The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
Egalitarian, yes. Cosmopolitan, no. You can be a rural leftist.
"including or containing people from many different countries."
Cosmopolitan isn't a synonym for urban. Urban areas are just more often cosmopolitan than rural ones, but US rural areas are also often cosmopolitan.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
As someone living in the UK who is well aware of the manifest failings of this country, I gotta say you guys really have a rose-tinted view of your country IMO.
idk, I think it's just different. I haven't been overseas since '04 but I was legit blown away by how openly, casually, unconsciously racist people the UK, Ireland, Germany, and France all were. But you look at the healthcare system and it's completely different.
It's actually easier to see racism in other countries because it isn't embedded in your psyche. People in the UK and Europe will say things about Gypsies and Travellers that would make your toes curl and not even once think that it was "racist."
As someone living in the UK who is well aware of the manifest failings of this country, I gotta say you guys really have a rose-tinted view of your country IMO.
idk, I think it's just different. I haven't been overseas since '04 but I was legit blown away by how openly, casually, unconsciously racist people the UK, Ireland, Germany, and France all were. But you look at the healthcare system and it's completely different.
That's funny because when I went to the US I found the level of institutionalised racism to be immediately and disturbingly apparent, to an extent I've never known in my own country.
Clearly we all have blind spots. Making comparisons is not easy, but that doesn't mean it can't be done so don't bother. I firmly know that we have a racism problem here, in the UK, that racism against Roma and Travellers is still publicly acceptable etc. I definitely think it's to a different and more startlingly horrible extent in the US.
I apologise for the Euro centrism of my opening post.
The USA feels to me, like a classical liberalism capitalism flirting with Christian fascism
From my limited perspective, at least
There's so much variation between states that generalizations like this don't quite work.
The US is huge and our federalist system means that each state can have very different policies.
For example, cannabis stores operate publicly in Washington and advertise on billboards. In Alabama, possession of any amount can be punished by up to a year in prison.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
As someone living in the UK who is well aware of the manifest failings of this country, I gotta say you guys really have a rose-tinted view of your country IMO.
idk, I think it's just different. I haven't been overseas since '04 but I was legit blown away by how openly, casually, unconsciously racist people the UK, Ireland, Germany, and France all were. But you look at the healthcare system and it's completely different.
That's funny because when I went to the US I found the level of institutionalised racism to be immediately and disturbingly apparent, to an extent I've never known in my own country.
Clearly we all have blind spots. Making comparisons is not easy, but that doesn't mean it can't be done so don't bother. I firmly know that we have a racism problem here, in the UK, that racism against Roma and Travellers is still publicly acceptable etc. I definitely think it's to a different and more startlingly horrible extent in the US.
The fish doesn't understand the water, right?
We all have work to do.
+3
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
You have authoritarianism versus libertarianism, right?
There's a lot of snark and sarcasm here that I don't think is helpful.
Well step one of finding a useful mindset is to break out of this idea that we're the regressive hellhole and everywhere else is way more enlightened and progressive , particularly when 'everywhere else' seems to have left off the largest democracy on earth and most of the ones south of the equator.
that's not snark, I'm being serious here. You can't think that way and arrive at anything approaching a defensible or informative position.
And the countries in Europe with a strong social democracy tend to elect conservative parties that would like to repeal those policies as soon as there's any hint of a demographic shift.
I don't know if this is actually true, but I think it is the case that the USA is the most demographically heterogeneous democracy by a long stretch. Most EU democracies haven't had to grapple with issues of race to any significant degree and don't exactly come off as shining beacons of liberalism when they do...
Is it? I've looked at various demographic graphs, but the size and layout of the US doesn't make it easy. Looking at the overall stats on wikipedia makes it seem mostly white (~70%), but that's confusing because of how it counts the latino/hispanic groups.
And even then, that probably doesn't mean anything. The South African wiki entry has "Africans" as 68%, which is kinda meaningless, since there is like a dozen+ distinct cultural groups with their own language, culture, and history within that single demo.
New Zealand is similar to the US at ~70% white.
This stuff seems very hard to find. Is there a site with like nice graphs or anything?
The US is still fairly segregated geographically (and especially electorally).
I think if we had an even dispersion of diversity (if that makes sense) across the country our politics would be far different, but that’s not going to happen so...
