Advertisement
by Technoscience Leftwing » Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:01 pm
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sun Dec 26, 2021 7:28 pm
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Rifts Earth » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:31 pm
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.
by Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:33 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:Prima Scriptura wrote:
I feel the necessity to keep a biblical worldview, just not in terms of sexuality and cultural morality. For it’s the libertarian and individualist culture that the American right wing has embraced is one of the contributing factors of why we don’t have a God fearing populace anymore.
Every time I see you, I see you saying something based.
by Forsher » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:34 pm
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Forsher wrote:
If leftism was defined as "opposing conservatism" sure. But it's not.
The name was invented by the French Parliament to refer to the less traditionalist perspectives, was it not? If there were a recurring theme, it was of being less traditional than one's more conservative counterparts.
Otherwise, it isn't definable at all.
by Forsher » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:35 pm
Diopolis wrote:the only actual parts of that chart that traditional religious morality of major christian denominations would maybe take issue with are the ones that are borderline on being social issues to begin with.
by Rifts Earth » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:45 pm
by Cameroi » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:52 pm
by Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 8:59 pm
Rifts Earth wrote:Prima Scriptura wrote:
The only thing that cultural conservatives have to give up on is their hatred for weed.
Eh, I don't like it whenever someone burns something and inhales the smoke.
That being said, if we replaced tobacco with weed, that would probably be a good idea. Probably. Don't know enough on the health ramifications of cannabis vis a vis tobacco to say for sure.
by GuessTheAltAccount » Sun Dec 26, 2021 10:40 pm
Forsher wrote:If we're to define left/right in terms of the original definition by early modern Frenchies, the term is completely meaningless.
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
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
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by The Alma Mater » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:13 pm
The free romanians wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
It all depends on what you call "leftist". Quite a few conservative christian parties are for instance "green"; due to believing in the "stewards of earth" concept. Quite a few conservatve christian parties support social security, universal healthcare etc -including actively opposing capitalist insurance based alternatives due to the "gambling" aspect of those.
But giving the means of production to the workers is not a common theme.
Distribuists who quite a lot of christian democrats belong to supoort cooperatives and that might count
by Prima Scriptura » Sun Dec 26, 2021 11:55 pm
by Forsher » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:12 am
Bit of a strawman of everything outside the politically correct echo chamber to act like it rejects all this.
- "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 Vikanias » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:20 am
by The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:39 am
Technoscience Leftwing wrote:The point is that leftism expresses the interests of the oppressed class, while conservatism is an instrument of the ruling class.
Leftism orientates to fight (including by a revolutionary forceful way), for earthly happiness, for a well-fed and cheerful society, where human labor is replaced by automation.
And what qualities does conservatism cultivate? Fertility, humility, hard work, obedience, unpretentiousness. It is very beneficial for the ruling class that the oppressed class has these properties. Humility and hard work facilitate exploitation, unpretentiousness allows the owner to minimize the cost of an employee, fertility and large families allow to devalue the cost of labor and create a "reserve industrial army" of the hungry and unemployed. In a class society, conservatism is an instrument of masters against slaves.
In a classless society (in a primitive community), conservatism exists in the form of a system of taboos and tribal customs in conditions of extreme backwardness of technology and a shortage of resources. Conservatism in primitive tribes promotes survival in difficult conditions, ensures the continuity of survival skills - but it blocks the possibility of non-standard thinking and development. And therefore, primitive tribes (for example, the Bushmen) survive under conservative customs, but do not develop. Science and technology are frozen at a primitive level, which means there is no comfort and no wide opportunities.
Therefore, for a truly happy society, you need development, modernity, thinking outside the box, hedonistic goals. Otherwise, the result will be a reactionary fake of socialism, with technical backwardness and a lot of suffering. Such forgeries ("feudal socialism", "Christian socialism") were criticized by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge... Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat. " In Russia, the CPRF is fond of this, combining conservatism with statism and great-power. It only benefits the ruling elite, including billionaires. Conservatism excludes the revolutionary struggle for earthly happiness, comfort and abundance to ordinary people.
by Wizlandia » Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:51 am
Forsher wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.
What on earth does this even mean?Bit of a strawman of everything outside the politically correct echo chamber to act like it rejects all this.
What? The question is whether or not people accept these.
As to the next bit... you weren't invited to give your opinions on them and insofar as your point was to test the system to see if it works, then your additional spiel makes that so much harder to perceive. The way you formatted your post also made it difficult to read.
