Right Wing Discussion Thread XIII: Do the Right thing

[Fahran]

There is no way to do it. Read Political Parties by Robert Michels.

I've been quite intrigued by the Southern Planters, the Gilded Age of Industry, and the conservative intellectual circles of early and mid nineteenth century of late, though, of course, they do not provide what I would consider a wholly functional model and some of their ideas strike me as a bit too liberal for my liking. European conservatism has its draw as well.

[Canadensia]

Right libertarianism is nice in theory but I don't think it'll work all that well irl.

I have a batch of datasheets and revisionism proving that notion wrong ;')

I mean, the 1920's in the US (the excesses of which contributed directly to the disastrous 1930's) were a thing, just sayin'.

It's this era of time, particularly exemplified by the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, that's probably the closest thing a country has ever come to embracing Right-wing libertarianism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is no way to do it. Read Political Parties by Robert Michels.

Well I maintain that democracy that allows anyone to vote and anyone to run is the most meritocratic system we've come up with.
When you fuck up the a democratic nation you get voted out, when you fuck up in an authoritarian nation either the dissenters are murdered, or it leads to a bloody civil war/revolution.
I prefer our peaceful way of change.

It doesn't matter because political parties have a monopoly on political power, and, as a result, any change you get is just a cycle between them rather than any real change.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Well I maintain that democracy that allows anyone to vote and anyone to run is the most meritocratic system we've come up with.
When you fuck up the a democratic nation you get voted out, when you fuck up in an authoritarian nation either the dissenters are murdered, or it leads to a bloody civil war/revolution.
I prefer our peaceful way of change.

It doesn't matter because political parties have a monopoly on political power, and, as a result, any change you get is just a cycle between them rather than any real change.

This is why you only have one party!

[Great Minarchistan]

I have a batch of datasheets and revisionism proving that notion wrong ;')

I mean, the 1920's in the US (the excesses of which contributed directly to the disastrous 1930's) were a thing, just sayin'.

It's this era of time, particularly exemplified by the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, that's probably the closest thing a country has ever come to embracing Right-wing libertarianism.

I mean, if you ignore the scars left by the Wilson administration and the blatant bubble that was being developed via a collusion between the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England that ended up resulting in the 1929 crash and subsequent depression, sure. Tho on a presidential basis I don't have much dirt to call on Silent Cal.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There is no way to do it. Read Political Parties by Robert Michels.

I've been quite intrigued by the Southern Planters, the Gilded Age of Industry, and the conservative intellectual circles of early and mid nineteenth century of late, though, of course, they do not provide what I would consider a wholly functional model and some of their ideas strike me as a bit too liberal for my liking. European conservatism has its draw as well.

Honestly, I've become too cynical about politics to think that conservatism is a viable movement anymore, or even that politics as an idea is viable anymore.

[Genivaria]

Well I maintain that democracy that allows anyone to vote and anyone to run is the most meritocratic system we've come up with.
When you fuck up the a democratic nation you get voted out, when you fuck up in an authoritarian nation either the dissenters are murdered, or it leads to a bloody civil war/revolution.
I prefer our peaceful way of change.

It doesn't matter because political parties have a monopoly on political power, and, as a result, any change you get is just a cycle between them rather than any real change.

Sure but the party's power waxes and wanes and allows other parties gain power.
Of course some democracies are more accessible than others like a 2 party state has a way of keeping 3rd parties out while multi-party states make it easier for independent parties to grow or form coalitions.
Compared to this slow but careful method how are the flaws in an authoritarian administration addressed without the dissenters resorting to violence and civil war?

[Canadensia]

I mean, the 1920's in the US (the excesses of which contributed directly to the disastrous 1930's) were a thing, just sayin'.

It's this era of time, particularly exemplified by the presidency of Calvin Coolidge, that's probably the closest thing a country has ever come to embracing Right-wing libertarianism.

