What is the most radically right-wing system concoctible?

[Cekoviu]

I would consider that to be the least right-wing system, because there's no organization or hierarchy whatsoever - it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

It's literally one of the most reactionary ideologies there is, it's a return to the caveman era as anything technological is seen as "un-natural". Ted Kaczynski literally advocated for the death of leftists, LGBT people, Black people and feminists.

Reactionary != right-wing. It usually is, but they're not the same thing.

[Hatterleigh]

Fair.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

A little Wikipedia magic solved my conundrum.

horseshoe theory? you mean wrong theory? cuz thats what it is bro?

[Hatterleigh]

Anarcho-primitivism, specifically that of the Unabomber.

I would consider that to be the least right-wing system, because there's no organization or hierarchy whatsoever - it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

It's tribalistic. Tribalism is more fundamental than heirarchy in the contest of right-wingism. It's also obviously the most traditional system

[Hatterleigh]

This entire thread is people who are either not right wing at all or barely right wing, and have completely different ideas on what right wing even means, arguing over what is the peak right wingism. It's stupid. I can't even express how much this thread annoys me because pretty much everything is up to semantics

[Cerinda]

It's literally one of the most reactionary ideologies there is, it's a return to the caveman era as anything technological is seen as "un-natural". Ted Kaczynski literally advocated for the death of leftists, LGBT people, Black people and feminists.

Reactionary != right-wing. It usually is, but they're not the same thing.

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

[Ghost Land]

Reactionary != right-wing. It usually is, but they're not the same thing.

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

I have.

It's most of our Democrat politicians.

[United Capitalist Federations]

The "most right-wing" as in economy and state.

The answers that I am searching for should tell me and the other members of this discussion thread about the ways that they could increase inequality, discrimination and hierarchy within their hypothetical system.

Within this thread there won't be any alternative meaning for right-wing, like smaller government or liberty.

This thread will be here to give people ideas on how to make their system more right-wing.

Ultranationalism + completely unrestricted capitalism.

[Cerinda]

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

I have.

It's most of our Democrat politicians.

Democrats are not left-wing, even Bernie Sanders would be considered a centrist. Also what recationary views do the democrats have?

[Cekoviu]

Reactionary != right-wing. It usually is, but they're not the same thing.

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

A lot of tankies fall under that category.

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

I have.

It's most of our Democrat politicians.

Holy shit, how did you manage to be wrong so many times in two sentences?

[Cappuccina]

I would consider that to be the least right-wing system, because there's no organization or hierarchy whatsoever - it's just a chaotic free-for-all.

It's tribalistic. Tribalism is more fundamental than heirarchy in the contest of right-wingism. It's also obviously the most traditional system

I don't see how that's the case. Right-wing philosophy usually leans on religion or some other "meta-narrative" to justify social hierarchy. Anarchism is rather antithetical to that.

[Ghost Land]

Democrats want more civil rights than economic freedom, thus making them the definition of left-wing. The mainstream Democrat social platform involves generous benefits and affirmative action for minorities and those historically placed at a real or imagined disadvantage, with the intent of leveling out the playing field for all groups; and their economic platform involves environmental regulations, taxing the rich, and less freedom for people and companies to do what they want with their money, on the extreme end turning into socialists and communists. This is the definition of equality over liberty or order, in the same way that the mainstream Republican platform emphasises economic freedom over civil rights, desiring order over liberty or equality. You guys are willing to accept that Republicans are right-wing, so why not realise that Democrats tend to lean at least as far left as Republicans do right?

And you can't tell me either side is free of reactionary behaviours and radicals. Every time there's a school shooting, for example, the 450-year-old Democrat politicians in Congress go on huge tirades about how guns need to be banned and all they ever do is harm for about a week or two, then it all goes away like it never even happened. According to this article, Democrats tend to overestimate the differences in positions between themselves and Republicans on key issues such as abortion. In the 90s, the prevailing Democrat attitude toward abortion was that it should be completely unregulated. Now, a majority of even self-identified Democrats support some sort of restrictions on it. This editorial shows Laura Moser, a socially progressive member of the Democrat party running for an office, getting flak from the rest of the party in her area (Texas) for being, well, actually liberal and progressive. This article points to the elections of 1968 and 2000, when more Democrats voted for the more-reactionary Republican candidate than for the liberal progressive. Democrats as a whole are ideologically scattered and unable to see past their recent activities and their own wing of their party, depending on buzzwords and canned talking points to try to convey their idealized version of their party's platform, and I'm not saying the Republicans aren't the same way.

