NationStates

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Bear Stearns wrote:Mexico was socialist from the 1930s to the 1970s.

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)

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.

Diopolis wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

The free romanians wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:
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

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.

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.

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."