NATION

PASSWORD

Where is left-wing conservativism?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Technoscience Leftwing
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 159
Founded: Jan 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Technoscience Leftwing » Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:01 pm

The point is that leftism expresses the interests of the oppressed class, while conservatism is an instrument of the ruling class.

Leftism orientates to fight (including by a revolutionary forceful way), for earthly happiness, for a well-fed and cheerful society, where human labor is replaced by automation.

And what qualities does conservatism cultivate? Fertility, humility, hard work, obedience, unpretentiousness. It is very beneficial for the ruling class that the oppressed class has these properties. Humility and hard work facilitate exploitation, unpretentiousness allows the owner to minimize the cost of an employee, fertility and large families allow to devalue the cost of labor and create a "reserve industrial army" of the hungry and unemployed. In a class society, conservatism is an instrument of masters against slaves.

In a classless society (in a primitive community), conservatism exists in the form of a system of taboos and tribal customs in conditions of extreme backwardness of technology and a shortage of resources. Conservatism in primitive tribes promotes survival in difficult conditions, ensures the continuity of survival skills - but it blocks the possibility of non-standard thinking and development. And therefore, primitive tribes (for example, the Bushmen) survive under conservative customs, but do not develop. Science and technology are frozen at a primitive level, which means there is no comfort and no wide opportunities.

Therefore, for a truly happy society, you need development, modernity, thinking outside the box, hedonistic goals. Otherwise, the result will be a reactionary fake of socialism, with technical backwardness and a lot of suffering. Such forgeries ("feudal socialism", "Christian socialism") were criticized by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge... Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat. " In Russia, the CPRF is fond of this, combining conservatism with statism and great-power. It only benefits the ruling elite, including billionaires. Conservatism excludes the revolutionary struggle for earthly happiness, comfort and abundance to ordinary people.
Last edited by Technoscience Leftwing on Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
* TLC Factbook
* Goal: increase comfort, technical capabilities and knowledge for most people.
* Pro: technicalism, social equality, cosmopolitanism, scientific atheism, revolutionism, emancipation.
* Contra: technophobia, reactionary despotism, nationalism, religion, ascetic regulation, traditionalism, patriarchality.
* Real location: Russia. Sorry for mistakes in English. Всем салют!

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1675
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:28 pm

Forsher wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:By that logic, you could also argue that a coherent leftism wouldn't be left-wing, since they're opposing conservatism on these "individual accidents of history."


If leftism was defined as "opposing conservatism" sure. But it's not.

The name was invented by the French Parliament to refer to the less traditionalist perspectives, was it not? If there were a recurring theme, it was of being less traditional than one's more conservative counterparts.

Otherwise, it isn't definable at all.

User avatar
Rifts Earth
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Nov 11, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Rifts Earth » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:31 pm

Prima Scriptura wrote:
Forsher wrote:
That's exactly what a religionist would say :o



Republican in Name Only.


I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality. For it’s the libertarian and individualist culture that the American right wing has embraced is one of the contributing factors of why we don’t have a God fearing populace anymore.

Every time I see you, I see you saying something based.
Christianity has endured through 2,000 years, often in spite of active persecution and civilizational collapse.

Every humanist ideology since the so-called "enlightenment" has collapsed within a century.

Who do you think is going to survive when (not if) the West - and modernity as we know it - suffers systemic collapse? Your tribe? Or mine?

User avatar
Prima Scriptura
Senator
 
Posts: 3738
Founded: Nov 23, 2021
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:33 pm

Rifts Earth wrote:
Prima Scriptura wrote:
I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality. For it’s the libertarian and individualist culture that the American right wing has embraced is one of the contributing factors of why we don’t have a God fearing populace anymore.

Every time I see you, I see you saying something based.