- Yes. Oppression is bad. What do we do about it that doesn't create its own problems in the first place? you agree with this
- The agency of individuals is dictated by larger structural forces, but these are also shaped in turn by individuals, in their capacity as voters and in their capacity as customers. you agree with this
- no comment
- You cannot achieve optimal social outcomes on the free market alone. Not even close. But the question is of where the right balance is. Scandinavia seems to have achieved a healthy balance between capitalism. you agree with this
- Economic growth, depending on how far one takes it, can be at odds with environmental sustainability. But there is room to do more about the environment without outright crashing the economy if we follow in the footsteps of societies that did it right. you disagree with this
That's at least two agreements, you're a leftist.
- "Inequality" is inevitable and "equality" is subjective. Who gets to say how many dollars more an oil rig worker earns make up for the risk of getting blown up, if not the individual who picked the job in the first place?is/ought problem, cannot make a determination
- The profit motive's efficacy depends on the market and the circumstances. not enough evidence to make a determination
- I would never blame regulation for everything.you do not agree
- Nor give religion a role by the state. you do not agree
- Power to succeed or fail has an individual role, plus random chance, PLUS the fact that often times success is at the expense of unethical business practices that impede others' success. you do not agree
- Rural and urban are indeed misaligned; especially these days. In theory they can be meshed better, in practice I'm worried separation of the two might be needed to avoid even worse conflict between them. you agree with this
- What was better in the past depends on what aspect of the past you're talking about.you do not agree
By your logic, I'm a rightwinger AND a leftwinger.
By my logic, it's quite impossible to tell. Assuming you think efficiency and efficacy are the same thing (they're not) which seems likely it swings on whether or not you actually think inequality is capable of causing problems just by existing.
That being said, I made a mistake. The inequality point should be "inequality is not in itself capable of reducing economic growth". Obviously you couldn't know that.
by The Alma Mater » Mon Dec 27, 2021 1:52 am
Wizlandia wrote:I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.
by GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Dec 27, 2021 2:38 am
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by The Blaatschapen » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:15 am
by Forsher » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:46 am
Wizlandia wrote:I think GuessTheAltAccount's point is someone can believe in two things from both the left and right column, but it doesn't make sense to say he's both a leftist and a rightist.
And if we act entitled to redefine terms we didn't even invent, the term is also completely meaningless.
"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.
by The Alma Mater » Mon Dec 27, 2021 5:59 am
by The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:03 am
The Alma Mater wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Ninja'd! This is exactly where I was going with this. Thanks for getting to it before I had to decide how best to word it myself.
Sorry
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.
by Arvenia » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:24 am
by The free romanians » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:27 am
Arvenia wrote:Remember that some left-wing parties in Eastern Europe and other countries are socially conservative (such as the Bulgarian Socialist Party, the Socialist People's Party of Montenegro, the Workers' Party of Montonegro, the Samajwadi Party, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and the Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova).
by Lady Victory » Mon Dec 27, 2021 6:27 am
Technoscience Leftwing wrote:The point is that leftism expresses the interests of the oppressed class, while conservatism is an instrument of the ruling class.
Leftism orientates to fight (including by a revolutionary forceful way), for earthly happiness, for a well-fed and cheerful society, where human labor is replaced by automation.
And what qualities does conservatism cultivate? Fertility, humility, hard work, obedience, unpretentiousness. It is very beneficial for the ruling class that the oppressed class has these properties. Humility and hard work facilitate exploitation, unpretentiousness allows the owner to minimize the cost of an employee, fertility and large families allow to devalue the cost of labor and create a "reserve industrial army" of the hungry and unemployed. In a class society, conservatism is an instrument of masters against slaves.
In a classless society (in a primitive community), conservatism exists in the form of a system of taboos and tribal customs in conditions of extreme backwardness of technology and a shortage of resources. Conservatism in primitive tribes promotes survival in difficult conditions, ensures the continuity of survival skills - but it blocks the possibility of non-standard thinking and development. And therefore, primitive tribes (for example, the Bushmen) survive under conservative customs, but do not develop. Science and technology are frozen at a primitive level, which means there is no comfort and no wide opportunities.
Therefore, for a truly happy society, you need development, modernity, thinking outside the box, hedonistic goals. Otherwise, the result will be a reactionary fake of socialism, with technical backwardness and a lot of suffering. Such forgeries ("feudal socialism", "Christian socialism") were criticized by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge... Christian Socialism is but the holy water with which the priest consecrates the heart-burnings of the aristocrat. " In Russia, the CPRF is fond of this, combining conservatism with statism and great-power. It only benefits the ruling elite, including billionaires. Conservatism excludes the revolutionary struggle for earthly happiness, comfort and abundance to ordinary people.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ethel mermania, Fauxia, Google [Bot], Great Eddy, Haganham, Jerzylvania, Nanatsu no Tsuki, Neo-Hermitius, The Two Jerseys, Uiiop, Zandos
Advertisement