I think it’s less about overall demographics and more, again, how our country was founded politically and economically on racial hierarchy in service of further entrenching capital’s power in the new country. There’s your intersectionality!
You have authoritarianism versus libertarianism, right?
There's a lot of snark and sarcasm here that I don't think is helpful.
Well step one of finding a useful mindset is to break out of this idea that we're the regressive hellhole and everywhere else is way more enlightened and progressive , particularly when 'everywhere else' seems to have left off the largest democracy on earth and most of the ones south of the equator.
that's not snark, I'm being serious here. You can't think that way and arrive at anything approaching a defensible or informative position.
And the countries in Europe with a strong social democracy tend to elect conservative parties that would like to repeal those policies as soon as there's any hint of a demographic shift.
I don't know if this is actually true, but I think it is the case that the USA is the most demographically heterogeneous democracy by a long stretch. Most EU democracies haven't had to grapple with issues of race to any significant degree and don't exactly come off as shining beacons of liberalism when they do...
Is it? I've looked at various demographic graphs, but the size and layout of the US doesn't make it easy. Looking at the overall stats on wikipedia makes it seem mostly white (~70%), but that's confusing because of how it counts the latino/hispanic groups.
And even then, that probably doesn't mean anything. The South African wiki entry has "Africans" as 68%, which is kinda meaningless, since there is like a dozen+ distinct cultural groups with their own language, culture, and history within that single demo.
New Zealand is similar to the US at ~70% white.
This stuff seems very hard to find. Is there a site with like nice graphs or anything?
I spent some time diving into this... you can find a lot at the US Census bureau but yeah, they don't break out hispanic/latino from white in that count. My recollection is it's about 50ish% white, 17% black, 25ish% hispanic/latino, and the rest other, mostly asian.
Sourcing was a bastard though. I feel like it took me some hours to pull it all togther but it's been a while and I don't remember well.
Something I'd like to mention in the context of this thread was that the Christchurch shooter considered the People's Republic of China a model country for him, because while draping itself in left wing ideology, it remains a de facto Han ethic state, engaged in assimilating or wiping out all other ethnicities and non-traditional Chinese religions.
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Something I'd like to mention in the context of this thread was that the Christchurch shooter considered the People's Republic of China a model country for him, because while draping itself in left wing ideology, it remains a de facto Han ethic state, engaged in assimilating or wiping out all other ethnicities and non-traditional Chinese religions.
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
This where something like the political compass site is useful with it's four way compass type graph
Something I'd like to mention in the context of this thread was that the Christchurch shooter considered the People's Republic of China a model country for him, because while draping itself in left wing ideology, it remains a de facto Han ethic state, engaged in assimilating or wiping out all other ethnicities and non-traditional Chinese religions.
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
This where something like the political compass site is useful with it's four way compass type graph
In practice you need infinite points. The spectrum stuff is mostly useful in the context of figuring out political alliances.
Something I'd like to mention in the context of this thread was that the Christchurch shooter considered the People's Republic of China a model country for him, because while draping itself in left wing ideology, it remains a de facto Han ethic state, engaged in assimilating or wiping out all other ethnicities and non-traditional Chinese religions.
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
This where something like the political compass site is useful with it's four way compass type graph
I'm not sure it is. There are way more than two opposing views on any topic of national concern. It just goes from a simplification of 1-axis to 2-axis, while the true number of axes is unknown to me.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
+14
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
You have authoritarianism versus libertarianism, right?
There's a lot of snark and sarcasm here that I don't think is helpful.
Well step one of finding a useful mindset is to break out of this idea that we're the regressive hellhole and everywhere else is way more enlightened and progressive , particularly when 'everywhere else' seems to have left off the largest democracy on earth and most of the ones south of the equator.
that's not snark, I'm being serious here. You can't think that way and arrive at anything approaching a defensible or informative position.
And the countries in Europe with a strong social democracy tend to elect conservative parties that would like to repeal those policies as soon as there's any hint of a demographic shift.
I don't know if this is actually true, but I think it is the case that the USA is the most demographically heterogeneous democracy by a long stretch. Most EU democracies haven't had to grapple with issues of race to any significant degree and don't exactly come off as shining beacons of liberalism when they do...