The only thing that cultural conservatives have to give up on is their hatred for weed.
I’m a Protestant Christian and American Patriot. 30 year-old male from MPLS, MN. Volcel with SSA.
Pro: Jesus, The Holy Bible, Constitutional Republic, representative democracy, efficient and comprehensive welfare state, paternalistic conservatism, civic nationalism, cannabis legalization, $15 an hour min.wage, religious liberty, Law & Order, police, death penalty, sensible reform of law enforcement, racial equity, peace through strength, NATO, EU
Anti: Satan, sin, anarchism, paleoconservatism, communism, libertarianism, fascism, ACAB, racism, populism, Trump(ism), Qanon, Putin, Xi, Taliban.
Sola gratia. Sola fide. Soli Deo gloria. Solus Christus
1 Chronicles 16:34
Psalms 147:3
Isaiah 53:5
Luke 9:23
Romans 3:22-24
2 Corinthians 5:17

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20429
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:34 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Forsher wrote:
If leftism was defined as "opposing conservatism" sure. But it's not.

The name was invented by the French Parliament to refer to the less traditionalist perspectives, was it not? If there were a recurring theme, it was of being less traditional than one's more conservative counterparts.

Otherwise, it isn't definable at all.


If we're to define left/right in terms of the original definition by early modern Frenchies, the term is completely meaningless. At least people who insist on defining communism with reference to Marx and Engels are using the same historical epoch that we inhabit.

In practical terms, you are an Anglophone leftist if you believe any two of:

  • the existence of marginalisation and/or oppression is bad
  • the agency of individuals within a society is dictated by larger structural forces
  • the collective must respect the individual, just as the individual must benefit the collective
  • you cannot achieve optimal social outcomes from the aggregation of individuals acting solely wrt their own private costs and benefits
  • the pursuit of economic growth is at odds with environmental sustainability

In practical terms, you are an Anglophone right winger if you believe any two of:

  • the existence of inequality isn't bad in and of itself
  • the profit motive is required to achieve efficient outcomes
  • markets fail to achieve desirable social outcomes because of regulation
  • religion ought to be given a role in society by the state
  • the power to succeed or fail in society is within the power of each individual member of society
  • the interests or rural and urban citizens are not aligned
  • things were better in the past

Conservatism can have a rational theoretical basis... it just doesn't in practice... along the lines of something like "if you believe that the benefit of changing the status quo must be proven, you are a philosophical conservative". By this measure, I suspect most people are conservatives.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20429
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:35 pm

Diopolis wrote:the only actual parts of that chart that traditional religious morality of major christian denominations would maybe take issue with are the ones that are borderline on being social issues to begin with.


Which ones are those specifically? (For convenience, I include the chart again)

Image
Last edited by Forsher on Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Rifts Earth
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 139
Founded: Nov 11, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Rifts Earth » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:45 pm

Prima Scriptura wrote:
Rifts Earth wrote:Every time I see you, I see you saying something based.


The only thing that cultural conservatives have to give up on is their hatred for weed.


Eh, I don't like it whenever someone burns something and inhales the smoke.

That being said, if we replaced tobacco with weed, that would probably be a good idea. Probably. Don't know enough on the health ramifications of cannabis vis a vis tobacco to say for sure.
Christianity has endured through 2,000 years, often in spite of active persecution and civilizational collapse.

Every humanist ideology since the so-called "enlightenment" has collapsed within a century.

Who do you think is going to survive when (not if) the West - and modernity as we know it - suffers systemic collapse? Your tribe? Or mine?

User avatar
Cameroi
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15774
Founded: Dec 24, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Cameroi » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:52 pm

economics is cringe, and the most common excuse for not conserving anything.
truth isn't what i say. isn't what you say. isn't what anybody says. truth is what is there, when no one is saying anything.

"economic freedom" is "the cake"
=^^=
.../\...

User avatar
Prima Scriptura
Senator
 
Posts: 3738
Founded: Nov 23, 2021
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:59 pm

Rifts Earth wrote:
Prima Scriptura wrote:
The only thing that cultural conservatives have to give up on is their hatred for weed.


