Without any snark or sarcasm list things you respect about the ideology opposite of yours.

[bobthebuilder]

If I'm 2 inches to the right, is my opposite 2 inches to the left or (opposite to a moderate stance) as extreme left as possible?

 

[SBJJ]

If I'm 2 inches to the right, is my opposite 2 inches to the left or (opposite to a moderate stance) as extreme left as possible?

I just took a few issues one by one

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Not going to touch some of that stuff. I'll just say I have strong disagreements with some of it.

I also have some moral problems with the stuff I said.

It doesn't feel right to me how the communist party of China crushes the Tibetans or the Uyghurs. It certainly doesn't feel liberal. But I can't find a rational reason not to. They're not doing it because it's their holy land or because the divine emperor said so, much less out of cruelty. These areas have a lot of resources and serve as a buffer zone against other powers.
Morality is, I believe, a good way to choose your ideology, even trampling over strict materialistic rationalism.
However, also going by morality, it wouldn't feel right to me if I was chinese to allow these people freedom, weakening my country. (I'm not sure it would weaken it, just as an example)

My personality would probably lead me to chose the second alternative, but my consciousness wouldn't be clear.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

hahahah

ok man, we're definitely gonna agree to disagree on this one

literally 'gender identity' is one of the main listed groups

a celebrity literally GOT OFF of manslaughter charges by playing this exact identity politic, just saying

The term identity politics means you fight specifically for a certain identity. A gay party or a black party would certainly be an identity politics party.
Given the realities of the USA that is not possible for the current left wing party. Yes, there are left wing identitarian parties like the Kurdistan's Workers party but that's in a very different reality, although Jack could claim that even a communist party may have a right wing element inside of it in practice, in that case nationalism.
I don't know about the local level, but on the federal level it's just not possible for the democratic party to become a party focused on a given identity because the only identity big enough to win an election is also the economically dominant majority(compare with Malaysia where the minority Chinese are dominant and hence a left wing party may both fight for the majority and against the rich).
Or in other, harsher, words, the democrats represent the hispanics and blacks, that also happen to be poorer and supposedly suffer from racism (while in Malaysia it's the richer chinese that suffer from racism). And also the gays and the migrants. They may have propagandists that promote black pride, viva la raza or whatever. That sounds annoying but they can't go on and promote policy that serves one group in special or the others would go mad. They cannot, for example, enact a border control policy that only allow hispanics as it would greatly enrage white liberals, muslims, africans and possibly blacks.
They can support some policy that disproportionately helps their preferred minorities but it still has to be color blind. Even a donald trump voter can use welfare if he qualifies.

So, in that sense, it has to remain on the fringes for practical reasons. See that MSNBC and Salon are not the democratic party and that high level democratic politicians avoid "SJW" jargon, although not condemning it, except in a few cases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment

Bill Clinton repudiated a stupid black supremacist that got too close.

I have my own criticism of that view, I think that by careful policy choice the Dems are playing a kind of identity politics that goes beyond the fringe, but it's an understandable position.

I really don't think this is a right-left issue. Leftists aren't isolationists or these staunch individualists that find no use for civil society. If anything, that's a more right-wing idea. Remember, they're the rugged individualists that love freedom, leftists are the collectivist statists that want everyone to hold hands and help out.

Solidarity, social cohesion, and community have been important to leftists, they just point out that often, these things have been exclusionary. Churches and schools have been segregated, neighborhoods wouldn't allow CERTAIN type of people in, etc.

He is speaking in practical terms. Going to church isn't a left or right position but in practice in 2018 most american leftists are not very religious. Most people that vote left are not these college kids that create these utopian collectives that spend their day picking berries and helping people in africa but people working in large cities with small families and few friends that believe having a safety net and immigration is better than whatever the GOP promotes.
Just like how most people that vote for the GOP are middle class living in the suburbs and small cities operating a small business or commuting to some generic white collar job not people living in trailers in remote areas or oil tycoons planning on how to destroy the ozone layer. Their lives are probably similar but the right usually have larger families and long term commitment to a church or community, although the difference is narrow.