Is it? I've looked at various demographic graphs, but the size and layout of the US doesn't make it easy. Looking at the overall stats on wikipedia makes it seem mostly white (~70%), but that's confusing because of how it counts the latino/hispanic groups.
And even then, that probably doesn't mean anything. The South African wiki entry has "Africans" as 68%, which is kinda meaningless, since there is like a dozen+ distinct cultural groups with their own language, culture, and history within that single demo.
New Zealand is similar to the US at ~70% white.
This stuff seems very hard to find. Is there a site with like nice graphs or anything?
So after looking through a lot of sites with a lot of measures the US was in the middle for ethnic fractionalization. Which was based on number of ethnicities. We did rank exceptionally high for religious fractionalization.
Data and methodologies are significantly different and getting any uniformity is difficult.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
Something I'd like to mention in the context of this thread was that the Christchurch shooter considered the People's Republic of China a model country for him, because while draping itself in left wing ideology, it remains a de facto Han ethic state, engaged in assimilating or wiping out all other ethnicities and non-traditional Chinese religions.
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
This where something like the political compass site is useful with it's four way compass type graph
I'm not sure it is. There are way more than two opposing views on any topic of national concern. It just goes from a simplification of 1-axis to 2-axis, while the true number of axes is unknown to me.
You dont divide ideologies by policy, you divide them by world view.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology or right wing by its adoption by a right wing ideology.
Also no two leftist subcultures can actually agree on economic policy. There are massive divisions on the left over economics.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
Well until they decided Bob wasn't pure enough and started shooting each other of that.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
That's exactly why leftism must not solely be reduced to class analysis and must also incorporate racial analysis and more
Totalitarian dictatorships are not the same thing as anarchist communes
Fascists have their own version of Anarcho-Fascism (National Anarchism, etc.). Anarchic communes that are racially pure.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
If we're going that far down the route, should we just go all the way Wilhoitist and suggest there's no such thing as an existing political ideology outside of a strict Conservative/Anti-Conservative dynamic?
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
No, worker communes taking power from a few people in favor of many is what makes it leftist. In your example fascists are using a "leftist" policy in a shallow sense to condense power among a select group, which is decidedly not leftism.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or in your words anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian or anti-conservative economic policy (and vice-versa for the left), so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The Left does have to define itself as egalitarian and cosmopolitan.
There isn't really any such thing as "leftist" economic policy, because a fascist can take any left wing economic proposal that is good, exclude minorities, and turn it into a right wing program on the basis of that exclusion.
*vibrates marxistly*
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology.
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
Do rightist economic policies exist?
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian economic policy, so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
I think Sammich, as well as other leftists, would argue the greater overall racial elitist nature of the society prevents it from being an actual leftist/egalitarian policy.
A system that endorses elitism of class, be it race, wealth, gender, etc. cannot be said to possess egalitarian policies because it's class elitism inherently restricts its egalitarianism
Posts
and that was pretty common in the US until the beginning of the millennium...
"including or containing people from many different countries."
Cosmopolitan isn't a synonym for urban. Urban areas are just more often cosmopolitan than rural ones, but US rural areas are also often cosmopolitan.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
It's actually easier to see racism in other countries because it isn't embedded in your psyche. People in the UK and Europe will say things about Gypsies and Travellers that would make your toes curl and not even once think that it was "racist."
That's funny because when I went to the US I found the level of institutionalised racism to be immediately and disturbingly apparent, to an extent I've never known in my own country.
Clearly we all have blind spots. Making comparisons is not easy, but that doesn't mean it can't be done so don't bother. I firmly know that we have a racism problem here, in the UK, that racism against Roma and Travellers is still publicly acceptable etc. I definitely think it's to a different and more startlingly horrible extent in the US.
There's so much variation between states that generalizations like this don't quite work.
The US is huge and our federalist system means that each state can have very different policies.
For example, cannabis stores operate publicly in Washington and advertise on billboards. In Alabama, possession of any amount can be punished by up to a year in prison.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The fish doesn't understand the water, right?
We all have work to do.
Is it? I've looked at various demographic graphs, but the size and layout of the US doesn't make it easy. Looking at the overall stats on wikipedia makes it seem mostly white (~70%), but that's confusing because of how it counts the latino/hispanic groups.