I mean, if you ignore the scars left by the Wilson administration and the blatant bubble that was being developed via a collusion between the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England that ended up resulting in the 1929 crash and subsequent depression, sure.

Wilson was out of office in '21. Black Tuesday happened in '29.

There was plenty of time to fix any damage he might have caused. Problematically, the attitude of the 20's was overwhelmingly laissez-faire, and so nothing was done.

Tho on a presidential basis I don't have much dirt to call on Silent Cal.

That's precisely because he did nothing.

He is consistently ranked in the middle of American presidents in terms of quality exactly because his presidency wasn't very eventful. He simply maintained the status quo, that was all. Which frankly, is rather problematic when a nation's economy is driven by excess, with little regard for stability or control.

[Genivaria]

I should point out that even a totalitarian government like Imperial Japan attempted to do away with political infighting and failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_ ... ssociation

The Imperial Rule Assistance Association....was Japan's wartime organization created by Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe on October 12, 1940, to promote the goals of his Shintaisei ("New Order") movement. It evolved into a "statist" ruling political party which aimed at removing the sectionalism in the politics and economics in the Empire of Japan to create a totalitarian one-party state, in order to maximize efficiency of Japan's total war effort in China.[1] When the organization was launched officially, Konoe was hailed as a "political savior" of a nation in chaos; however, internal divisions soon appeared.

However, from the start, there was no consensus in a common cause, as the leadership council represented all ends of the political spectrum, and in the end, the party was organized along geographic lines, following the existing political sub-divisions.

[Canadensia]

Well I maintain that democracy that allows anyone to vote and anyone to run is the most meritocratic system we've come up with.
When you fuck up the a democratic nation you get voted out, when you fuck up in an authoritarian nation either the dissenters are murdered, or it leads to a bloody civil war/revolution.
I prefer our peaceful way of change.

It doesn't matter because political parties have a monopoly on political power, and, as a result, any change you get is just a cycle between them rather than any real change.

To be honest, more than anything, that's an argument for doing what George Washington pleaded for and abolishing political parties. Let every candidate run as an independent.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't matter because political parties have a monopoly on political power, and, as a result, any change you get is just a cycle between them rather than any real change.

Sure but the party's power waxes and wanes and allows other parties gain power.
Of course some democracies are more accessible than others like a 2 party state has a way of keeping 3rd parties out while multi-party states make it easier for independent parties to grow or form coalitions.
Compared to this slow but careful method how are the flaws in an authoritarian administration addressed without the dissenters resorting to violence and civil war?

I think the mistake you're making here is that you assume that because the system is stable now, it will always be stable. European-style multiparty democracy has been the primary form of governance in the world for going on about 30 years now.

[Genivaria]

Sure but the party's power waxes and wanes and allows other parties gain power.
Of course some democracies are more accessible than others like a 2 party state has a way of keeping 3rd parties out while multi-party states make it easier for independent parties to grow or form coalitions.
Compared to this slow but careful method how are the flaws in an authoritarian administration addressed without the dissenters resorting to violence and civil war?

I think the mistake you're making here is that you assume that because the system is stable now, it will always be stable. European-style multiparty democracy has been the primary form of governance in the world for going on about 30 years now.

Yeah I'd argue because people just got tired of war and civil unrest caused by the rise of political extremist groups on both ends.
It's not a perfect system but it's doing well enough that people are violently rising against it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think the mistake you're making here is that you assume that because the system is stable now, it will always be stable. European-style multiparty democracy has been the primary form of governance in the world for going on about 30 years now.

Yeah I'd argue because people just got tired of war and civil unrest caused by the rise of political extremist groups on both ends.
It's not a perfect system but it's doing well enough that people are violently rising against it.

Again, just because people haven't violently risen up against it yet doesn't mean they never will.

[Genivaria]

Yeah I'd argue because people just got tired of war and civil unrest caused by the rise of political extremist groups on both ends.
It's not a perfect system but it's doing well enough that people are violently rising against it.

