Page 12 of 15

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:02 pm
by Krasny-Volny
Diarcesia wrote:
Krasny-Volny wrote:
To the extant that you’re claiming millions of self-identifying American leftists are actually closet conservatives.

Going by this dictionary assumption...

Diarcesia wrote:By definition, conservatism is the ideology of keeping the status quo.


...American leftists who seek changes in the US's policy are not conservatives.


I wasn’t aware that the majority of self-identifying leftists in the US don’t want any change to the status quo.

In fact, all of them I’ve met certainly do.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:03 pm
by Diarcesia
Krasny-Volny wrote:
Diarcesia wrote:Going by this dictionary assumption...



...American leftists who seek changes in the US's policy are not conservatives.


I wasn’t aware that the majority of self-identifying leftists in the US don’t want any change to the status quo.

In fact, all of them I’ve met certainly do.

What do you think of Bear Stearns's statement?

Bear Stearns wrote:
Diarcesia wrote:By definition, conservatism is the ideology of keeping the status quo. In this regard, if a left-wing government's policies is geared towards maintaining existing policies, it becomes conservative. An example would be the Soviets crushing counterrevolutionary activity.


American leftists also shill for the status quo because they think anything that's anti-establishment is fascist.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:03 pm
by Dreria
Crylante wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:
The failures of Latin America have little to do with their economic systems. Argentina has proven it can be a dump whether it be capitalist or socialist, and Mexico has shown that it equally sucks under neoliberalism and socialism.

Neither of these countries has, to my knowledge, been socialist.

I suppose you could call the current Mexican president a socialist with a stretch and I'll admit I don't know much about the intricacies of his administration but I believe he's actually quite popular?

I believe both countries are quite a bit more developed than Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador? I think you'd make your point better if you compared the shittiness of the Sandinista govt in Nicaragua to the govts of those three countries.

look at who had electricity in Nicaragua in 2006 vs today.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:06 pm
by Krasny-Volny
Diarcesia wrote:
Krasny-Volny wrote:
I wasn’t aware that the majority of self-identifying leftists in the US don’t want any change to the status quo.

In fact, all of them I’ve met certainly do.

What do you think of Bear Stearns's statement?

Bear Stearns wrote:
American leftists also shill for the status quo because they think anything that's anti-establishment is fascist.


I skipped over it because it puzzles me. That’s not been my experience at all.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 4:07 pm
by Bear Stearns
Crylante wrote:
Bear Stearns wrote:
The failures of Latin America have little to do with their economic systems. Argentina has proven it can be a dump whether it be capitalist or socialist, and Mexico has shown that it equally sucks under neoliberalism and socialism.

Neither of these countries has, to my knowledge, been socialist.

I suppose you could call the current Mexican president a socialist with a stretch and I'll admit I don't know much about the intricacies of his administration but I believe he's actually quite popular?

I believe both countries are quite a bit more developed than Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador? I think you'd make your point better if you compared the shittiness of the Sandinista govt in Nicaragua to the govts of those three countries.


Mexico was socialist from the 1930s to the 1970s. Argentina has had a number of socialist governments in the 20th century and some neoliberal ones. The current Mexican president is not a socialist, but he is based.

Nicaragua under socialism was barely improved from the banana republic it previously was. The only LatAm nation that has had Euro-North American stability and prosperity has been Uruguay and it is not a coincidence as to why.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:58 pm
by Danternoust
Bear Stearns wrote:Mexico was socialist from the 1930s to the 1970s.

Why until the 1970s? Were they outdone by Venezuela and are no longer socialist? And yet still Americans come south to Mexico to buy gas and pharmaceuticals.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 12:28 am
by The free romanians
Idk how conservatisn is the status que
Conservatives want to preserve tradtition(if your not american)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:08 pm
by Diopolis
Forsher wrote:
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

NIMBY, driving attitudes, the immigration attitudes, business is pro-citizen, possibly some stuff about personal grooming. I'm here assuming that 2.5 kids isn't a specific number but instead refers to above replacement fertility here- having half a child would be opposed by most religious denominations and stopping at a specific number would be opposed by the Catholic church and possibly LDS/Orthodox, although their views on fertility are more complicated.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:09 pm
by Diopolis
Bear Stearns wrote:
Crylante wrote:Neither of these countries has, to my knowledge, been socialist.

