NationStates

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.

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.

Prima Scriptura wrote:

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



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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

economics is cringe, and the most common excuse for not conserving anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I detect a little communism


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

This thread gets 4 Tankies/10

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

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.

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.

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.

Hmm, on the OP.

The dutch Christian Union is very conservative, and economically just slightly left of centre(from the dutch perspective)...

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.

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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.