Again, just because people haven't violently risen up against it yet doesn't mean they never will.

And I'm not saying they won't, but what I am saying is that our current system seems to address people's concerns more effectively than previous ideologies who's main method was "Open Fire".

[Oil exporting People]

Aye, Parkus has been trying to get me to switch to the Monarchist or Nationalist threads for awhile.

A monarchist thread in which I have never posted is clearly not worth its salt, and nationalism is for liberals and post-liberal revolutionaries.

Joseph de Maistre

[Dumb Ideologies]

I don't know that I would call myself right-wing but I've always had a fascination with a society that promotes the common good over individual wants.
The difference I think is that I always have the question "how do we actually choose our leaders without devolving into nepotism and corruption?"
Such was the case in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

There is no way to do it. Read Political Parties by Robert Michels.

Good rec.

Democracy is, fundamentally, a sham. With party discipline, the need for "organisation" and funding to win elections etc. oligarchy is inbuilt as with any system. Attempts to play nice while fundamentally challenging the order will fail, propagandized away by the existing elites, or soon be reversed. It's a stuck system, reflecting and being supported by particular social interests. Democracy is desirable only insofar as it provides a thin obscuring curtain that allows us to feel as though we are free. Leaders with limited powers can do less damage but can also do less good and can do nothing about an order that allows the few to get plump on the work of the many. Authoritarian forms succumb eventually to the same pressures as well, and great authoritarian leaders tend to be followed inevitably by madmen, decay and downfall. If you believe in something you must press ahead for the overthrow of the existing order, but whatever comes next will one day become a corrupt morass that will fall also, and any attempt to abolish hierarchy will only succeed temporarily at best because people with certain kinds of personalities always gain followings and translate social power into political.

[Great Minarchistan]

Wilson was out of office in '21. Black Tuesday happened in '29.

"The scars of the Wilson administration"
p.s.: wilson was probably the worst potus, at least buchanan took the job on the verge of collapse and a disaster was due to happen anytime

There was plenty of time to fix any damage he might have caused. Problematically, the attitude of the 20's was overwhelmingly laissez-faire, and so nothing was done.

"Laissez-faire"
t. speculative bubble arising from distortive monetary policy promoted by the Federal Reserve
Even Bernanke said that the Fed shitted up the economy.

That's precisely because he did nothing.

Now that's a GOOD president!

He is consistently ranked in the middle of American presidents in terms of quality exactly because his presidency wasn't very eventful. He simply maintained the status quo, that was all. Which frankly, is rather problematic when a nation's economy is driven by excess, with little regard for stability or control.

The president cannot manipulate monetary affairs, that's decided by the board of members of the Fed.

[Genivaria]

There is no way to do it. Read Political Parties by Robert Michels.

Good rec.

Democracy is, fundamentally, a sham. With party discipline, the need for "organisation" and funding to win elections etc. oligarchy is inbuilt as with any system. Attempts to play nice while fundamentally challenging the order will fail, propagandized away by the existing elites, or soon be reversed. It's a stuck system, reflecting and being supported by particular social interests. Democracy is desirable only insofar as it provides a thin obscuring curtain that allows us to feel as though we are free. Leaders with limited powers can do less damage but can also do less good and can do nothing about an order that allows the few to get plump on the work of the many. Authoritarian forms succumb eventually to the same pressures as well, and great authoritarian leaders tend to be followed inevitably by madmen, decay and downfall. If you believe in something you must press ahead for the overthrow of the existing order, but whatever comes next will one day become a corrupt morass that will fall also, and any attempt to abolish hierarchy will only succeed temporarily at best because people with certain kinds of personalities always gain followings and translate social power into political.

Authoritarian regimes certainly can be based on idealistic ideals and created by genuinely well-meaning and intelligent people, but just like in a Monarchy what happens when those people die?
How does an autocrat ensure that the next generation upholds those same ideals?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Good rec.