It is just the way it is, modernity has destroyed these forms of social organization, large cities are not conductive to a neighborhood council and church is boring.

 

[Neph]

I also have some moral problems with the stuff I said.

It doesn't feel right to me how the communist party of China crushes the Tibetans or the Uyghurs. It certainly doesn't feel liberal. But I can't find a rational reason not to.

Economic liberalism and Social liberalism are two different things.

Economic left = free market
Economic right = central planning

Social left = liberalism
Social right = conservatism

In Australia for example the major conservative party call themselves Liberals due to their free trade / left leaning economic standpoint.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

Economic liberalism and Social liberalism are two different things.

Economic left = free market
Economic right = central planning

Social left = liberalism
Social right = conservatism

In Australia for example the major conservative party call themselves Liberals due to their free trade / left leaning economic standpoint.

Yes but they're still fundamentally liberal in that they are not authoritarian dictatorships. Unlike the chinese.

 

[A.S. Deep]

I'm liberal but admire the rugged individualism/social darwinism of old school libertarianism.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Well, see, that last part gets to the heart of the issue. The left--both liberals and the far left--is more universalist (as opposed to tribalist--which is a more right-wing view). You need an out-group to have an in-group. I'm a liberal myself, but I think there is merit to the conservative view here, and I'm not sure how to resolve the problem, but I recognize a weakness in left-wing ideology. I think Marxists have wanted to substitute class solidarity for other forms, but that project appears to me to have been a failure. I think in theory unionism could work, but we're not close to being there now.

Liberalism has mostly been a huge success, but one failure is that a lot of people are left aching for a sense of community. That's really what "SJWism" is about--a sense that some people not part of the in-group in society and that that should be changed. The alt-right, I think, is driven by a sense that multiculturalism divides us and being more homogeneous would make America feel more like a community (a misguided view on several levels).

Ok, now I think we're seeing more eye to eye.

The sense of community that stems from the right is usually stronger than the one most common on the left, agreed. Tribalism is certainly stronger on the right. Life is wonderful when everyone looks, sounds, and believes like them.

However, I personally wouldn't want the type of cohesion that tribalism brings, even if it does bring victories. So yeah, it gets them political advantages but it's not something I'd admire or want for the left. It's similar to authoritarianism: it's definitely possible for it to work and it often outperforms democracy... but at the end of the day, democracy and fairness are far more important values than efficiency or production.

 

[kpt018]

Sucks that you are so combative and are so easy to throw out insults. Really sucks that Neph would even like a post like that.

Learn to communicate and carry conversations without resorting to childish insults

Lastly, can you name 2 times you've asked me to explain things and got nutty answers. Or were you just telling tall tales

Where was the insult? I just described my experience with asking people about eliminating taxes and that I didn't want to get sucked in. If you have a good answer provide it, but there was no personal insult to you.

Based on your position though, your answer is almost certainly nutty, but maybe you'll surprise us!

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ok, now I think we're seeing more eye to eye.

The sense of community that stems from the right is usually stronger than the one most common on the left, agreed. Tribalism is certainly stronger on the right. Life is wonderful when everyone looks, sounds, and believes like them.

I think that last part is slightly off. As I said, you need an out-group to have an in-group. If everyone looks, sounds, and believes the same, there's no out-group. That's one of the problems with the arguments for homogeneity. Good piece on that here:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-siren-song-of-homogeneity.html

However, I personally wouldn't want the type of cohesion that tribalism brings, even if it does bring victories. So yeah, it gets them political advantages but it's not something I'd admire or want for the left. It's similar to authoritarianism: it's definitely possible for it to work and it often outperforms democracy... but at the end of the day, democracy and fairness are far more important values than efficiency or production.