I suppose you could call the current Mexican president a socialist with a stretch and I'll admit I don't know much about the intricacies of his administration but I believe he's actually quite popular?

I believe both countries are quite a bit more developed than Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador? I think you'd make your point better if you compared the shittiness of the Sandinista govt in Nicaragua to the govts of those three countries.


Mexico was socialist from the 1930s to the 1970s. Argentina has had a number of socialist governments in the 20th century and some neoliberal ones. The current Mexican president is not a socialist, but he is based.

Nicaragua under socialism was barely improved from the banana republic it previously was. The only LatAm nation that has had Euro-North American stability and prosperity has been Uruguay and it is not a coincidence as to why.

Isn't Chile very prosperous and safe?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:25 pm
by Jinggangshan
Stalin did nothing wrong.

Now that I have your attention: there actually could a point be made to conserve the classic values of leftism. All too often the *yerch* liberals simply ignore the past and go prance away in their happy little rainbow-coloured utopia - ignoring all evidence that it won't come about without us learning from the great leftist thinkers from the past. The moment I dare defend anything written by Lenin or Mao Zedong or even just advise a moderate stance towards China - usually things start exploding. On and on people go about the western press' stance on Xinjiang and its lies about what propably is the best hope for socialism in our lifetimes. Maos essay on Contradiction and his speech against liberalism should be mandatory reading just as much as "What is to be done".

Yes, sexual liberation is fine, equality too...,so, can we get back to the damn class struggle now? The class-divide is more acute than ever, and I bet there's a lot of them making a killing selling you those rainbow-stickers and even arms manufacturers that sell tanks to saudi-arabia have a diversity division. We have the same battlefields before us as our ancestors did: workers education, the ever-widening rich-poor-divide, politics of so-called democracies being a matter of lobbyism and corruption. But that some media-clown forgot the gender-asterisks on twitter or whatever is more important to some of the people that call themselves progressive left.

Oh, and Stalin did quite a few things wrong. 8)

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 7:34 pm
by Forsher
Diopolis wrote:
Forsher wrote:
Which ones are those specifically? (For convenience, I include the chart again)

Image

NIMBY, driving attitudes, the immigration attitudes, business is pro-citizen, possibly some stuff about personal grooming. I'm here assuming that 2.5 kids isn't a specific number but instead refers to above replacement fertility here- having half a child would be opposed by most religious denominations and stopping at a specific number would be opposed by the Catholic church and possibly LDS/Orthodox, although their views on fertility are more complicated.


NIMBYism is a form of social control no different to banning same-sex couples from adopting, except in the sense the victim/target class is everyone (rather than just same-sex couples).

So are the views on driving.

They're not active social issues... NIMBYism is increasingly becoming that way and there are people who claim there's a war on cars... but they are social issues.

The mentalities section is not meant to describe social issues to begin with being that they're mentalities. The sport section, on second glance, consists entirely of mentalities, too.

2.5 kids is the idea that you have 3 kids or 2 kids, not more than 3 and definitely not less than 2.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 8:03 pm
by Diopolis
Forsher wrote:
Diopolis wrote:NIMBY, driving attitudes, the immigration attitudes, business is pro-citizen, possibly some stuff about personal grooming. I'm here assuming that 2.5 kids isn't a specific number but instead refers to above replacement fertility here- having half a child would be opposed by most religious denominations and stopping at a specific number would be opposed by the Catholic church and possibly LDS/Orthodox, although their views on fertility are more complicated.


NIMBYism is a form of social control no different to banning same-sex couples from adopting, except in the sense the victim/target class is everyone (rather than just same-sex couples).

So are the views on driving.

They're not active social issues... NIMBYism is increasingly becoming that way and there are people who claim there's a war on cars... but they are social issues.