Democracy is, fundamentally, a sham. With party discipline, the need for "organisation" and funding to win elections etc. oligarchy is inbuilt as with any system. Attempts to play nice while fundamentally challenging the order will fail, propagandized away by the existing elites, or soon be reversed. It's a stuck system, reflecting and being supported by particular social interests. Democracy is desirable only insofar as it provides a thin obscuring curtain that allows us to feel as though we are free. Leaders with limited powers can do less damage but can also do less good and can do nothing about an order that allows the few to get plump on the work of the many. Authoritarian forms succumb eventually to the same pressures as well, and great authoritarian leaders tend to be followed inevitably by madmen, decay and downfall. If you believe in something you must press ahead for the overthrow of the existing order, but whatever comes next will one day become a corrupt morass that will fall also, and any attempt to abolish hierarchy will only succeed temporarily at best because people with certain kinds of personalities always gain followings and translate social power into political.

Authoritarian regimes certainly can be based on idealistic ideals and created by genuinely well-meaning and intelligent people, but just like in a Monarchy what happens when those people die?
How does an autocrat ensure that the next generation upholds those same ideals?

One of the most important jobs of such leaders is succession management. But sudden early death or a charming psychopath fooling their way to the top is an ever present and unavoidable risk. Hollowed-out elite-captured democracies are liable to the same corruption and collapse, mind, as soon as enough people see behind the curtain and reject the fake democratic process that holds the interests of the masses off of the agenda moving towards sorting their disputes out on the streets through violence and mobbery.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Good rec.

Democracy is, fundamentally, a sham. With party discipline, the need for "organisation" and funding to win elections etc. oligarchy is inbuilt as with any system. Attempts to play nice while fundamentally challenging the order will fail, propagandized away by the existing elites, or soon be reversed. It's a stuck system, reflecting and being supported by particular social interests. Democracy is desirable only insofar as it provides a thin obscuring curtain that allows us to feel as though we are free. Leaders with limited powers can do less damage but can also do less good and can do nothing about an order that allows the few to get plump on the work of the many. Authoritarian forms succumb eventually to the same pressures as well, and great authoritarian leaders tend to be followed inevitably by madmen, decay and downfall. If you believe in something you must press ahead for the overthrow of the existing order, but whatever comes next will one day become a corrupt morass that will fall also, and any attempt to abolish hierarchy will only succeed temporarily at best because people with certain kinds of personalities always gain followings and translate social power into political.

Authoritarian regimes certainly can be based on idealistic ideals and created by genuinely well-meaning and intelligent people, but just like in a Monarchy what happens when those people die?
How does an autocrat ensure that the next generation upholds those same ideals?

This is Michel's contention, that all regimes are doomed to regress into bureaucratic oligarchy.

[Bienenhalde]

MacArthur was not so bad, but it would have been better if it were the British that had occupied post-war Japan. Then they would have probably retained the House of Peers and put fewer restrictions on the power of the emperor.

I wouldn't be so sure. I could see the British proving more vindictive than the Americans did if they had been the ones who had occupied Japan after the Second World War (which was never a realistic possibility, of course).

I am not saying they would have been less vindictive per se, but they would not have the same ideological hostility as Americans towards the institutions of the monarchy and the aristocracy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But honestly metapolitics and stuff like that is useless. What we should focus on is local reorganization of society, bringing back institutions like monogamy, multi-generational families, and agrarian idylls to ensure that everyone is happy, and let good-governance come later.

[Bienenhalde]

I mean, this is the thread that discussed the esoteric aspects of traps, so it's kind of par for the course.

I spoke out against that.

Kawaii traps are closer to God than the blood of warriors. :^)

[United Muscovite Nations]

I spoke out against that.

Kawaii traps are closer to God than the blood of warriors. :^)

STOP

[Washington Resistance Army]

Tbqh we should all embrace agrarianism and endeavor to own some land out in the country. It's about a million times better than living in the city.