You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Content discovery! Steemit vs Reddit. (just a rant)
" their liberal socialist agenda" "if you don’t toe the communist agenda"
I feel like you can't define any of those
" their liberal socialist agenda" "if you don’t toe the communist agenda"
I feel like you can't define any of those
There are only a select number of subreddits where you can say any right wing opinion without being harassed and downvoted. You can state left wing opinions pretty much everywhere without fear. That's a big problem because it makes the site unpleasant to use for anyone with right wing beliefs, including free speech.
That is not what I asked. Liberals are right of center, they are just another form of capitalist.
"That's a big problem because it makes the site unpleasant to use for anyone with right wing beliefs, including free speech."
free speech has historically been more left wing than right, fascism comes to mind for one.
liberals are not left and I think you mean progressiveism, which is just the "happy face" of tyranny. Either way 20 million die of poverty a year and the answer is the destruction of capitalism.
It’s historical revisionism to suggest fascism is right wing. Giovanni Gentile was the father of fascism and he was very left wing. Fascism is fundamentally about collectivism, not individualism or freedom. That’s synonymous with left wing politics and socialism.
I’m not OP and I wouldn’t refer to the left as liberal. Liberalism is fundamentally a right wing ideology which dates back to the Enlightenment.
Capitalism has brought 1 billion people out of poverty in the last 20 years. Socialism and communism has killed 100 million at least in the past century. It should be clear which side has better ideas.
If you honestly believe capitalism is a bad thing it’s a wonder you’re on this site at all. Capitalism is mans greatest invention and it will continue to bring millions out of poverty every month.
they wouldn't be in poverty if it weren't for capitalist imperialism.
This is due to Capitalism. You will never be able to have a true socialistic society without it collapsing on itself. this is self evident. The only way a system like that could succeed is if greed was no longer in the human equation. Sense that is impossible, at least for now, this political ideology is naive at best and willful ignorance at worst.
Any evidence to back up this assumption?
Yes they would. They were in poverty well before the imperialists had their hands on poor nations. In fact, everyone was in poverty to begin with. The strongest capitalist nations found success hundreds of years before the others.
" Capitalism is mans greatest invention"
yeah, and atomic bombs and climate change are next
The climate has been changing for much longer than man has been industrialised. Atomic bombs have been used twice and may never be used again. They're so powerful that nobody wants to use one for fear of someone else using their's. Peace through mutually assured destruction is still peace.
Oh yes
its historical revisionism to ignore the fact that fascism is completely right wing lmao. Hitler slaughtered socialists and communists and privatised multiple national industries for a reason
What was right wing about Hitler? He was all about collectivism, his party was the national socialist party, he socialised education and welfare and blamed the wealthy capitalist Jews for all of the country’s problems. Replace the word Jew with top 1% and it sounds a lot like another socialist, Bernie Sanders.
The socialist historians have lied to millions to try and distance Hitler from their corrosive ideology.
"What was right wing about Hitler? He was all about collectivism, "
oh so that must be why he privatised nation industry.
oh no wait, you're just delusional
The Nazi Party at the outset offered a twenty-five point program that included nationalization of large corporations and trusts, government control of banking and credit, the seizure of land without compensation for public use, the splitting of large landholdings into smaller units, confiscation of war profits, prosecution of bankers and other lenders on grounds of usury, abolition of incomes unearned by work, profit sharing for workers in all large companies, a broader pension system paying higher benefits, and universal free health care and education.”
Sounds VERY right wing to me........ O.o
Here is a direct quotation from Gregor’s The Ideology of Fascism: “The movement itself was not conservative. It was revolutionary. Its clear intention was to destroy all the social, economic and political artifacts of classical liberalism.” And here is a quote from Payne: “The nucleus that eventually founded fascism in Italy did not stem from the right-wing nationalists but from the transformation of part of the revolutionary left.”
Hitler could not be clearer about his socialist commitments. He said, for example, in a 1927 speech, “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalist system of exploitation . . . and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.”
Hitler nationalised major industry. He was a nationalist, but also a socialist. He believed that nationalising industry would benefit the nation. He was wrong because nationalisation hinders innovation and development.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives
remember that one time hitler slaughtered every socialist in his party?
Yes
Lol, taking it out of context really. The reason behind the night of the long knives was to destroy his competition in the Nazi party. The Nazi party was founded on far left, socialist ideology.
Hitler killed key members in the SA, which was a lot bigger and broader than his Nazi SS. This was to make sure nobody could threaten his power. It had nothing to do with the fact they shared an ideology.
I suggest reading more history because your understanding appears limited.
Fascism is an Italian term that means “groupism” or “collectivism.” The fasci in Italy were groups of political activists who got their name from the fasces of ancient Rome—the bundles of rods carried by the lictors to symbolize the unified strength of the Romans. The core meaning of the term fascism is that people are stronger in groups than they are as individuals.
You're right, that sounds sooooo much like right wingers.
the right wing is based on private ownership of the means of production and a market system built out of that.
The Nazis supported private ownership and markets.
