LWDT IX: Discussing the Left From All Engels

[Kowani]

Three of those are just as right-wing as classical liberalism but higher in authoritarianism, and two of those are explicitly more left-wing than classical liberalism.

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.

Not really, no.

Which prominent politician in the US, Canada, or the UK isn't a liberal to some degree?

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

[Galloism]

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.


Which prominent politician in the US, Canada, or the UK isn't a liberal to some degree?

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

Anarcho-capitalists inconsolable.

[Fahran]

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

The tendency has been to describe the right-side of the assembly as the party of order (hierarchy, social order, wisdom of prevailing conventions) and the left-side of the assembly as the party of motion (liberty, reform, reason/ideology). Liberalism, even at present and despite its defining role on quite a few hierarchies, is constantly shuffling social orders and conventions. That's the creative destruction libertarian economists adore so much. I'd say the evangelicals in the GOP are a good deal more right-wing than the libertarians by almost anyone's assessment for that reason.

Why socialists believe they can YEET libertarians/liberals who helped draw that distinction back across the divide still astounds me.

[Cisairse]

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

Anarcho-capitalists inconsolable.

Capitalism is a hierarchy

[Cambrian Albany]

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.


Which prominent politician in the US, Canada, or the UK isn't a liberal to some degree?

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

This. The right, myself included of course fundamentally believe in some kind of hierarchy and accept inequality as an unavoidable manifestation of nature both in the world around to govern the circumstances in which we exist and in ourselves -humans are of course biologically unequal to each other, however uncomfortable a notion that seems.

[Kowani]

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

Anarcho-capitalists inconsolable.

They support a hierarchy as well, just with CEO’s on the top.

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

The tendency has been to describe the right-side of the assembly as the party of order (hierarchy, social order, wisdom of prevailing conventions) and the left-side of the assembly as the party of motion (liberty, reform, reason/ideology). Liberalism, even at present and despite its defining role on quite a few hierarchies, is constantly shuffling social orders and conventions. That's the creative destruction libertarian economists adore so much. I'd say the evangelicals in the GOP are a good deal more right-wing than the libertarians by almost anyone's assessment for that reason.

Not necessarily. You’re conflating right wing and conservatism (mostly because in the west, these two things tend to be very heavily linked.) Right wing thought tends to also continuously shuffle social orders, if only to institute the desired one.

[Diahon]

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

This. The right, myself included of course fundamentally believe in some kind of hierarchy and accept inequality as an unavoidable manifestation of nature both in the world around to govern the circumstances in which we exist and in ourselves -humans are of course biologically unequal to each other, however uncomfortable a notion that seems.

what nonsense, as usual
and coming from a christian, too
but then again, the pious have always wanted the jackboot as long as they can wear that shit

[Kowani]

Being right-wing has nothing to do with support of traditions and institutions, it has to do with support of hierarchy.

The tendency has been to describe the right-side of the assembly as the party of order (hierarchy, social order, wisdom of prevailing conventions) and the left-side of the assembly as the party of motion (liberty, reform, reason/ideology). Liberalism, even at present and despite its defining role on quite a few hierarchies, is constantly shuffling social orders and conventions. That's the creative destruction libertarian economists adore so much. I'd say the evangelicals in the GOP are a good deal more right-wing than the libertarians by almost anyone's assessment for that reason.

Why socialists believe they can YEET libertarians/liberals who helped draw that distinction back across the divide still astounds me.

Libertarians are very firmly right wing. I would say that for the most part, liberals are right wing as well, though not nearly to the same degree.

[Cambrian Albany]

This. The right, myself included of course fundamentally believe in some kind of hierarchy and accept inequality as an unavoidable manifestation of nature both in the world around to govern the circumstances in which we exist and in ourselves -humans are of course biologically unequal to each other, however uncomfortable a notion that seems.

what nonsense, as usual
and coming from a christian, too
but then again, the pious have always wanted the jackboot as long as they can wear that shit

We're still equal before God. But that's not to say some people are just more attractive than others, more intelligent, more dextrous.. we all have our gifts but we are better than others in certain areas and sometimes in ways which will lead your fellow humans to make a split second judgement about you. For example some people may be more inclined to be more attentive to a pretty girl and some such. Inequality is perpetuated by nature. Some parts of the world are more fertile, or more susceptible to natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis.

