The left NEVER want to admit they are wrong, it's why we 'never have had TRUE communism'
The right are at least more inclined to self reflection even if it means instead of carpet bombing they try to win hearts and minds with strategic bombing but it's still an improvement. Apply this to historically and they'll claim every evil was right and every good guy was left which ignores all nuance of it being a different time period that every socialist back then would execute the modern left for degeneracy.
It may be a simpler explanation but it's not useful. It does not help to IFF people, which is the whole point of the categorization in the first place.
Conservativism and progressivism are on a right-left axis, while authoritarianism and anarchism are on an up-down axis.
Trying to put Auth/Anarch (method) on the same axis as Cons/Progs (ideology) isn't a useful activity.
And individualism VS collectivism is yet a THIRD axis.
You can be a collectivist conservative anarchist. You can be a individualist progressive authoritarian. And every combination in-between. The overlap of a collectivist prog anarchist and an individualist prog anarchist is going to be quite high, but they will still have very noted points of disagreement, as would any extreme edge of one of the axes even if it aligned with the other two.
Ideology and methods are inextricably linked, not separate. Ideology defines methods. The reddit political compass is meme-grade bullshit, much like horseshoe theory.
The only reason Horseshoe Theory is bullshit, is it assumes all political philosophy exists on a single axis, when the "Curl together" part of the horseshoe is almost always collectivist influences upon the Left-Right line (and the remaining time is authoritarian influences).
Which supports a 3 (minimum) axis political compass. If you think the compass is fundamentally impossible, "meme-tier bullshit", then you're likely trying to define the axes of the compass as something stupid like "good vs evil", and not proper labels. "Change for the sake of change vs Stability for the sake of stability", "More government power vs Less government power", "people as individuals vs people as classes".
Thinking right-wing = 0 government is a foolish way of looking at left/right because I'll tell you right now, the average left anarchist wants a completely different looking society than your average right libertarian. Just like how there's a significant difference between National Socialism and Modern Communism.
What really throws off the high vs. low government people is that you can have an absolute power government with very limited impact on the economy whereas you can have a "democracy" with lots of "mAh fReEdOms" that has significant economic impact on the economy. Just because a government has absolute power doesn't mean it enforces it absolutely. And just because a government's power is minimized by constitutions doesn't mean the government isn't corrupt and will still maximize its use of power regardless.
The USA today is more "left-wing" under the government power metric than the British Monarchy was before the revolution. Today, the argument is well I can at least criticize the president without being executed. Sure, I guess... but you can't even go fishing without a license or you get fined. I don't know about you but I'd rather be able to go fishing without a license than care about calling Biden an invalid. The way in which the government today uses its power is worse than the way the government used its power historically.
Right wing is a preference towards less government power. The extreme end of that is anarchism.
The current US government is very left wing. It is not as leftist as a monarchy. It is also very possible for democracy to be left aligned. None of these things are contradictory. That is why the simple scale works, where the reddit political "compass" does not. It correctly measures ideologies, instead of applying relative cultural shit.
For example, there is no "left libertarian". That is bullshit. Those goons don't hold to any actual principles of reduced government in any reasonable scale, they just want their drugs and legalized faggotry. They have no libertarian ideology, they are not "left libertarian", they're just degenerates. There is also no "auth right". There is functionally very little difference in behavior between natsoc fags and commie fags. The primary difference is not their methods, practices or core ideological structures, only their targets.
See, this is where you fail with your left/right distinction. A monarchy can in fact be extremely right-wing as per your scale.
To give you an example. Pretend I am an absolute monarchy and I say the only rules in society are simply, don't be an asshat. The end. No other rules. Occasionally, I utilize my power to have an asshat killed for being an asshat but that's it. You want to tell me that the USA with all its rules and government involvement in people's lives is more right-wing than me because it's a "dEmOcRaCy"? LMFAO.