It’s important to clear up what we mean by the terms “Left” and “Right.” The political use of the two terms dates back to 1789 and the French Revolution. In the National Assembly in Paris, the partisans of the Revolution sat on the left side and their opponents sat on the right. This is how we got our original “left-wing” and “right-wing.” The term “right-wing” in this context refers to defenders of the Ancien Régime who wanted France to return to the governing alliance of throne and altar that had preceded the revolution. “Conservative” became a description of the old guard who wanted to conserve the monarchy and the prerogatives of the established church against revolutionary overthrow.
So right away we have a problem: if this is what “right-wing” and “conservative” mean, then there are no right-wingers or conservatives in America. America has never had either a monarchy or an established church. Modern American conservatives have no intention to introduce either. In what sense, then, are modern conservatives right-wing? What is it that American conservatives want to conserve?
The answer is pretty simple. They want to conserve the principles of the American Revolution. So while the French Right opposed the French Revolution, the American Right champions the American Revolution. If it seems paradoxical to use the terms “conserve” and “Revolution” in the same sentence, this paradox nevertheless defines the modern-day conservative. The American Revolution was characterized by three basic freedoms: economic freedom or capitalism, political freedom or constitutional democracy, and freedom of speech and religion. These are the freedoms that, in their original form, American conservatives seek to conserve.
As the founders understood it, the main threat to freedom comes from the federal government. Our rights, consequently, are protections against excessive government intrusion and intervention. That’s why the Bill of Rights typically begins, “Congress shall make no law.” By placing fetters or restraints on the federal government, we secure our basic rights and liberties. The objective of these rights and liberties is for Americans to devote their lives to the “pursuit of happiness.” Happiness is the goal and rights and liberties are the means to that goal. Right-wingers in America are the ones who seek to protect the rights of Americans to pursue happiness by limiting the power of the central state.
“An elective despotism,” Jefferson said, “is not what we fought for.”2 Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party preceded our current two-party system, but his sentiment is one that American right-wingers and conservatives would heartily endorse. Even elected governments do not have unlimited power. They must operate within a specified domain; when they go beyond that domain, they become a threat to our freedom and, in this respect, tyrannical. We are under no more obligation to obey an elected tyranny than the founders themselves were obliged to obey the tyrannical authority of the British Crown.
By limiting state power, conservatives seek among other things to protect the right of people to keep the fruits of their own labor. Abraham Lincoln, America’s first Republican president, placed himself squarely in the founding tradition when he said, “I always thought the man who made the corn should eat the corn.” Lincoln, like the founders, was not concerned that private property or private earnings might cause economic inequality. Rather, he believed, as three of the founders themselves wrote in Federalist Paper No. 10, that “the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property” is the “first object of government.”3
American conservatives also seek to conserve the transcendent moral order that is not specified in the Constitution but clearly underlies the American founding. Consider, as a single example, the proposition from the Declaration of Independence that we are all “created equal” and endowed with “inalienable rights” including the “right to life.” This means for conservatives that human life is sacred, it has a dignity that results from divine creation, it is so precious that the right to life cannot be sold even with the consent of the buyer and seller, and finally that no government can violate the right to life without trespassing on America’s most basic moral and political values.
So much for the political Right, what about the Left? The Left in America is defined by its hostility to the restrictions placed by the founders on the federal government. That’s why leftists regularly deplore constitutional restraints on government power, proclaiming the Constitution woefully out of date and calling for us to adopt instead a “living Constitution”—a Constitution adapted to what the Left considers progressive. Indeed many leftists today use “progressive” as their preferred political label. They used to call themselves “liberal,” a term which refers to liberality or freedom; now they use “progressive,” a term which identifies them with the future as opposed to the past.
Progress by itself is a vacant term; we need to know what progressives mean when they use it. What they mean is progress toward greater federal power and federal control. The progressives, in other words, are champions of the power of the centralized state. Two very bad words in modern progressivism are “state’s rights.” Progressives are happiest when the federal government is running things, and when they are in charge of the federal government. That’s what ensures “progress”; any setbacks to this program represent “reaction” and “regress.” No wonder leftists term conservatives who resist expanding government power as “regressive” or “reactionary.”
But why does state power have to be so centralized? While the founders viewed the government as the enemy of rights, the progressive Left regards the federal government as the friend and securer of rights. Moreover, progressives distrust the free-market system and want the government to control and direct the economy, not necessarily nationalizing or taking over private companies, but at least regulating their operations and on occasion mandating their courses of action.
In addition, the Left seeks government authority to enforce and institutionalize progressive values like federally funded abortion and equal treatment of gays and transsexuals. From its abortion stance alone we see that the Left rejects the idea of a transcendent moral order as firmly as it rejects the conservative principle of an inalienable right to life. So if “Right” in America means a limited, nonintrusive government with a wide scope for the individual pursuit of happiness, “Left” in America means a powerful centralized state that implements leftist values and is controlled by the Left.
Well stated. The other metric for left and right is a scale of freedom. The far left and far right would both be living hell because absolute state control and no state at all lead to the destruction of society. The right side of this spectrum values freedom and the left side values state control. According to this spectrum, every tyrannical government in history has been fundamentally left wing because they require state control.
and it seems like you missed this