[Cekoviu]

Democrats want more civil rights than economic freedom, thus making them the definition of left-wing.

Not the definition of left-wing.

The mainstream Democrat social platform involves generous benefits and affirmative action for minorities and those historically placed at a real or imagined disadvantage, with the intent of leveling out the playing field for all groups; and their economic platform involves [...] less freedom for people and companies to do what they want with their money,

Not really, either.

on the extreme end turning into socialists and communists.

There are no mainstream Democratic politicians who are socialists or especially communists.

This is the definition of equality over liberty or order, in the same way that the mainstream Republican platform emphasises economic freedom over civil rights, desiring order over liberty or equality.

Equality and liberty go hand in hand. Distinguish between equality and equity, please and thank you.

You guys are willing to accept that Republicans are right-wing, so why not realise that Democrats tend to lean at least as far left as Republicans do right?

Because it's objectively wrong.

And you can't tell me either side is free of reactionary behaviours and radicals. Every time there's a school shooting, for example, the 450-year-old Democrat politicians in Congress

Weird flex, but ok.

go on huge tirades about how guns need to be banned and all they ever do is harm for about a week or two, then it all goes away like it never even happened.

What exactly is this supposed to prove?

According to this article, Democrats tend to overestimate the differences in positions between themselves and Republicans on key issues such as abortion. In the 90s, the prevailing Democrat attitude toward abortion was that it should be completely unregulated. Now, a majority of even self-identified Democrats support some sort of restrictions on it.

Cool. Again, what's this have to do with anything?

This editorial shows Laura Moser, a socially progressive member of the Democrat party running for an office, getting flak from the rest of the party in her area (Texas) for being, well, actually liberal and progressive.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, since you said above that Democrats are very left-wing because they care about civil rights and equality (i.e., progressivism). So which is it?

This article

Wordpress blogs, of course, being well-known bastions of truth and honesty.

points to the elections of 1968 and 2000, when more Democrats voted for the more-reactionary Republican candidate than for the liberal progressive.

>using an election that happened over 50 years ago as an indicator of modern trends

Democrats as a whole are ideologically scattered and unable to see past their recent activities and their own wing of their party, and I'm not saying the Republicans aren't the same way.

So they're ideologically scattered, not uniformly left-wing or reactionary. Glad to see we've cleared this up.

[Ghost Land]

^ Cekoviu: I realise my post was long and meandering, so let me clear a few things up:

• Can you explain to me your definition of "left-wing", if you're going to say mine is incorrect?
• I'm not implying Democrats are scattered across the ideological spectrum and Republicans aren't. There are certainly Democrats who act more like Republicans, and vice versa. Many Republicans, like myself, are pretty close to the centre on the left-right axis and just want the freedom to live our own lives. There are lots of far-right Republicans, and there are lots of far-left Democrats, but there are also members of both parties in the middle, and to say no Democrat has any reactionary positions is false.
• What do you call Bernie Sanders if not a socialist? He even self-identified as such in his 2016 campaign. I also specifically said "on the extreme end", not "all Democrats are Soviet Union circa 1950 commies" (which, for the record, I don't even believe).
• It's also possible for a government to strip people of all distinguishing characteristics, forcing them to be completely equal, and not allow them to have any rights. If everyone has no rights, that is the essence of equality, but the opposite of liberty.

To summarize, the average Democrat does lean solidly to the left, and it would be patently incorrect to claim an absence of reactionary behaviour in either party. The rest of your post is either a straw man or focuses solely on the semantics of my post, and this argument is becoming a threadjack anyway.

[Talatorrum]

Huh?

Smells like homework.

This shouldn't be used as justification but I am neither american or english.bad grammar.

[Senkaku]

i would assume one where everyone is dead

[Cekoviu]

Can you explain to me your definition of "left-wing", if you're going to say mine is incorrect?

Left-wing broadly refers to ideologies leaning notably towards the left side of the economic spectrum. To be properly left-wing, you should at least theoretically acknowledge that the workers owning the means of production is a beneficial idea.

I'm not implying Democrats are scattered across the ideological spectrum and Republicans aren't.

I think you're reading too far into my post. I simply do not care about your view on Republicans with regards to this. The only part that matters to me is your view on Democrats, which, while correct in this instance, contradicts your other stated views.