Eh, I don't like it whenever someone burns something and inhales the smoke.

That being said, if we replaced tobacco with weed, that would probably be a good idea. Probably. Don't know enough on the health ramifications of cannabis vis a vis tobacco to say for sure.


Here ya go.. And here is another

As a person that has level three 3 autism and a condition called neurofibromatosis that causes tumors to grow randomly all over my body, I depend on cannabis for some relief. When cultural conservatives think about cannabis, they automatically think of hippie culture, although there is a lot of conservative Christians that use cannabis but are extremely private about it.
Anything, alcohol, cannabis, television, gaming, gambling can be harmful when it’s done in excess and it consumes a person’s entire life.
Last edited by Prima Scriptura on Sun Dec 26, 2021 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I’m a Protestant Christian and American Patriot. 30 year-old male from MPLS, MN. Volcel with SSA.
Pro: Jesus, The Holy Bible, Constitutional Republic, representative democracy, efficient and comprehensive welfare state, paternalistic conservatism, civic nationalism, cannabis legalization, $15 an hour min.wage, religious liberty, Law & Order, police, death penalty, sensible reform of law enforcement, racial equity, peace through strength, NATO, EU
Anti: Satan, sin, anarchism, paleoconservatism, communism, libertarianism, fascism, ACAB, racism, populism, Trump(ism), Qanon, Putin, Xi, Taliban.
Sola gratia. Sola fide. Soli Deo gloria. Solus Christus
1 Chronicles 16:34
Psalms 147:3
Isaiah 53:5
Luke 9:23
Romans 3:22-24
2 Corinthians 5:17

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1675
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:40 pm

Forsher wrote:If we're to define left/right in terms of the original definition by early modern Frenchies, the term is completely meaningless.

And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.


Forsher wrote:
  • the existence of marginalisation and/or oppression is bad
  • the agency of individuals within a society is dictated by larger structural forces
  • the collective must respect the individual, just as the individual must benefit the collective
  • you cannot achieve optimal social outcomes from the aggregation of individuals acting solely wrt their own private costs and benefits
  • the pursuit of economic growth is at odds with environmental sustainability

Bit of a strawman of everything outside the politically correct echo chamber to act like it rejects all this.

Yes. Oppression is bad. What do we do about it that doesn't create its own problems in the first place?

The agency of individuals is dictated by larger structural forces, but these are also shaped in turn by individuals, in their capacity as voters and in their capacity as customers.

You cannot achieve optimal social outcomes on the free market alone. Not even close. But the question is of where the right balance is. Scandinavia seems to have achieved a healthy balance between capitalism.

Economic growth, depending on how far one takes it, can be at odds with environmental sustainability. But there is room to do more about the environment without outright crashing the economy if we follow in the footsteps of societies that did it right.


Forsher wrote:In practical terms, you are an Anglophone right winger if you believe any two of:

  • the existence of inequality isn't bad in and of itself
  • the profit motive is required to achieve efficient outcomes
  • markets fail to achieve desirable social outcomes because of regulation
  • religion ought to be given a role in society by the state
  • the power to succeed or fail in society is within the power of each individual member of society
  • the interests or rural and urban citizens are not aligned
  • things were better in the past

"Inequality" is inevitable and "equality" is subjective. Who gets to say how many dollars more an oil rig worker earns make up for the risk of getting blown up, if not the individual who picked the job in the first place?

The profit motive's efficacy depends on the market and the circumstances.

I would never blame regulation for everything.

Nor give religion a role by the state.

Power to succeed or fail has an individual role, plus random chance, PLUS the fact that often times success is at the expense of unethical business practices that impede others' success.

Rural and urban are indeed misaligned; especially these days. In theory they can be meshed better, in practice I'm worried separation of the two might be needed to avoid even worse conflict between them.

What was better in the past depends on what aspect of the past you're talking about.

By your logic, I'm a rightwinger AND a leftwinger.

