Opinion Conservatism will always be a threat to democracy

[Confucamus]

A. There wasn’t much information of the aftermath given that it was breaking news. That was like the fifth post in that thread.

B. It was a satirical post.

C. It didn’t take a soothsayer to see that Israel would expose themselves as one of the most monstrous, vile powers in the modern world and somehow come out looking worse than a terrorist group.

So you were looking into the future when you liked that post? The information we did have was that Israeli citizens were being slaughtered by Palestinian militants and your reaction (before the attack was even over) was to support Hamas 100%? Birds of a feather flock together, I guess.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Yeah, I didn’t major in history, or even do very well in history. But I do know that the far right of the political spectrum will always be fascism. And I do know that today’z flavor of conservatism is definitely pining for fascism.

Though I am still it convinced that conservatism will always ultimately end up in fascism. Just like I don’t think liberalism will always end up in communism.

This is why Political Spectrum is so helpful.

The X-axis is economic equality (perfectly equal to the farthest left, perfectly unequal furthest right)

The Y-axis is civil liberties (ultra authoritarian at the top, ultra libertarian at the bottom)

Fascism is one side of extreme rightism but not the only one. On the other side of the right spectrum are the right wing libertarians, who don't want to the state to infringe on your right to do pretty much anything. These guys are far less popular, but they do exist.

 

[DanSavage]

Conservatism will always be a threat to democracy

Our government is a Republic, not a democracy.

Repeat after me:

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America
And to the Republic, for which it stands
One nation, under God
With liberty and justice for all

Democracies serve the majority to the detriment of the minority.

Republican forms of government protect everyone's rights.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Our government is a Republic, not a democracy.

Repeat after me:

I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the United States of America
And to the Republic, for which it stands
One nation, under God
With liberty and justice for all

Democracies serve the majority to the detriment of the minority.

Republican forms of government protect everyone's rights.

Our government is a hybrid system lol.

The pledge of allegiance also says we are one nation under God. Last time I checked, I don't see Skyman flying down from the heavens to touch our country.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

The pledge of allegiance also says we are one nation under God. Last time I checked, I don't see Skyman flying down from the heavens to touch our country.

Your eyes would burn if you stared at the sun for half a minute, but you think you'd stand the sight of its creator?

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is why Political Spectrum is so helpful.

The X-axis is economic equality (perfectly equal to the farthest left, perfectly unequal furthest right)

The Y-axis is civil liberties (ultra authoritarian at the top, ultra libertarian at the bottom)

Fascism is one side of extreme rightism but not the only one. On the other side of the right spectrum are the right wing libertarians, who don't want to the state to infringe on your right to do pretty much anything. These guys are far less popular, but they do exist.

The spectrum is just left-right, and it relates to political equality more than anything. The further left believes that formal equality under the law isn't sufficient to create the experience of equality, and the further right doesn't support equality under the law. That two-axis thing does more to mislead than inform, IMO.

Our government is a Republic, not a democracy.

It's a democratic republic, as everyone knows. Just saying it's a republic doesn't provide any information. If you think it's bad that people should be able to pick their leaders, you should make the case directly.

 

[Dizzy]

So you were looking into the future when you liked that post? The information we did have was that Israeli citizens were being slaughtered by Palestinian militants and your reaction (before the attack was even over) was to support Hamas 100%? Birds of a feather flock together, I guess.

No I’ve looked at Israel’s history of barbarism.

The info we actually had was that Hamas was launching an attack.

Anyway, turns out I was right yet again. Israel should no longer exist in its current state.

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

What lies does he tell?

he did tell that girl in the viral abortion clip that "fetus" means "little human being" in latin. he was thinking of "homunculus"

 

[KAZSoliloquy]

No I’ve looked at Israel’s history of barbarism.

The info we actually had was that Hamas was launching an attack.

Anyway, turns out I was right yet again. Israel should no longer exist in its current state.

2023 is ’deadliest year’ for a child in occupied West Bank

Since 2000, Israeli forces have killed at least 2,287 Palestinian children, according to the Defence of Children International.

www.newarab.com

article released on october 6th. these dudes are in denial.

