Can a Socialist be Social Conservative ?

[Nakena]

Querfront when?

umm, what front??

Edit: Yes. Yes that is good. Looked it up on wikipedia. Good.

I knew you would appriciate it.

[The Inner Solar System]

There are too many definitions of socialism to have a constructive conversation on this. I mean most everyone in this thread is claiming socialism to be something different and excluding all other definitions.

Don`t let words like socialism define your beliefs. It's okay to believe in secure borders and human rights at the same time.

[Bienenhalde]

Not without generally contradicting much of what the left stands for. Social conservatism is, without being too simplistic, rooted in some social hierarchies, usually with God or a King or some kind of boss at the top of that pyramid, whilst socialism and left-wing thought is more closely related to social liberalism in its egalitarian beliefs.

But then again people are contradictory human beings so I suppose it's not impossible.

I suppose you have some valid points. But supporting hierarchy does not necessitate agreement with the laissez-faire and individualist beliefs underlying the modern capitalist system. I prefer a more collectivist economic system that would focus on collaboration rather than competition, and emphasize the common good over individualism.

[Highever]

It's called communitarian there not lot of them in the west but ppl can be socially conservative and socialist

I do care for communities, and I am not influence by the childish and foolish views of Libertarian "Socialist", so I might as well call myself that.

Oh yeah because your views arent childish or foolish I'm any way. You are Nomad, you are perfect.

[Communal concils]

While it's possible, It's not consistent with most leftist theory. If you want a state-controlled economy that is supposedly for the workers while also enforcing your conservatism, then look no further than Stalin or Hitler. National Socialism is essentially "conservative" socialism and Stalin's path was similar.

Libertarian socialists are the best ways to go.

My views don't contradict with most leftist theory. It only contradicts with intersectionality, Liberalism , Social Democracy and all other the types of Libertarian socialism. Also, I find it lazy to see Hitler and Stalin as the same. They treated groups differently, They have completely different Economic systems and one is very egalitarian, while the other likes racial hierarchy.


I use to be a libertarian socialist, but then I realize that the society I would have supported would collapse in 3 years at most, or a day at least.

[Communal concils]

There are too many definitions of socialism to have a constructive conversation on this. I mean most everyone in this thread is claiming socialism to be something different and excluding all other definitions.

Don`t let words like socialism define your beliefs. It's okay to believe in secure borders and human rights at the same time.

Thank you.

[Cekoviu]

You can be a socially conservative socialist, but then you're combining two bad ideas instead of just one.

[Hatterleigh]

Hitler wasn't a socialist or a leftist, and Stalin was just authoritarian, he wasn't especially traditionalist or conservative.

Hitler's policies ended up mirroring Stalin in a lot of ways. It's just he shed the pretense of doing it for the worker and instead did it for the glory of the state and nation.

He really didn't do that. The state was always considered the most important thing in National Socialism, not the worker. Besides, it doesn't have to be that way. The idea behind traditionalist, tribalistic yet socialist ideologies is that the worker is defined by the state and the state is defined by the worker. The state is the ultimate extension of the tribe, the family, and through the state the workers will gain power by uniting under a common identity. The idea is that a culture-less, globalist one world workers order would fail because the cooperative nature of primitive humans was only seen within the tribe, they wouldn't hunt or berrypick to help all humans collectively, they would hunt and berrypick to help their tribe. Of course, this doesn't mean races should be considered better or worse than one another, but rather a revival of the "separate but equal" idea. The problem with separate but equal in the context of the American south was that America was not egalitarian in the first place, equality couldn't happen because it was built on an anti-egalitarian, capitalist market economy.

[The New California Republic]

Has anybody found it weird that people said that you can't be a socialist if you:

4.rejects the ideals of "Free" love or libertine ideals

It is in your specific case, as you have repeatedly said that you want to ban non-reproductive sex.

[Communal concils]

I do care for communities, and I am not influence by the childish and foolish views of Libertarian "Socialist", so I might as well call myself that.

Oh yeah because your views arent childish or foolish I'm any way. You are Nomad, you are perfect.

I don't see myself as childish or Foolish. That is because I don't seek to fetishize societies, I don't seek to recreate them exactly the same way, neither do I think it will work in every society it is practiced in. I also , do not believe in Ideological Perfection. Rather, a pragmatic view is what I support. maybe if the Material conditions of the world were change, then I would change my views too. However, anarchism has never change. anarchist think their system is perfection, anarchist generally think that their society will be practiced exactly the same(with out any deviation from the adherents).

[Communal concils]

You can be a socially conservative socialist, but then you're combining two bad ideas instead of just one.

bad ideals according to you. I generally think things should be more complex.

[Hatterleigh]

Not without generally contradicting much of what the left stands for. Social conservatism is, without being too simplistic, rooted in some social hierarchies, usually with God or a King or some kind of boss at the top of that pyramid, whilst socialism and left-wing thought is more closely related to social liberalism in its egalitarian beliefs.

But then again people are contradictory human beings so I suppose it's not impossible.

I suppose you have some valid points. But supporting hierarchy does not necessitate agreement with the laissez-faire and individualist beliefs underlying the modern capitalist system. I prefer a more collectivist economic system that would focus on collaboration rather than competition, and emphasize the common good over individualism.

Oh, you mean socialism?

[Communal concils]

Has anybody found it weird that people said that you can't be a socialist if you:

4.rejects the ideals of "Free" love or libertine ideals

It is in your specific case, as you have repeatedly said that you want to ban non-reproductive sex.

Okay.

[The New California Republic]

Rather, a pragmatic view is what I support.

Wanting to ban non-reproductive sex is not in any way "pragmatic"; it's about as hardline as you can possibly get.

[Liriena]

Yes, but they shouldn't. Because social conservatism is a pointless political dead weight that thrives on the limitation of critical thinking, free expression and imagination.

[Highever]

You can be a socially conservative socialist, but then you're combining two bad ideas instead of just one.

bad ideals according to you. I generally think things should be more complex.

And just how exactly is supporting basic liberties and rights childish, pray tell? How I exactly are only your ideas in any way complex?

[Cekoviu]

You can be a socially conservative socialist, but then you're combining two bad ideas instead of just one.

bad ideals according to you. I generally think things should be more complex.

No, social conservatism is purely a bad idea, and socialism mostly is. I like shades of gray, but there aren't really to social conservatism.

[Highever]

Rather, a pragmatic view is what I support.

Wanting to ban non-reproductive sex is not in any way "pragmatic"; it's about as hardline as you can possibly get.

Like it really is hard to engage in any sort of serious discussion with that beaten horse-elephant in the room.

[Communal concils]

Rather, a pragmatic view is what I support.

Wanting to ban non-reproductive sex is not in any way "pragmatic"; it's about as hardline as you can possibly get.

My justification is simply that people aren't educated in controlling themselves, or are taught correctly in using their bodies. I don't support it because I can, nor do I support it because "Things are disgusting, but I believe there is a benefit that can be achieve from it.

[Communal concils]

Yes, but they shouldn't. Because social conservatism is a pointless political dead weight that thrives on the limitation of critical thinking, free expression and imagination.

Free expression and Imagination can come in too much forms. Cannibals , rapist and sadist have imagination and Free expression. I'm sure that they shouldn't be allowed to express those behaviors. Remember that all societies have their deviants.

[The New California Republic]

Rather, a pragmatic view is what I support.

Wanting to ban non-reproductive sex is not in any way "pragmatic"; it's about as hardline as you can possibly get.

My justification is simply that people aren't educated in controlling themselves, or are taught correctly in using their bodies.

"Correct" from your point of view that sex is only for reproduction...

So you take back your claim about being "pragmatic" then?

I don't support it because I can, nor do I support it because "Things are disgusting, but I believe there is a benefit that can be achieve from it.

Makes no sense. Rephrase please.

[Sa Annaeia]

I can't stand the views of such idealist, they don't really care for significant demographics. At least the Chinese understand demographics, which is why they valued farmers in a rural nation over workers in a mostly un urbanize nation( during the time of Mao), so I don't see why so many people don't think about realism.

Trying to win over the coal miners and ironworkers with intersectionality and trans stuff isn't going to work lol

You kinda have to. It can't be the main drive when talking to them, I'll gladly concede that, they'll want to know what's in it for them, after all. Talking about how you're gonna benefit everyone BUT them isn't gonna cut it. On the other hand, are you going to start the glorious revolution with just the coal miners while telling everyone else to sod off? A lot of old American unions were weak because they didn't allow black people to join. What do you thing the black folk did when the whites went on strike? There's a reason why the right likes to bang on about immigration and... "welfare queens." It divides us and makes us weak. Socialism is impossible without unity.

I suspect that part of the issue is that these topics are typically approached from a Liberal, ie. individualist perspective. "Racism exists because this guy, right here, is a big, smelly jerkface," as opposed to "Racism exists due to the systemic material conditions of Capitalist society." If cheap immigrant labour lowers your wages, yeah, you're not gonna be too happy about that, but the immigrant just wants a better life. The boss is the one who's antagonistic, he's the one taking the opportunity to damage people's livelihoods, and he's doing it because of how Capitalism unavoidably works.

[Pasong Tirad]

Not without generally contradicting much of what the left stands for. Social conservatism is, without being too simplistic, rooted in some social hierarchies, usually with God or a King or some kind of boss at the top of that pyramid, whilst socialism and left-wing thought is more closely related to social liberalism in its egalitarian beliefs.

But then again people are contradictory human beings so I suppose it's not impossible.

I suppose you have some valid points. But supporting hierarchy does not necessitate agreement with the laissez-faire and individualist beliefs underlying the modern capitalist system. I prefer a more collectivist economic system that would focus on collaboration rather than competition, and emphasize the common good over individualism.

Of course but in this context we're talking about people who subscribe to left-wing ideologies such as socialists. The egalitarian nature of socialism contradicts the hierarchical nature of social conservatism.

[Highever]

Yes, but they shouldn't. Because social conservatism is a pointless political dead weight that thrives on the limitation of critical thinking, free expression and imagination.

Free expression and Imagination can come in too much forms. Cannibals , rapist and sadist have imagination and Free expression. I'm sure that they shouldn't be allowed to express those behaviors. Remember that all societies have their deviants.

Except your society pretty much relegates every single human being as a "deviant" based on simple emotions and "childish things" like happiness and basic human rights.

[The New California Republic]

Yes, but they shouldn't. Because social conservatism is a pointless political dead weight that thrives on the limitation of critical thinking, free expression and imagination.

Free expression and Imagination can come in too much forms. Cannibals , rapist and sadist have imagination and Free expression. I'm sure that they shouldn't be allowed to express those behaviors. Remember that all societies have their deviants.

Cannibals and rapists etc cause a recognisable harm, and is hardly equivalent to consenting adults expressing critical thinking and free expression. Mentioning cannibals and rapists is a really fucking odd attempt to try to discredit free expression and imagination at large, and utterly fails to do so.