Perhaps we should've stuck to the original definition after all.
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25048
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:13 pm

The free romanians wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
It all depends on what you call "leftist". Quite a few conservative christian parties are for instance "green"; due to believing in the "stewards of earth" concept. Quite a few conservatve christian parties support social security, universal healthcare etc -including actively opposing capitalist insurance based alternatives due to the "gambling" aspect of those.

But giving the means of production to the workers is not a common theme.

Distribuists who quite a lot of christian democrats belong to supoort cooperatives and that might count


Arguably fundamentalist Islam counts as well. Socially conservative, but enforced redestribution of wealth through zakat.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
Prima Scriptura
Senator
 
Posts: 3738
Founded: Nov 23, 2021
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:55 pm

The Alma Mater wrote:
The free romanians wrote:Distribuists who quite a lot of christian democrats belong to supoort cooperatives and that might count


Arguably fundamentalist Islam counts as well. Socially conservative, but enforced redestribution of wealth through zakat.


There could have been a legitimate resurgence of paternalistic conservatism in the United States, but it was exploited by fake populists/elites. Tucker Carlson and Josh Hawley to name a few. Now, it is corrupted and illegitimate.
I’m a Protestant Christian and American Patriot. 30 year-old male from MPLS, MN. Volcel with SSA.
Pro: Jesus, The Holy Bible, Constitutional Republic, representative democracy, efficient and comprehensive welfare state, paternalistic conservatism, civic nationalism, cannabis legalization, $15 an hour min.wage, religious liberty, Law & Order, police, death penalty, sensible reform of law enforcement, racial equity, peace through strength, NATO, EU
Anti: Satan, sin, anarchism, paleoconservatism, communism, libertarianism, fascism, ACAB, racism, populism, Trump(ism), Qanon, Putin, Xi, Taliban.
Sola gratia. Sola fide. Soli Deo gloria. Solus Christus
1 Chronicles 16:34
Psalms 147:3
Isaiah 53:5
Luke 9:23
Romans 3:22-24
2 Corinthians 5:17

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20429
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:12 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Forsher wrote:If we're to define left/right in terms of the original definition by early modern Frenchies, the term is completely meaningless.

And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.


What on earth does this even mean?

Bit of a strawman of everything outside the politically correct echo chamber to act like it rejects all this.


What? The question is whether or not people accept these.

As to the next bit... you weren't invited to give your opinions on them and insofar as your point was to test the system to see if it works, then your additional spiel makes that so much harder to perceive. The way you formatted your post also made it difficult to read.

  • Yes. Oppression is bad. What do we do about it that doesn't create its own problems in the first place? you agree with this
  • The agency of individuals is dictated by larger structural forces, but these are also shaped in turn by individuals, in their capacity as voters and in their capacity as customers. you agree with this
  • no comment
  • You cannot achieve optimal social outcomes on the free market alone. Not even close. But the question is of where the right balance is. Scandinavia seems to have achieved a healthy balance between capitalism. you agree with this
  • Economic growth, depending on how far one takes it, can be at odds with environmental sustainability. But there is room to do more about the environment without outright crashing the economy if we follow in the footsteps of societies that did it right. you disagree with this

That's at least two agreements, you're a leftist.

  • "Inequality" is inevitable and "equality" is subjective. Who gets to say how many dollars more an oil rig worker earns make up for the risk of getting blown up, if not the individual who picked the job in the first place?is/ought problem, cannot make a determination
  • The profit motive's efficacy depends on the market and the circumstances. not enough evidence to make a determination
  • I would never blame regulation for everything.you do not agree
  • Nor give religion a role by the state. you do not agree
  • Power to succeed or fail has an individual role, plus random chance, PLUS the fact that often times success is at the expense of unethical business practices that impede others' success. you do not agree
  • Rural and urban are indeed misaligned; especially these days. In theory they can be meshed better, in practice I'm worried separation of the two might be needed to avoid even worse conflict between them. you agree with this
  • What was better in the past depends on what aspect of the past you're talking about.you do not agree

By your logic, I'm a rightwinger AND a leftwinger.