I don't think authoritarianism works as well as democracy (one reason is actually laid out by Hayek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem), but, yeah, I am a liberal even though I grant some merit to many aspects of right-wing thought. BTW, it goes without saying that the movement isn't the same as the thought. If the thread was asking for a list of right-wing thinkers I respect--living or dead--I could do that, too, though.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

. but at the end of the day, democracy and fairness are far more important values than efficiency or production.

why?

I think that last part is slightly off. As I said, you need an out-group to have an in-group. If everyone looks, sounds, and believes the same, there's no out-group. That's one of the problems with the arguments for homogeneity. Good piece on that here:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-siren-song-of-homogeneity.html

You can create a foreign, imagined or real enemy, like the Indians, the Nazis, the Communists. It reminds me of Watchmen where Ozymandias' master plan is to make humanity believe it's under alien attack or Dr. Manhattan attack in the movie.

I don't think authoritarianism works as well as democracy (one reason is actually laid out by Hayek: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_knowledge_problem), but, yeah, I am a liberal even though I grant some merit to many aspects of right-wing thought.

I agree, totalitarianism and central planning like in the soviet union certainly don't work, but I believe an authoritarian free-market country like China has something going on. Their two key ideas are to allow free enterprise (not completely yet) and to choose their leadership like a S&P500 company or the Catholic Church. That is, members of the communist party can choose the chairman like a company board can choose their CEO or the cardinals can choose the Pope. However, unlike in a liberal democracy these cardinals, employees or party members have to follow a straight code of conduct. See how the resulting leaders are extremely qualified compared to let's say Mr. Trump.
Other authoritarian alternatives like a hereditary monarchy or a strongman with a cult of personality are much inferior to democracy. They learned well from the lessons Mao taught them by being a paranoid maniac.

 

[Deleted member 196663]

If you can’t do this there is a problem.

1. I respect that the right isn’t idealistic to a fault and recognizes the importance of party loyalty.
2. I admire the ability of people on the right to enjoy pop culture (film, music, art etc) that is generally dismissive of their beliefs.

There are no “opposite ideologies”, only opposing or competing ones. This goes more into this self-serving myth propagated by Dems and Republicans that not being part of either means you’re in the “middle”, and that you cant decide on or believe anything. These people are indoctrinated into this skewed reality because it serves to swell their ranks and keep them relevant.

But anyways, the question seems to be if you can find any redeeming qualities in what you generally oppose. Yes. Many. Not difficult when you’re not a mindless partisan fanatic driven by allegiances and “winning” at any cost.

 

[SBJJ]

Where was the insult? I just described my experience with asking people about eliminating taxes and that I didn't want to get sucked in. If you have a good answer provide it, but there was no personal insult to you.

Based on your position though, your answer is almost certainly nutty, but maybe you'll surprise us!

Lol. U didn't even read the actual reply.

No income tax is a nutty thought? Someone needs a history lesson me thinks

 

[Jack V Savage]

Lol. U didn't even read the actual reply.

No income tax is a nutty thought? Someone needs a history lesson me thinks

You've generally shown an unwillingness to explain or defend odd comments (wasn't too long ago that you bizarrely claimed that liberals should hate AMZN or something). And a history lesson isn't going to explain the issue. It's probably possible to fund a modern gov't without an income tax, but it would require a massive loss of political influence from the right.

 

[kpt018]

Lol. U didn't even read the actual reply.

No income tax is a nutty thought? Someone needs a history lesson me thinks

So are you going to provide your position or keep wasting time? Jack's post points out one huge problem, so adding that would make sense too.

Or don't and basically validate my first thought that your answer would be nutty.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

This thread is not for me. Snark and sarcasm are my default settings.

 

[Islam Imamate]

However, I personally wouldn't want the type of cohesion that tribalism brings, even if it does bring victories. So yeah, it gets them political advantages but it's not something I'd admire or want for the left. It's similar to authoritarianism: it's definitely possible for it to work and it often outperforms democracy... but at the end of the day, democracy and fairness are far more important values than efficiency or production.