[Diahon]

what nonsense, as usual
and coming from a christian, too
but then again, the pious have always wanted the jackboot as long as they can wear that shit

We're still equal before God. But that's not to say some people are just more attractive than others, more intelligent, more dextrous.. we all have our gifts but we are better than others in certain areas and sometimes in ways which will lead your fellow humans to make a split second judgement about you. For example some people may be more inclined to be more attentive to a pretty girl and some such. Inequality is perpetuated by nature. Some parts of the world are more fertile, or more susceptible to natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis.

ok, so i'm going to stop you right fucking there
for difference does not equal inequality
furthermore, to say that your god or any other looks at us equally while blathering that humanity must insist on different standards that must disadvantage some of its own is fucking rich

[Fahran]

Not necessarily. You’re conflating right wing and conservatism (mostly because in the west, these two things tend to be very heavily linked.) Right wing thought tends to also continuously shuffle social orders, if only to institute the desired one.

Acting like the party of motion doesn't really make one too similar to the party of order. In general, I view movements that emerge from the aristocratic and clerical tendencies of society as right-wing. The picture is a bit muddled because the elites produced by the tumults of the liberal revolutions now occupy the seats of power. Everyone important is a liberal to some degree. At the same time, the distinction between globalism and nationalism/socialism/Islamism has highlighted that it's not as simple as the interest of elites representing the right-wing position. Liberalism if embraced in the Middle East without control would probably destroy the existing hierarchies in the same way as it began to erode them in Russia, Germany, and the UK.

Also, you take my meme-ing too seriously. I ultimately think the distinction between right and left is far less informative than actual descriptions of the ideas that are inherent to a particular position.

[Northern Davincia]

We're still equal before God. But that's not to say some people are just more attractive than others, more intelligent, more dextrous.. we all have our gifts but we are better than others in certain areas and sometimes in ways which will lead your fellow humans to make a split second judgement about you. For example some people may be more inclined to be more attentive to a pretty girl and some such. Inequality is perpetuated by nature. Some parts of the world are more fertile, or more susceptible to natural disasters such as earthquakes or tsunamis.

ok, so i'm going to stop you right fucking there
for difference does not equal inequality
furthermore, to say that your god or any other looks at us equally while blathering that humanity must insist on different standards that must disadvantage some of its own is fucking rich

This is why the concept of the Great Chain of Being exists, because egalitarianism and hierarchy are incompatible.

[Diahon]

ok, so i'm going to stop you right fucking there
for difference does not equal inequality
furthermore, to say that your god or any other looks at us equally while blathering that humanity must insist on different standards that must disadvantage some of its own is fucking rich

This is why the concept of the Great Chain of Being exists, because egalitarianism and hierarchy are incompatible.

specialization is a thing

[United Muscovite Nations]

ok, so i'm going to stop you right fucking there
for difference does not equal inequality
furthermore, to say that your god or any other looks at us equally while blathering that humanity must insist on different standards that must disadvantage some of its own is fucking rich

This is why the concept of the Great Chain of Being exists, because egalitarianism and hierarchy are incompatible.

>the Great Chain of Being
Are you seriously just picking stupid historical ideas to believe in to own the libs or do you genuinely believe in history's dumbest ideas? I mean I love neoplatonism, but the great chain of being is a completely arbitrary ranking system.

[Fahran]

This is why the concept of the Great Chain of Being exists, because egalitarianism and hierarchy are incompatible.

The Great Chain of Being is problematic for a number of reasons, mainly because evolution and speciation don't really work in a strictly hierarchical way.

[Kowani]

Not necessarily. You’re conflating right wing and conservatism (mostly because in the west, these two things tend to be very heavily linked.) Right wing thought tends to also continuously shuffle social orders, if only to institute the desired one.

Acting like the party of motion doesn't really make one too similar to the party of order.

I am saying that the idea that right-wing= order, and left wing=motion as fundamentally flawed, and frankly, quite wrong.