By my logic, it's quite impossible to tell. Assuming you think efficiency and efficacy are the same thing (they're not) which seems likely it swings on whether or not you actually think inequality is capable of causing problems just by existing.

That being said, I made a mistake. The inequality point should be "inequality is not in itself capable of reducing economic growth". Obviously you couldn't know that.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
Vikanias
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1833
Founded: May 01, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Vikanias » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:20 am

I detect a little communism


In all seriousness, Leftist conservatism is by an extent. Communism.

This thread gets 4 Tankies/10
Praise the lord and pass the ammunition! Can’t afford to be a politician!

HONK HONK

User avatar
The free romanians
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:39 am

Technoscience Leftwing wrote:The point is that leftism expresses the interests of the oppressed class, while conservatism is an instrument of the ruling class.

Leftism orientates to fight (including by a revolutionary forceful way), for earthly happiness, for a well-fed and cheerful society, where human labor is replaced by automation.

And what qualities does conservatism cultivate? Fertility, humility, hard work, obedience, unpretentiousness. It is very beneficial for the ruling class that the oppressed class has these properties. Humility and hard work facilitate exploitation, unpretentiousness allows the owner to minimize the cost of an employee, fertility and large families allow to devalue the cost of labor and create a "reserve industrial army" of the hungry and unemployed. In a class society, conservatism is an instrument of masters against slaves.

In a classless society (in a primitive community), conservatism exists in the form of a system of taboos and tribal customs in conditions of extreme backwardness of technology and a shortage of resources. Conservatism in primitive tribes promotes survival in difficult conditions, ensures the continuity of survival skills - but it blocks the possibility of non-standard thinking and development. And therefore, primitive tribes (for example, the Bushmen) survive under conservative customs, but do not develop. Science and technology are frozen at a primitive level, which means there is no comfort and no wide opportunities.

Therefore, for a truly happy society, you need development, modernity, thinking outside the box, hedonistic goals. Otherwise, the result will be a reactionary fake of socialism, with technical backwardness and a lot of suffering. Such forgeries ("feudal socialism", "Christian socialism") were criticized by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge... Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat. " In Russia, the CPRF is fond of this, combining conservatism with statism and great-power. It only benefits the ruling elite, including billionaires. Conservatism excludes the revolutionary struggle for earthly happiness, comfort and abundance to ordinary people.

I had an earlier post
This is a great example of i don't want it to be

User avatar
Wizlandia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 642
Founded: Nov 18, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Wizlandia » Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:51 am

Forsher wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.


What on earth does this even mean?

Bit of a strawman of everything outside the politically correct echo chamber to act like it rejects all this.


What? The question is whether or not people accept these.

As to the next bit... you weren't invited to give your opinions on them and insofar as your point was to test the system to see if it works, then your additional spiel makes that so much harder to perceive. The way you formatted your post also made it difficult to read.

  • Yes. Oppression is bad. What do we do about it that doesn't create its own problems in the first place? you agree with this
  • The agency of individuals is dictated by larger structural forces, but these are also shaped in turn by individuals, in their capacity as voters and in their capacity as customers. you agree with this
  • no comment
  • You cannot achieve optimal social outcomes on the free market alone. Not even close. But the question is of where the right balance is. Scandinavia seems to have achieved a healthy balance between capitalism. you agree with this
  • Economic growth, depending on how far one takes it, can be at odds with environmental sustainability. But there is room to do more about the environment without outright crashing the economy if we follow in the footsteps of societies that did it right. you disagree with this

That's at least two agreements, you're a leftist.