And even then, that probably doesn't mean anything. The South African wiki entry has "Africans" as 68%, which is kinda meaningless, since there is like a dozen+ distinct cultural groups with their own language, culture, and history within that single demo.
New Zealand is similar to the US at ~70% white.
This stuff seems very hard to find. Is there a site with like nice graphs or anything?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I think if we had an even dispersion of diversity (if that makes sense) across the country our politics would be far different, but that’s not going to happen so...
I think it’s less about overall demographics and more, again, how our country was founded politically and economically on racial hierarchy in service of further entrenching capital’s power in the new country. There’s your intersectionality!
I spent some time diving into this... you can find a lot at the US Census bureau but yeah, they don't break out hispanic/latino from white in that count. My recollection is it's about 50ish% white, 17% black, 25ish% hispanic/latino, and the rest other, mostly asian.
Sourcing was a bastard though. I feel like it took me some hours to pull it all togther but it's been a while and I don't remember well.
Is the left anyone more liberal than the current GOP front man?
I am thinking of the left right axis in the frame work of things like the political compass quizzes
https://www.politicalcompass.org/
The PRC is a contemporary Fascist state masquerading as a Communist one. Its the more extreme version of a Social Democratic European state engaging in ethnic primacy.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This where something like the political compass site is useful with it's four way compass type graph
In practice you need infinite points. The spectrum stuff is mostly useful in the context of figuring out political alliances.
I'm not sure it is. There are way more than two opposing views on any topic of national concern. It just goes from a simplification of 1-axis to 2-axis, while the true number of axes is unknown to me.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
*vibrates marxistly*
Data and methodologies are significantly different and getting any uniformity is difficult.
There is nothing that a facist can't ruin, sorry. "The means of production are owned by the people*
*People defined as anyone we think is the preferred race"
You dont divide ideologies by policy, you divide them by world view.
That fascism exists as an outside mixture of a variety of political ideologies doesnt mean those ideologies cease to exist.
"No such thing as leftist economic policy" is just bonkers.
Economic policy exists independent of ideology, and an ideological platform can adopt an economic policy, but that economic policy doesn't become left wing by its adoption by a left wing ideology or right wing by its adoption by a right wing ideology.
Also no two leftist subcultures can actually agree on economic policy. There are massive divisions on the left over economics.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If I ban private property and turn every company into a worker owner enterprise it sure as shit is left wing economic policy.
A Fascist can do that too. It would probably work better under a Fascist since there would be no racial tension in the worker owned enterprises. Just pure blooded Germans (or whatever) working together for the Fatherland.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Well until they decided Bob wasn't pure enough and started shooting each other of that.
That's exactly why leftism must not solely be reduced to class analysis and must also incorporate racial analysis and more
Fascists have their own version of Anarcho-Fascism (National Anarchism, etc.). Anarchic communes that are racially pure.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
If we're going that far down the route, should we just go all the way Wilhoitist and suggest there's no such thing as an existing political ideology outside of a strict Conservative/Anti-Conservative dynamic?
A fascist can do infrastructure, that doesnt mean every infrastructure program is fascism.
That is what I'm saying. A Leftist doing worker's communes doesn't make worker's communes leftist.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Do rightist economic policies exist?
No, worker communes taking power from a few people in favor of many is what makes it leftist. In your example fascists are using a "leftist" policy in a shallow sense to condense power among a select group, which is decidedly not leftism.
Like you said, economic policies probably come down to egalitarian vs elitist, or in your words anti-conservative vs conservative.
I'm basically positing that right-wing ideology can incorporate egalitarian or anti-conservative economic policy (and vice-versa for the left), so that isn't the real divide between right and left.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
this is what right vs left is
I just provided a counterexample of a right-wing society that was worker egalitarian.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Nothing says egalitarian worker society like concentration camps working slaves to death. The notion of worker egalitarianism under fascism is literally anti-communist fascist propaganda.
Bureaucratic State Communism would be a counter-example of left-wing elitism, with the party leaders and state workers being the elites.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I think Sammich, as well as other leftists, would argue the greater overall racial elitist nature of the society prevents it from being an actual leftist/egalitarian policy.
A system that endorses elitism of class, be it race, wealth, gender, etc. cannot be said to possess egalitarian policies because it's class elitism inherently restricts its egalitarianism