In general, I view movements that emerge from the aristocratic and clerical tendencies of society as right-wing. The picture is a bit muddled because the elites produced by the tumults of the liberal revolutions now occupy the seats of power. Everyone important is a liberal to some degree. At the same time, the distinction between globalism and nationalism/socialism/Islamism has highlighted that it's not as simple as the interest of elites representing the right-wing position. Liberalism if embraced in the Middle East without control would probably destroy the existing hierarchies in the same way as it began to erode them in Russia, Germany, and the UK.

I would argue that it does not matter what part of society a view originated from that designates it as right wing, but rather, what matters is the view of society they deem ideal. I would furthermore argue that the elites in power now are not those who were put in it by the liberal revolutions in the vast majority cases, but rather, the elites who managed to subvert or insert themselves into the post revolutionary world at the top. Liberalism does not erode hierarchy to replace it with equality, and that is why it is fundamentally right wing.

[Aureumterra]

Three of those are just as right-wing as classical liberalism but higher in authoritarianism, and two of those are explicitly more left-wing than classical liberalism.

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.

I don’t like calling fascist far-right because by definition, the most far right someone would be is a monarchist. Fascists are hard to place

[Cisairse]

rightism is just as illogical as leftism. society itself is a contradiction. thats the point.

[Fahran]

I don’t like calling fascist far-right because by definition, the most far right someone would be is a monarchist. Fascists are hard to place

I'd call them center-left to revolutionary far-right, depending on the particular brand. Evola is not the same as Gentile or Sorel after all.

[Cisairse]

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.

I don’t like calling fascist far-right because by definition, the most far right someone would be is a monarchist. Fascists are hard to place

Fascism is auth right-of-center mostly. But it does vary by brand.

[Nakena]

That's not how that works. People who oppose the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be right-wing. People who support the radical restructuring of society and the abolition of traditions and institutions tend to be left-wing. I might be willing to agree that Fascists are somewhat left-wing on those grounds. Muh revolutionary right.

I don’t like calling fascist far-right because by definition, the most far right someone would be is a monarchist. Fascists are hard to place

I wouldn too much overthinking the "left-right" dichtonomy theory.

[Northern Davincia]

This is why the concept of the Great Chain of Being exists, because egalitarianism and hierarchy are incompatible.

>the Great Chain of Being
Are you seriously just picking stupid historical ideas to believe in to own the libs or do you genuinely believe in history's dumbest ideas? I mean I love neoplatonism, but the great chain of being is a completely arbitrary ranking system.

I don't believe in it but I do like the gist of it. When people speak of equality, I must wonder what everyone is equal in besides rights.

[Cisairse]

>the Great Chain of Being
Are you seriously just picking stupid historical ideas to believe in to own the libs or do you genuinely believe in history's dumbest ideas? I mean I love neoplatonism, but the great chain of being is a completely arbitrary ranking system.

I don't believe in it but I do like the gist of it. When people speak of equality, I must wonder what everyone is equal in besides rights.

Quality of life is a big one.

[Fahran]

I would argue that it does not matter what part of society a view originated from that designates it as right wing, but rather, what matters is the view of society they deem ideal. I would furthermore argue that the elites in power now are not those who were put in it by the liberal revolutions in the vast majority cases, but rather, the elites who managed to subvert or insert themselves into the post revolutionary world at the top. Liberalism does not erode hierarchy to replace it with equality, and that is why it is fundamentally right wing.

My personal belief is that the destruction of all hierarchy is a pipe-dream that cannot come to fruition and that we should, in reality, discuss the rigidity of and mutability of hierarchies in discussing such matters. Nobody would allege, for instance, that liberalism didn't increase access to economic and political power for the bourgeoisies. Marx conceded as much. The question is instead where precisely we should draw the distinction between right-wing and left-wing. Can an ideology only be left-wing if it abolishes all hierarchy? Then we must exclude those forms of politics that do not dismantle hierarchies in the church, in the work place, and in politics - and suppose only that anarchists are left-wing.

[Northern Davincia]

I don't believe in it but I do like the gist of it. When people speak of equality, I must wonder what everyone is equal in besides rights.

Quality of life is a big one.

I imagine you perceive quality of life to be a right, which doesn't answer much, as all men are equal in their rights. Men are scarcely equal in strength or wit.