  • "Inequality" is inevitable and "equality" is subjective. Who gets to say how many dollars more an oil rig worker earns make up for the risk of getting blown up, if not the individual who picked the job in the first place?is/ought problem, cannot make a determination
  • The profit motive's efficacy depends on the market and the circumstances. not enough evidence to make a determination
  • I would never blame regulation for everything.you do not agree
  • Nor give religion a role by the state. you do not agree
  • Power to succeed or fail has an individual role, plus random chance, PLUS the fact that often times success is at the expense of unethical business practices that impede others' success. you do not agree
  • Rural and urban are indeed misaligned; especially these days. In theory they can be meshed better, in practice I'm worried separation of the two might be needed to avoid even worse conflict between them. you agree with this
  • What was better in the past depends on what aspect of the past you're talking about.you do not agree

By your logic, I'm a rightwinger AND a leftwinger.


By my logic, it's quite impossible to tell. Assuming you think efficiency and efficacy are the same thing (they're not) which seems likely it swings on whether or not you actually think inequality is capable of causing problems just by existing.

That being said, I made a mistake. The inequality point should be "inequality is not in itself capable of reducing economic growth". Obviously you couldn't know that.

I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.
光复香港,时代革命。
Constitution of Wizlandia
Wizlandia Political Parties

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25048
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:52 am

Wizlandia wrote:I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.


Or that leftist and rightist are pretty poorly defined terms.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1675
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:38 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
Wizlandia wrote:I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.


Or that leftist and rightist are pretty poorly defined terms.

Ninja'd! This is exactly where I was going with this. Thanks for getting to it before I had to decide how best to word it myself.

As for more specifically the point about equality, I meant that it too was a rather poorly defined concept. As for the profit motive, I don't believe it's anywhere near as beneficial as the (self-identified) "right" makes it out to be, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be as horrible for everything as the (self-identified) "left" makes it out to be. If through the profit motive, publishers decide to cater to the consumer's preference for [insert whichever pop culture is popular this week] over Shakespeare, who is the taxpayer to use the education system to impose Shakespeare on a captive audience? I probably sound libertarian when I say that, let alone conservative, even though I otherwise agree with the (self-identified) "left" more on economics than on social issues.
Last edited by GuessTheAltAccount on Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Tech Modling
 
Posts: 61578
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:15 am

Hmm, on the OP.

The dutch Christian Union is very conservative, and economically just slightly left of centre(from the dutch perspective)...
1. Tech modling. No idea what it means, but it has a fancy colour.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8. Size matters. Bigger is forbidden and won't give the mods pleasure.

User avatar
Forsher
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 20429
Founded: Jan 30, 2012
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Forsher » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:46 am

Wizlandia wrote:I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.


Yes, obviously. I know what their big point is, I just cannot figure out what:

And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.


is specifically meant to mean.

And it's also not possible to determine what they mean wrt the classification with:

"Inequality" is inevitable and "equality" is subjective. Who gets to say how many dollars more an oil rig worker earns make up for the risk of getting blown up, if not the individual who picked the job in the first place?


and

The profit motive's efficacy depends on the market and the circumstances.


In the first case, GTAA is talking about the fact inequality exists but (as phrased) we need a value judgement about it, not a POV on whether or not inequality is inevitable (or, re: here, how easy it is to define). In the second case, GTAA has replaced efficiency with efficacy but I need to know their view of efficiency, not efficacy.
That it Could be What it Is, Is What it Is

Stop making shit up, though. Links, or it's a God-damn lie and you know it.

The normie life is heteronormie

We won't know until 2053 when it'll be really obvious what he should've done. [...] We have no option but to guess.

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 25048
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:59 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
Or that leftist and rightist are pretty poorly defined terms.

Ninja'd! This is exactly where I was going with this. Thanks for getting to it before I had to decide how best to word it myself.


Sorry :P

If we have to paint it with a very broad brush, one can argue that "the right" is "individualistic" while "the left" is "social".
So the left will aim for policies that benefit a group/as many as possible - while the right will aim for policies that benefit themselves as much as possible.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
The free romanians
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:03 am

The Alma Mater wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Ninja'd! This is exactly where I was going with this. Thanks for getting to it before I had to decide how best to word it myself.


