NationStates

After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

TRUE!!!!!

Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

Israel isn't left wing, Israel is far right.

Draconisisia wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

Israel isn't left wing, Israel is far right.

Weren't some israeli leaders labour zionists?

The free romanians wrote:

Draconisisia wrote:
Israel isn't left wing, Israel is far right.

Weren't some israeli leaders labour zionists?

Yes, many Zionists used to be socialists. However, the current government is far right.

Draconisisia wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

Israel isn't left wing, Israel is far right.

Kibbutz.

Like i said in another post and i will bold it here
its not that left wing conservatism doesn't exist because it does but that some don't want to acknowledge that it does

Draconisisia wrote:

Resilient Acceleration wrote:After a period of letting this discussion run its course without my involvement due to sheer laziness and a new related NS project, I have returned with an answer and that answer is Israel.

Israel isn't left wing, Israel is far right.

Israel has pretty right wing social policies but at least historically had some definite lefty tendencies.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Narland wrote:

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?

If it does not look like a duck, does not act like a duck, and does not taste like a duck, it's probably not a duck.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Narland wrote:

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?

uh, I think he's saying the opposite.

Taking the best of conservative religious thought and the economic observations and plans for human welfare socialism has to offer is the ideal political and moral approach I would say but only works when it really is the best of religious conservatism that’s being used. It often isn’t values like universal brotherhood or compassion and the preservation of healthy communal ties that are mixed with the leftist aspirations but partial communal ties to particular nations, cultures and ethnic groups and exclusion of other ethnic groups. Which ultimately just devolves into fanaticism and intolerance. It can be done well it just isn’t so often because every time it is the elites notice and do everything they can to ruin it.

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?

Krasny-Volny: my point exactly.

Necroghastia:

...exploitation is a social custom for you? The fundamental order of the distribution of wealth and the means of production? The principle of accumulation of capital? Well, if you want to call it that...

Still, I think there is merit in a specially defined "conservativism" within the left of politics. After all - for over 200 years we have fought and worked for our ideals.

Kubra wrote: consider reading Marx, instead

I did. Marx is the basis after all, but we cannot forget or ignore the refinements and the ideas of his successors. This is the problem of this new... twitter-marxism. No more actual study, sentences like "It's not my job to educate you" - tell that to our ancestors who founded the first workers libraries and schools, who founded things like their own workers red cross (dunno what that's called in your country though).

Kind of surprised, but not really, that no one has mentioned Liberation Theology.

Ethel mermania wrote:Kind of surprised, but not really, that no one has mentioned Liberation Theology.

Liberation theology tends to be tied in more with progressive tendencies in the Catholic Church and not really religious right.

Diopolis wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Kind of surprised, but not really, that no one has mentioned Liberation Theology.

Liberation theology tends to be tied in more with progressive tendencies in the Catholic Church and not really religious right.

Socially conservative, yet politically left wing.

Catholicism has its own right wing but the American religious right is protestant in basis not catholic

Kubra wrote:

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

uh, I think he's saying the opposite.

How so?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Liberation theology tends to be tied in more with progressive tendencies in the Catholic Church and not really religious right.

Socially conservative, yet politically left wing.

Catholicism has its own right wing but the American religious right is protestant in basis not catholic

Catholicism has its own right wing, which liberation theology is not exactly affiliated with. Liberation theology tends to be quite progressive in comparison to the rest of Catholicism- I mean, sure, it’s generally not AS progressive as modern intersectionalist whatever, but not really notable for social conservatism either.

Diopolis wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Socially conservative, yet politically left wing.

Catholicism has its own right wing but the American religious right is protestant in basis not catholic

Catholicism has its own right wing, which liberation theology is not exactly affiliated with. Liberation theology tends to be quite progressive in comparison to the rest of Catholicism- I mean, sure, it’s generally not AS progressive as modern intersectionalist whatever, but not really notable for social conservatism either.

Thats my point. And as such should be a topic for the thread.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Diopolis wrote:Catholicism has its own right wing, which liberation theology is not exactly affiliated with. Liberation theology tends to be quite progressive in comparison to the rest of Catholicism- I mean, sure, it’s generally not AS progressive as modern intersectionalist whatever, but not really notable for social conservatism either.

Thats my point. And as such should be a topic for the thread.

I interpreted the thread topic to be about socially conservative movements, not any religious movement in general.

Ethel mermania wrote:Kind of surprised, but not really, that no one has mentioned Liberation Theology.

It definitely pulls of the synthesis better than any “third position” wackery the right pulls. But it’s not typically that socially conservative per se, as others have said

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Kubra wrote: uh, I think he's saying the opposite.

How so?

I mean fella went out of his way to find somewhere, anywhere to fit in an insult of Trotsky. You can tell where he leans on the Stalin question.

Kubra wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:How so?

I mean fella went out of his way to find somewhere, anywhere to fit in an insult of Trotsky. You can tell where he leans on the Stalin question.

Is that seriously your argument, he was just saying that Lenin thought of Trotsky as a fascist because he didn’t do anything 100% by the book, but Lenin also saw Stalin as a fascist for the same reason. Besides he didn’t insult Trotsky, he just said that Lenin didn’t want him in power, but Lenin also didn’t want Stalin in power.

The free romanians wrote:Like i said in another post and i will bold it here
its not that left wing conservatism doesn't exist because it does but that some don't want to acknowledge that it does

Well, duh. The west, especially the USA, was indoctrinated to believe those godless commies "had no morals" - while in reality "traditional family values" were VASTLY more important in the Soviet nations than in the "free west".

Left-wing conservatism doesn't really exist because conservatism and leftism are opposed. Leftism is about reducing or outright abolishing hierarchies and power-dynamics, whereas conservatism is about maintaining, or sometimes expanding, those hierarchies and power-dynamics. Christian and Islamic socialism do exist, and they are somewhat influential in left-wing spaces.

Salvatiotan wrote:

Kubra wrote: I mean fella went out of his way to find somewhere, anywhere to fit in an insult of Trotsky. You can tell where he leans on the Stalin question.

Is that seriously your argument, he was just saying that Lenin thought of Trotsky as a fascist because he didn’t do anything 100% by the book, but Lenin also saw Stalin as a fascist for the same reason. Besides he didn’t insult Trotsky, he just said that Lenin didn’t want him in power, but Lenin also didn’t want Stalin in power.

could you perhaps tell me the year Lenin died