Its not about the political victories, its about the sense of support and meaning that being a part of a community brings. If anything this hints at one of the issues of the left and its something I noticed earlier too when you tried to equate civil society with what @Jack V Savage was talking about. Its not about being a part of a formal group like an NGO or union or something like that. Its about a shared sense of community among people with similar customs and norms.

I don't think NGOs or unions can fill the hole that a local church or extended family networks fill. On a societal level those organizations play an important function but I don't think they're as effective at generating the kind of experience that the aforementioned traditional activities do.

I agree, totalitarianism and central planning like in the soviet union certainly don't work, but I believe an authoritarian free-market country like China has something going on. Their two key ideas are to allow free enterprise (not completely yet) and to choose their leadership like a S&P500 company or the Catholic Church. That is, members of the communist party can choose the chairman like a company board can choose their CEO or the cardinals can choose the Pope. However, unlike in a liberal democracy these cardinals, employees or party members have to follow a straight code of conduct. See how the resulting leaders are extremely qualified compared to let's say Mr. Trump.
Other authoritarian alternatives like a hereditary monarchy or a strongman with a cult of personality are much inferior to democracy. They learned well from the lessons Mao taught them by being a paranoid maniac.

Its a technocratic oligarchy for the 21st century. In some ways terrifying but at the same time on some level there is undeniable success. I remember watching part of a documentary where a Chinese citizen, being interview about the government, said that while he doesn't love his government as he does his country he does trust them. Many in China seem to accept this technocratic oligarchy as long as it produces results and given the abject poverty China was in not that long ago I can't say I blame them.

On the one hand I want to disagree with your skepticism of democracy but on the other hand even I find myself wondering if more democracy is truly always inherently good. Many of the old, healthy democracies in the West started out with an element of oligarchy to balance out democracy like appointed upper houses against elected lower houses in their legislatures.

For a modern example, Somaliland is the most developed and stable region in Somalia, despite not being recognized internationally for the most part or perhaps because of it, and one element of its success(relative to the rest of the country and much of the continent at least) is the sprouting of democratic structures. But the upper house in its legislature isn't elected, just like the Senate once upon a time, but rather is made up of traditional tribal leaders. Its this class, the tribal elders and figures of authority, that actually negotiated the peace in the region in the first place so its not designed that way without reason.

Might seem odd to compare a irrelevant African tribal backwater to China but in both cases you have a class of unelected officials that the population generally trusts with a disproportionate say in the government.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I agree, totalitarianism and central planning like in the soviet union certainly don't work, but I believe an authoritarian free-market country like China has something going on. Their two key ideas are to allow free enterprise (not completely yet) and to choose their leadership like a S&P500 company or the Catholic Church. That is, members of the communist party can choose the chairman like a company board can choose their CEO or the cardinals can choose the Pope. However, unlike in a liberal democracy these cardinals, employees or party members have to follow a straight code of conduct. See how the resulting leaders are extremely qualified compared to let's say Mr. Trump.

Note that China's per-capita GDP is less than a sixth of the U.S.'s, and it has other countries as an example to follow. It's much easier to catch up than it is to push the frontier. I don't think we'll see China reaching a Western level of success without more democratic institutions.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Note that China's per-capita GDP is less than a sixth of the U.S.'s, and it has other countries as an example to follow. It's much easier to catch up than it is to push the frontier. I don't think we'll see China reaching a Western level of success without more democratic institutions.

If they can keep making gains in lifting people out of absolute poverty and keep their wealth inequality in check I think its possible that they remain authoritarian into the future without having to concede much in the way of democratization.

 

[Jack V Savage]

If they can keep making gains in lifting people out of absolute poverty and keep their wealth inequality in check I think its possible that they remain authoritarian into the future without having to concede much in the way of democratization.

What I'm saying is that it's pretty easy to gain ground if you're way behind. They'll hit a wall without a better system of gov't eventually.