Sorry :P

If we have to paint it with a very broad brush, one can argue that "the right" is "individualistic" while "the left" is "social".
So the left will aim for policies that benefit a group/as many as possible - while the right will aim for policies that benefit themselves as much as possible.

How is the right individualistic
Cobservatism is all about the community
At least in europe

User avatar
Arvenia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12613
Founded: Aug 21, 2014
Father Knows Best State

Postby Arvenia » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:24 am

Remember that some left-wing parties in Eastern Europe and other countries are socially conservative (such as the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the Socialist People's Party of Montenegro, the Workers' Party of Montonegro, the Samajwadi Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova).
Pro: Political Pluralism, Centrism, Liberalism, Liberal Democracy, Social Democracy, Sweden, USA, UN, ROC, Japan, South Korea, Monarchism, Republicanism, Sci-Fi, Animal Rights, Gender Equality, Mecha, Autism, Environmentalism, Secularism, Religion and LGBT Rights
Anti: Racism, Sexism, Nazism, Fascism, EU, Socialism, Adolf Hitler, Neo-Nazism, KKK, Joseph Stalin, PRC, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Communism, Ultraconservatism, Ultranationalism, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Transphobia, WBC, Satanism, Mormonism, Anarchy, ISIS, al-Qaeda, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, 969 Movement, Political Correctness, Anti-Autistic Sentiment, Far-Right, Far-Left, Cultural Relativism, Anti-Vaxxers, Scalpers and COVID-19

User avatar
The free romanians
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 436
Founded: Oct 15, 2021
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:27 am

Arvenia wrote:Remember that some left-wing parties in Eastern Europe and other countries are socially conservative (such as the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the Socialist People's Party of Montenegro, the Workers' Party of Montonegro, the Samajwadi Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova).

They aren't that
They are just populist so people vote for them

User avatar
Lady Victory
Minister
 
Posts: 2444
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Lady Victory » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:27 am

Technoscience Leftwing wrote:The point is that leftism expresses the interests of the oppressed class, while conservatism is an instrument of the ruling class.

Leftism orientates to fight (including by a revolutionary forceful way), for earthly happiness, for a well-fed and cheerful society, where human labor is replaced by automation.

And what qualities does conservatism cultivate? Fertility, humility, hard work, obedience, unpretentiousness. It is very beneficial for the ruling class that the oppressed class has these properties. Humility and hard work facilitate exploitation, unpretentiousness allows the owner to minimize the cost of an employee, fertility and large families allow to devalue the cost of labor and create a "reserve industrial army" of the hungry and unemployed. In a class society, conservatism is an instrument of masters against slaves.

In a classless society (in a primitive community), conservatism exists in the form of a system of taboos and tribal customs in conditions of extreme backwardness of technology and a shortage of resources. Conservatism in primitive tribes promotes survival in difficult conditions, ensures the continuity of survival skills - but it blocks the possibility of non-standard thinking and development. And therefore, primitive tribes (for example, the Bushmen) survive under conservative customs, but do not develop. Science and technology are frozen at a primitive level, which means there is no comfort and no wide opportunities.

Therefore, for a truly happy society, you need development, modernity, thinking outside the box, hedonistic goals. Otherwise, the result will be a reactionary fake of socialism, with technical backwardness and a lot of suffering. Such forgeries ("feudal socialism", "Christian socialism") were criticized by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge... Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat. " In Russia, the CPRF is fond of this, combining conservatism with statism and great-power. It only benefits the ruling elite, including billionaires. Conservatism excludes the revolutionary struggle for earthly happiness, comfort and abundance to ordinary people.


Holy fuck this is cringe lmfao.
☆ American Left-wing Nationalist and Christian ☆
"My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right."
"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
"Fascism is not to be debated, it is to be destroyed!"


She/Her - Call me Jenny or LV

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cannot think of a name, CRYPTHIC, Greater Miami Shores 3, Khurkhogur, Necroghastia, Shrillland, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads