Alright, it probably does tbh.

Never heard of mutualism.
Okay, I looked at the Wikipedia summary and I still don't understand it really.

It is quite a complicated thing to get your head around. But as I said above, it is essentially a left-wing anarchic market system.

[United Marxist Nations]

>what is feudalism
>what is distributism
>what is mutualism (free market, but not capitalism)
>what is right wing socialism
>what is hyper-reactionary neo-Pharaonic afrocentrism
>what is primitivism

Also, with the whole "capitalism needs a state" which definition of state are you using? State as hierarchies, state as way for ruling class to maintain control, state as monopoly on violence?

Mutualism is left-market anarchism. Get it right.

And I worded it badly - I meant 'free-market systems are on the right'. Mutualism is hardly a 'free-market system' - it is an artificial market system (don't ask what that means I haven't read the theory).
I mean 'state' as in "noticeably vertical hierarchical system". So kinda all of those meanings.

Do me, I want central planning in major sectors of the economy (agriculture, heavy industry, housing), but want community-based distribution of goods.

I want this under either a Constitutional Monarchy or Republic, which has the Church as an advisory body that can veto legislation.

[Victoria and Vacuna]

Nazism for the Africans! Nazis for the Europeans! Nazis for the Americans! Everyone gets to act like an indignant, paranoid asshole who's out to genocide someone and give their money to the general public.

>neo-Pharanism is Nazi
Nazism is modernist as fuck though, while Neo-Pharaonism wants a return to the ideals of pre-Islamic, even to an extent pre-Hellenic Egypt.

Oh.
That's weird to me, but okay...

Never heard of mutualism.
Okay, I looked at the Wikipedia summary and I still don't understand it really.

It is quite a complicated thing to get your head around. But as I said above, it is essentially a left-wing anarchic market system.

Ah. That would be interesting to try out in an experiment.

[Conscentia]

Why does everyone hate mutualism so much?

Alright, it probably does tbh.

Never heard of mutualism.
Okay, I looked at the Wikipedia summary and I still don't understand it really. I don't hate it.
After all, in ancapistan, one corporation suing another would probably be unable to make the other pay up if they didn't sign up to the same court. Or they might try, and fail spectacularly, I dunno.

You can ask about mutualism on the Left-Wing Discussion Thread, if you'd like.