I mean, NIMBYism has a lot to do with property values and car culture has a lot to do with making the environment in which you can maintain very high property values. In any case neither of those issues really split evenly on culture war lines that we're so familiar with- a lot of the NIMBY HOA types vote democrat and there's plenty of right wing YIMBYism(like Texas's lax permitting process for new residential construction- I'll grant that the motivations are very different from Ca YIMBY movements, but the right wing proponents are very happy to claim credit for the beneficial effects that motivate Ca progressive types).
The mentalities section is not meant to describe social issues to begin with being that they're mentalities. The sport section, on second glance, consists entirely of mentalities, too.

That's partly true, but "do businesses have a social responsibility that takes precedence over delivering a profit" and "who can participate in women's sports" are live social issues right now, so you can understand why I'd interpret them that way.
2.5 kids is the idea that you have 3 kids or 2 kids, not more than 3 and definitely not less than 2.

This would tend to conflict with almost every major Christian denomination- the general attitude is that we should go out of our way not to discourage large families at the very least except in very progressive Christianity. Most conservative denominations encourage large, and sometimes very large, families even if they don't outright mandate them. There is, in classical Christian morality, strong opposition to the idea of purposefully limiting family sizes without a strong reason and an undercurrent of such remains even in moral theology that has found a way to reconcile the use of birth control with Christian tradition.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 30, 2021 9:01 pm
by Krasny-Volny
Jinggangshan wrote:Stalin did nothing wrong.

Now that I have your attention: there actually could a point be made to conserve the classic values of leftism. All too often the *yerch* liberals simply ignore the past and go prance away in their happy little rainbow-coloured utopia - ignoring all evidence that it won't come about without us learning from the great leftist thinkers from the past. The moment I dare defend anything written by Lenin or Mao Zedong or even just advise a moderate stance towards China - usually things start exploding. On and on people go about the western press' stance on Xinjiang and its lies about what propably is the best hope for socialism in our lifetimes. Maos essay on Contradiction and his speech against liberalism should be mandatory reading just as much as "What is to be done".

Yes, sexual liberation is fine, equality too...,so, can we get back to the damn class struggle now? The class-divide is more acute than ever, and I bet there's a lot of them making a killing selling you those rainbow-stickers and even arms manufacturers that sell tanks to saudi-arabia have a diversity division. We have the same battlefields before us as our ancestors did: workers education, the ever-widening rich-poor-divide, politics of so-called democracies being a matter of lobbyism and corruption. But that some media-clown forgot the gender-asterisks on twitter or whatever is more important to some of the people that call themselves progressive left.

Oh, and Stalin did quite a few things wrong. 8)


You’re far too old-fashioned for today’s progressive left in the West. You remember it’s about economic class struggle rather than changing social customs.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:30 am
by SD_Film Artists
Necroghastia wrote:
The Jamesian Republic wrote:
Yes. I think it’s possible to be culturally conservative with leftist economics.

The guiding principles of leftist economics - which essentially boil down to treating the worker as a human being worthy of dignity and respect rather than a resource to be exploited - is directly contrary to social conservatism.


Yet many communist countries (present and in the last 50 years) were socially conservative. Of course there's the 'but it's not real communism' claim but as ever, we have to judge leftism based on its real-world examples rather than a marxist dream or small, short-lived things like the Paris Commune.

The gay rights movement (Harvey Milk era) was in America, which even under the Democrats is extremely right-wing econoically.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 10:18 am
by Kubra
Jinggangshan wrote:Stalin did nothing wrong.

Now that I have your attention: there actually could a point be made to conserve the classic values of leftism. All too often the *yerch* liberals simply ignore the past and go prance away in their happy little rainbow-coloured utopia - ignoring all evidence that it won't come about without us learning from the great leftist thinkers from the past. The moment I dare defend anything written by Lenin or Mao Zedong or even just advise a moderate stance towards China - usually things start exploding. On and on people go about the western press' stance on Xinjiang and its lies about what propably is the best hope for socialism in our lifetimes. Maos essay on Contradiction and his speech against liberalism should be mandatory reading just as much as "What is to be done".

Yes, sexual liberation is fine, equality too...,so, can we get back to the damn class struggle now? The class-divide is more acute than ever, and I bet there's a lot of them making a killing selling you those rainbow-stickers and even arms manufacturers that sell tanks to saudi-arabia have a diversity division. We have the same battlefields before us as our ancestors did: workers education, the ever-widening rich-poor-divide, politics of so-called democracies being a matter of lobbyism and corruption. But that some media-clown forgot the gender-asterisks on twitter or whatever is more important to some of the people that call themselves progressive left.

Oh, and Stalin did quite a few things wrong. 8)
consider reading Marx, instead

How is this a question?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 10:23 am
by The free romanians
Yes
Yes it can
It 100% can

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 12:49 pm
by Necroghastia
Krasny-Volny wrote:
Jinggangshan wrote:Stalin did nothing wrong.

Now that I have your attention: there actually could a point be made to conserve the classic values of leftism. All too often the *yerch* liberals simply ignore the past and go prance away in their happy little rainbow-coloured utopia - ignoring all evidence that it won't come about without us learning from the great leftist thinkers from the past. The moment I dare defend anything written by Lenin or Mao Zedong or even just advise a moderate stance towards China - usually things start exploding. On and on people go about the western press' stance on Xinjiang and its lies about what propably is the best hope for socialism in our lifetimes. Maos essay on Contradiction and his speech against liberalism should be mandatory reading just as much as "What is to be done".

Yes, sexual liberation is fine, equality too...,so, can we get back to the damn class struggle now? The class-divide is more acute than ever, and I bet there's a lot of them making a killing selling you those rainbow-stickers and even arms manufacturers that sell tanks to saudi-arabia have a diversity division. We have the same battlefields before us as our ancestors did: workers education, the ever-widening rich-poor-divide, politics of so-called democracies being a matter of lobbyism and corruption. But that some media-clown forgot the gender-asterisks on twitter or whatever is more important to some of the people that call themselves progressive left.

Oh, and Stalin did quite a few things wrong. 8)


You’re far too old-fashioned for today’s progressive left in the West. You remember it’s about economic class struggle rather than changing social customs.

What is economic class struggle if not a form of changing social custom?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:05 pm
by The free romanians
Necroghastia wrote:
Krasny-Volny wrote:
You’re far too old-fashioned for today’s progressive left in the West. You remember it’s about economic class struggle rather than changing social customs.

What is economic class struggle if not a form of changing social custom?

Yes
But in this case they are disconected
Also im left-er on the economics and i don't want to destory society and build a new one

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:48 pm
by Narland
Resilient Acceleration wrote:
Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either.
Where are they?



Short answer: Dedicated Marxism is designed to destroy social conservatism (the fabric of a society that gives it a semblance cohesion) in order to bring about the revolution so that the "new man" may rise from the ashes of its (society's) destruction. To compromise with this in any way (as Trotsky did) to Lenin was Fascism. The example was set, and anything that deviates from the Dialectic that is the current Orthodoxy (to divide and conquer) is Fascism. The German National Socialists? Fascists. The Italian Corporatist Socialists? Fascists. The Bathists? Fascists, etc.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 2:56 pm
by Nationalist Northumbria
Narland wrote:
Resilient Acceleration wrote:
Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either.
Where are they?



Short answer: Dedicated Marxism is designed to destroy social conservatism (the fabric of a society that gives it a semblance cohesion) in order to bring about the revolution so that the "new man" may rise from the ashes of its (society's) destruction. To compromise with this in any way (as Trotsky did) to Lenin was Fascism. The example was set, and anything that deviates from the Dialectic that is the current Orthodoxy (to divide and conquer) is Fascism. The German National Socialists? Fascists. The Italian Corporatist Socialists? Fascists. The Bathists? Fascists, etc.

So what you're saying is that the USSR under Stalin wasn't real communism?

PostPosted: Fri Dec 31, 2021 9:47 pm
by The Reformed American Republic
The free romanians wrote:
The Alma Mater wrote:
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

In America, conservatism is alongside neoliberalism as they both can be summed up as "fuck you, got mine."