 

[UberHere]

No I’ve looked at Israel’s history of barbarism.

The info we actually had was that Hamas was launching an attack.

Anyway, turns out I was right yet again. Israel should no longer exist in its current state.

What state should it exist in then?

 

[Zazen]

The lying is simply out of control. I was on Twitter for like 10 minutes today and I saw two accounts pushing propaganda. One is Tim Walz is bipolar, another that Kamala wanted many people to die in Florida. All these accounts with BREAKING in the title are fucking scumbags. Not even community noted. Elon is pushing this shit in the algorithm. I don’t even view their content normally. I don’t see how a democracy can survive this. Tens of millions will believe anything just to own the libs

 

[Possum Jenkins]

The spectrum is just left-right, and it relates to political equality more than anything. The further left believes that formal equality under the law isn't sufficient to create the experience of equality, and the further right doesn't support equality under the law. That two-axis thing does more to mislead than inform, IMO.

So would the economic aspect be built in or be ignored completely?

I think it's way too important to not get its own axis. You can wildly different levels of economic inequality while having similar political liberty. Political parties or movements or leaders that advocate for popular control/influence over economic institutions are going to create more equal societies.

The side that's against this is going to prefer regressive or flat taxes, low regulation, low labor organizing, etc. These will create greater economic inequality.

 

[Fedor>Cain]

Your eyes would burn if you stared at the sun for half a minute, but you think you'd stand the sight of its creator?

Idk brother, here is Donald staring at the sun for half a minute easy. I'm calling bullshit.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So would the economic aspect be built in or be ignored completely?

I think it's built in. As I said, on the further left, the thinking is that formal, legal equality isn't enough. Think of Anatole France's famous line:

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

So the idea is that you need more economic equality to actually have meaningful political equality. And I think that's ultimately the reason people want economic equality (as opposed to merely abolishing poverty, which is a goal shared more broadly, though obviously not universally).

I think it's way too important to not get its own axis. You can wildly different levels of economic inequality while having similar political liberty. Political parties or movements or leaders that advocate for popular control/influence over economic institutions are going to create more equal societies.

Right, but it's only the further left that cares about economic equality as such. See above.

The side that's against this is going to prefer regressive or flat taxes, low regulation, low labor organizing, etc. These will create greater economic inequality.

Liberals are going to have varying views on that stuff, depending on what they think the effects are. Sounds crazy, but some people have convinced themselves that, say, flat taxes are going to be better for the poor and middle class. Generally, we're talking about people who have incorrect beliefs about how much everyone currently pays in taxes--lots of people are under the impression that the rich hardly pays anything and everyone else gets soaked or just don't understand how taxes work. These people are not really ideologically rightist as much as deluded.

Factual disputes often get confused for ideological ones, partly because people don't really understand where the other side is coming from and partly because people practice motivated reasoning (if you have x-ist ideological views, it might be easier for you to believe that x-ist policies are better for everyone).

The "libertarian" axis often amounts to "I believe the gov't should only do good things" and has minimal real content.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

Idk brother, here is Donald staring at the sun for half a minute easy. I'm calling bullshit.

fucking hell, forgot about this one. kino

 

[My Spot]

So you were looking into the future when you liked that post? The information we did have was that Israeli citizens were being slaughtered by Palestinian militants and your reaction (before the attack was even over) was to support Hamas 100%? Birds of a feather flock together, I guess.

He also got mad when there were "too many jew commercials" during NFL games.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

I think it's built in. As I said, on the further left, the thinking is that formal, legal equality isn't enough. Think of Anatole France's famous line:



So the idea is that you need more economic equality to actually have meaningful political equality. And I think that's ultimately the reason people want economic equality (as opposed to merely abolishing poverty, which is a goal shared more broadly, though obviously not universally).

Mmmm yeah but there are just too many examples of states and movements that differ wildly in the political realm, while aligning in the economic one. So you'd have Leninist Russia and Maoist China very close to Anarchist Catalonia or to the general anarcho-syndicalist movement. That just doesn't feel correct.

Furthermore, a single axis implies that one of these is just an extension of the other, or a pre-requirement of the other. But it doesn't make sense in the examples given because whichever you think is furthest left is almost completely at odds with the one that's less left.

So if you think that anarcho-syndicalism is the furthest left, then Leninism/Maoism is just a stage or a version right before it. But we know that's not true. The iron grip of the state in the USSR or China was never going to disappear and turn into a bunch of cooperatives with councils and participation from all workers of the anarcho-syndicalist dream. Conversely, anarchist Catalonia would not turn Leninist if they just took it up a few notches. They're just wildly different planes.

The "libertarian" axis often amounts to "I believe the gov't should only do good things" and has minimal real content.

I've heard it described as the "civil liberties" or the "social" axis. I think it more or less makes sense.

The US right has taken an interesting in the last decades. During the Bush years, you had a lot of Ron Paul, libertarian types that were for legalization of drugs, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, etc. All of these are consistent with greater civil liberties. But they were also into business de-regulation and low taxes which, of course, will exacerbate inequality.

The current Maga movement with its billionaire tax cuts coincides with them economically but it's far more authoritarian. It'd be hard to align these Ron Paul libertarians to Trump's constant threats to jail political opponents, to "open up the libel law" or to the repeal of Roe v Wade.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

This is why Political Spectrum is so helpful.

The X-axis is economic equality (perfectly equal to the farthest left, perfectly unequal furthest right)

The Y-axis is civil liberties (ultra authoritarian at the top, ultra libertarian at the bottom)

Fascism is one side of extreme rightism but not the only one. On the other side of the right spectrum are the right wing libertarians, who don't want to the state to infringe on your right to do pretty much anything. These guys are far less popular, but they do exist.

I’m aware. But “free market paradise” is about the most naive thing I’ve ever heard of.

And democratic socialism is nowhere near authoritarian. I think that chart needs some work.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Mmmm yeah but there are just too many examples of states and movements that differ wildly in the political realm, while aligning in the economic one. So you'd have Leninist Russia and Maoist China very close to Anarchist Catalonia or to the general anarcho-syndicalist movement. That just doesn't feel correct.

Yeah, but what's really going on there is states using right-wing structures ostensibly to achieve leftist ends. Catalonia was an actual far-left social organization.

So if you think that anarcho-syndicalism is the furthest left, then Leninism/Maoism is just a stage or a version right before it. But we know that's not true. The iron grip of the state in the USSR or China was never going to disappear and turn into a bunch of cooperatives with councils and participation from all workers of the anarcho-syndicalist dream. Conversely, anarchist Catalonia would not turn Leninist if they just took it up a few notches. They're just wildly different planes.

Again, anarcho-syndicalism is the furthest left. Leninism/Maoism involved very hierarchical structures that proponents said would be dispensed with in the future.

I've heard it described as the "civil liberties" or the "social" axis. I think it more or less makes sense.

The US right has taken an interesting in the last decades. During the Bush years, you had a lot of Ron Paul, libertarian types that were for legalization of drugs, same-sex marriage, separation of church and state, etc. All of these are consistent with greater civil liberties. But they were also into business de-regulation and low taxes which, of course, will exacerbate inequality.

That's fair, but I notice a lot of those types were also opponents of immigration, NIMBYs, and supporters of reduced civil liberties when it comes to law enforcement. I think an intellectually consistent libertarian type eventually (after contradictions have been rooted out) ends up on the left. And we're back to the distinction between ideological differences and beliefs about the nature of reality.

The current Maga movement with its billionaire tax cuts coincides with them economically but it's far more authoritarian. It'd be hard to align these Ron Paul libertarians to Trump's constant threats to jail political opponents, to "open up the libel law" or to the repeal of Roe v Wade.

I remember Ron Paul himself saying that stopping abortion was the most important issue. And he actually didn't support drug legalization as much as he thought it should be handled by state gov'ts. I bring that up not to nitpick you but to point out that a lot of the "libertarian" movement in America was really more of a Neo-Confederate movement, that just despaired of controlling national politics and at least wanted a carve-out for authoritarianism at the local level. And a lot of the movement has embraced Trump, whose movement has given them new hope. As for the ones who haven't, see above.

 

[fedoriswar37]

Pretty sad attempt at getting some liberal group therapy.