There are certainly Democrats who act more like Republicans, and vice versa. Many Republicans, like myself, are pretty close to the centre on the left-right axis and just want the freedom to live our own lives.

The Overton window of America's politics is shifted to the right enough that I doubt you would be considered "centrist" under a more average definition.

There are lots of far-right Republicans, and there are lots of far-left Democrats,

Neither of those are true, although the first one at least holds somewhat more weight. They are only far-right and far-left if your perception of politics is so skewed that you consider any ideology vaguely differing from your own to be extremist.

to say no Democrat has any reactionary positions is false.

I don't recall saying that. What I do remember is saying your generalization of

most of our Democrat politicians.

is bullshit.

What do you call Bernie Sanders if not a socialist?

A social democrat. This is politics 101.

He even self-identified as such in his 2016 campaign.

Bernie's an old kook, and his policies do not in any way reflect socialism. While his personal views may well be socialist, that's not what he's advocated in terms of policies.

I also specifically said "on the extreme end", not "all Democrats are Soviet Union circa 1950 commies" (which, for the record, I don't even believe).

That is the extreme end of the left political spectrum, though.

It's also possible for a government to strip people of all distinguishing characteristics, forcing them to be completely equal, and not allow them to have any rights. If everyone has no rights, that is the essence of equality, but the opposite of liberty.

That's theoretically possible, yes. Is it realistic, though?

To summarize, the average Democrat does lean solidly to the left,

Again, nope. Hell, you've contradicted this entire argument with your cherrypicked sources in the last post.

and it would be patently incorrect to claim an absence of reactionary behaviour in either party.

Which I have not done.

The rest of your post is either a straw man

Little tip: straw man is not a phrase that you can use to instantly invalidate any argument against your worldview. It actually has a meaning, funnily enough.

or focuses solely on the semantics of my post,

Semantics are the core of debate. If you can't adequately express your opinions using the semantic framework of language, that's going to get rightly criticized.

and this argument is becoming a threadjack anyway.

I'd argue otherwise, because this is the essence of trying to determine what right-wing means and following that, determining the actual most right-wing ideology.

[Diopolis]

This entire thread is people who are either not right wing at all or barely right wing, and have completely different ideas on what right wing even means, arguing over what is the peak right wingism. It's stupid. I can't even express how much this thread annoys me because pretty much everything is up to semantics

I'm generally agreed to be pretty right wing.
The most right wing system within recent memory is probably Franco's Spain, due to a justification of hierarchy, obsession with culture and order, forcible assimilation into traditional institutions, and tendency to force individuals into collectively determined roles. I personally don't believe that the term "right wing" can be used outside of contexts that are either western or thoroughly westernized, so that would naturally exclude most middle eastern, African, and east asian regimes. If you're comfortable extending the term that far back in time, ancient Sparta might be an example to upstage Franco, but that's debatable because we don't really know that much about Sparta and it's from before the left-right spectrum anyways. Pre-WWI era Austria and Russia could also be strong contenders(although both were rather large and it depended on the era- Metternich era Austria was more right wing than immediately pre-war Russia, for example).

[Bear Stearns]

Reactionary != right-wing. It usually is, but they're not the same thing.

I mean I've never seen a left-wing reactionary.

Leonid Brezhnev

[Nova Cyberia]

A right-wing version of Posadism would be pretty funny.

[Ghost Land]

Quote for posterity:

-snip-

• I never claimed to be a "centrist", which I am decidedly not. I merely claimed that on the one-dimensional left-right axis, I would fall near the centre. This left-right axis, contrary to popular belief, does not represent the entire range of political views; really, there are two axes: civil and economic. They form a diamond-shaped political continuum, with iron-fist communism at the far left, corporate police states at the far right, anarchy at the very top, and statist authoritarianism at the very bottom. Centrists are in the middle of the entire political spectrum. I'm slightly to the right and a good deal up (i.e. libertarian).
• I added the comment on Republicans to show I wasn't hopelessly biased toward or against one side. Both sides have their faults.
• I don't consider any ideology vaguely differing from my own to be extremist, and it's kind of hypocritical to say that if you yourself said that the comment on far-right Republicans "holds somewhat more weight". By definition, if there is a left-right dichotomy, some people have to fall on the far left, and others on the far right; the distribution tends to resemble a bell curve with a slightly wider top. That would be like looking at an IQ distribution chart and saying nobody scores really high or really low.
• As for Sanders, there's a fine line between any two sectors of the political spectrum, especially those as similar-sounding as "social democrat" and "democratic socialist".
• You posited that equality and liberty are closely linked; I brought up a counterexample, and now you're telling me it's invalid? On NationStates alone, look at any nation classified as Psychotic Dictatorship, Corrupt Dictatorship, Authoritarian Democracy, or Tyranny by Majority.
  My very own nation is an example.
• The range of positions found among members of the Democrat party ranges from democratic and iron-fist socialism, to social democracy, to modern liberalism, to centrism. Similarly, the range of positions found among members of the Republican party ranges from national socialism, to modern conservatism, to libertarianism, to centrism. The average of a centrist and an iron fist socialist is decidedly left-wing, just as the average of a centrist and a national socialist is decidedly conservative. Quite a few Democrats are pretty hard-left, though not all are, and to generalise everyone within a party as having the same exact views is fallacious and incorrect.
• Maybe "reactionary" was the wrong word to describe the average Democrat politician; that would be my fault, and "reactive" is the more accurate word. Still, I will not concede that there is no reactionary behaviour found among left-wingers and Democrats, as claiming that is completely false.
  Bear Stearns pointed out Leonid Brezhnev as an example of a left-wing reactionary, and reading up on that guy I agree.
• I am well aware of the definition of "straw man", which is misrepresenting someone's argument by refuting against something he or she did not actually argue, making your argument artificially hard to refute as the other person may actually agree with it. To insist that I'm not aware of this is a personal attack against me.
• Refuting another person's premise or arguments is an effective debate tactic. Trying to make sense of the other person's argument by asking questions is perfectly acceptable, especially when your opponent's language is vague, poorly written, or misrepresents itself. Quibbling over the use of a specific word that does not itself drastically change the meaning of your opponent's point, correcting his or her grammar, or taking every clear metaphor or exaggeration literally would all be examples of what I'm referring to: arguing the tone or semantics of the argument without attacking the spirit of the argument itself, a level 2 argument that is unlikely to be effective.
• With this being said, your entire strategy has been breaking my posts down into fragments, responding to each with a one-liner, and being condescending. I am putting you on ignore.

[Cekoviu]

With this being said, your entire strategy has been breaking my posts down into fragments, responding to each with a one-liner, and being condescending. I am putting you on ignore.

Cool, throwing a fit and ignoring me because you don't want to have your paper-thin posts deconstructed. I'll admit that I put more effort in than was necessary to debunk yet another American horribly misunderstanding politics, but come on.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

I myself might consider a mix between feudalistic monarchism and a heavily racialized social meritocracy.

My nation. A nation ruled by megacorporations and talking heads, which enforces its imperialistic will over foreign nations and over its own citizens. It is a police state, with cameras in the streets and police wielding tanks and toxic gas. There is false democracy, where one can only win through being backed by the above-mentioned megacorporations. Minorities and others are given casual discrimination, and those who resist are put to work as slaves, while those who accept it are used as 'examples of diversity' and as political tools. The average worker is paid only enough to live, and any attempts at improving their working conditions are likened to extermination camps and are told that their working conditions will only be made worse if they do so. The economic world is filled with liars who are funded to support corporate economics as a large con of trillions goes around the world, with entire nations being owned by corporations and bloodshed is normalised on the news as people are made apathetic to politics through entertainment and drugs. Corporations are more powerful than nations and effectively own the world, as large recessions are staged by 'too big to fail' corporations that take billions from public hands as preventable disease and starvation are considered daily facts of life.

The worst thing is that, despite all of this being in public view, a vast majority of people still believe that the system is the best in the world.

Welcome to the modern world, my idealistic child.

So yes, what do you think about my system? I think it might be the most right-wing system ever created. If I can make it more right-wing, all the better.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

A right-wing version of Posadism would be pretty funny.

Nuclear weapons and aliens to begin a neverending genocide of humanity?

I think you've won.

[Risastorstein]

The caste system.

[Donutlia]

When you are born you are given a number.

Everyone with a lower number you must obey the commands of without question or you will face punishment they shall devise, by commanding others to do it to you.

You can command anyone with a higher number than you similarly.

A perfect hierarchical straight line.

EVERY MAN A KING!!!

Reminds me of The Pecking Order.
chicken_hitler.jpg