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 3:44 am
by Salvatiotan
Ideologies don’t actually work as shown on the political compass, you don’t choose just one side. Many people have good conservative values while also working towards progress, it’s very normal and it doesn’t have to be religious. The way ideologies are perceived nowadays by the youth is stupid, ideologies are an extremely complex way of thought, as complex as the human brain itself, and a small chart with four/five boxes isn’t even close to giving it the credit it deserves.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 12:26 pm
by Duvniask
Narland wrote:
Resilient Acceleration wrote:
Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either.
Where are they?



Short answer: Dedicated Marxism is designed to destroy social conservatism (the fabric of a society that gives it a semblance cohesion) in order to bring about the revolution so that the "new man" may rise from the ashes of its (society's) destruction. To compromise with this in any way (as Trotsky did) to Lenin was Fascism. The example was set, and anything that deviates from the Dialectic that is the current Orthodoxy (to divide and conquer) is Fascism. The German National Socialists? Fascists. The Italian Corporatist Socialists? Fascists. The Bathists? Fascists, etc.

^When you use a spinning wheel to decide what words you're gonna put in your post.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:13 am
by The Alma Mater
Narland wrote:
Resilient Acceleration wrote:
Christian Socialism, Islamic Socialism, or just "economically communist, socially conservative". Where are they? If I have to make a prediction in, say, early 1800s, I'd predict that some form of Christian Socialism (not that socialism was well discussed yet at that era) would be the main revolutionary ideology of the future.

Consider the vast majority of "oppressed lower-class people", whether the peasants of Tsarist Russia, slave labor in Brazil's sugar plantations, or even blue collar workers in today's developing countries. Almost universally they have two things in common:

1. They live under the control of an exploitative ruling elite. (It's important to note that the left vs right economic dicothomy is mainly a privilege of developed countries; most other countries follow the political ideology of "corruptly steal as much as possible using all possible means of power").
2. They are immensely religious.

You can kinda see why an ideology that combines the two might be incredibly popular, at least in theory. Sure, workers seizing the means of production sounds nice. But what if Jesus also supports the idea of overthrowing the bourgeois class? Christianity can be easily reinterpreted into supporting socialism, whether the decentralized anarchist version or the Soviet bureaucratic version. Indeed the Puritan cultists who first came to America practiced many tenets of the former. Other religions, given enough reinterpretation efforts, are also similar. And unlike the atheist commies who just die if they get shot during the revolution, you have God to pray into during hardships and if you are killed, you actually go to heaven. One would imagine revolutionary populist churches, demagogues, and imams appearing, declaring the capitalist elite to be the greedy enemy of the Lord that must be vanquished, trying to overthrow older religious establishments or institutions in favor of newer, more red interpretation.

Suffice to say that such ideology will, as is the case with all revolution, turn into its most extreme version before it either reforms or degenerates. This means that one would expect the emergence of terrorist or revolutionary groups that is the combination of Wahabbi-level religious fundamentalism of "throw the gays off the roof" with Maoist-level communist zealousy. Certainly, the moderates will be far more popular - imagine a populist Trump-AOC incarnate that simultaneously promises universal free healthcare and a ban on abortion. Instead, we rarely see either.
Where are they?


Short answer: Dedicated Marxism is designed to destroy social conservatism (the fabric of a society that gives it a semblance cohesion) in order to bring about the revolution so that the "new man" may rise from the ashes of its (society's) destruction. To compromise with this in any way (as Trotsky did) to Lenin was Fascism. The example was set, and anything that deviates from the Dialectic that is the current Orthodoxy (to divide and conquer) is Fascism. The German National Socialists? Fascists. The Italian Corporatist Socialists? Fascists. The Bathists? Fascists, etc.

This is a nation simulation forum. People tend to actually know what words like "fascism", "communism" etc. mean.

However, to humor you: why was Soviet controlled east-Berlin vastly more conservative than capitalist controlled west-Berlin before the wall fell ?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 6:18 am
by The free romanians
The Reformed American Republic wrote:
The free romanians wrote:How is the right individualistic
Cobservatism is all about the community
At least in europe

In America, conservatism is alongside neoliberalism as they both can be summed up as "fuck you, got mine."
yes
In america its more like we will do things that are anti communist even if contradits conservatism