I'm with you on suggesting that a government that uses its power to force changes in society is more authoritarian than a government that doesn't use its power to force changes but whether the government has power or not isn't a factor on "authoritarian". I would rather be ruled by a benevolent dictator with absolute power who used that power fairly rather than a corrupt fake-democracy like we have today in which the power is used to an extreme degree in a negative manner. If that makes me "left-wing" by your metric then great. That means I'm left-wing.
But your metric sucks because I want a society that would look NOTHING like what a communist left-winger wants. I am a National Capitalist who belies in class-based societies with an Imperium-style military dictatorship ruling the society; however, you would find under my leadership you would have more freedom than what you have today in the USA as long as you aren't an asshat.
my absolute power would be better than their absolute power, only the people I don't like would be put against the wall and killed
You want different things enforced by absolute rule but ultimately you want the same structure as other leftists, just with "your guy" in charge.
You really don't understand how politics works or the point of classification, or why the right left distinction exists. Or why right wing beliefs exist, at that. The only benevolent dictatorship that stays benevolent is one under a literal god. Leftists all share this slavering lust for the world to conform to their fantasy - right wing ideology recognizes and deals with human reality.
Actual right wing beliefs involve recognizing the nature of power and how it is inevitably corrupted. Knowing that the best way to preserve liberty is to deny the concentration of power entirely, to limit the government to only what is essential to preserve this. Your ideology is only superficially different from any other leftist.
And again, purist democracy is shit and I'm not defending it. It is not inherently right wing. Democracy is not an ideology, it is a singular element, like nationalism. You can have very right or left wing governments both be democracies, and the US is not supposed to be a democracy. Universal suffrage is a large part of the corruption
of the US. You goons always want to argue against things I haven't said.
The corruption is from the jews who have all the money and influence. Restricted suffrage wouldn't change the outcome.
And yes, I do want absolute power in the way I want which would be better than the way others want. I would never be corrupted because it's me and I'll always do what's best for me.
Trust me, I wouldn't be corrupted. Just give me all the power. Thanks. You're already ruled by a bunch of corrupt fucks so you've got nothing to lose letting me rule you instead.
I can't take trolling of this level seriously. If this post is actually serious you are the exact kind of fool that powered every bolshevik massacre of the 20th century.
Good post, I think it’s important to try and nail down what we’re really talking about, otherwise our words can quickly becoming the meaningless Babel of the mainstream (too bad it seems like some people found it antagonistic? I guess? but don’t want to explain their beliefs - I wish discussion/text posts got an algorithmic bump, if a forum culture can’t sustain it over the junkfood of ragebait and memes).
Definitional slip is an insidious means of mass-control. Think about the slip on the definition of “vaccine” a few years ago to now include “experimental gene therapy”. If you can change the words people are using, you can change their minds, quite literally.
Tangentially from this subject, dom just wrote an interesting response to me in a dead thread, so I thought I might paste here for more eyes and discussion:
[i ask how much he differentiates between these terms which have been conflated, especially recently]
Absolutely, those are all different ideas.
National Socialism, in it's specific form is something that almost no one believes in anymore because it is a combination of Socialist Corporatist Autarkey economics, combined with the Volkish and Aryan pseudo-science/religious ideologies. It basically only exists among the mid-century Germans and wouldn't exist anywhere else, even in the US. Even within the NSDAP, some people would be pretty wishy-washy on Aryanism.
National Socialism in it's expanded form is the idea of a kind of Race Communism. It takes the Dialectical Materialism and revolutionary overtones of Marxism, and applies it to a very specific 'race' of people (some diaspora), regardless of the state boundaries, and makes that 'race' the protected proletariat class in the dialectic. The "Volksgemeinschaft". The reason I'm calling this "expanded" is because it is a good way of describing a non-Aryanist version of National Socialism. This allows us to actually include the whole of the NSDAP, as well as many National Socialist organizations out side of Germany.
White Nationalism as an ideology does not require National Socialism. The same way Scottish, Irish, or even Rhodesian Nationalism doesn't. However, Most White Nationalists are just carbon copying National Socialism anyway. They tend to use the same playbook that the National Socialists used to unify German ethnic/sub-ethnic groups under a "Volksgemeinschaft", the White Nationalists are attempting to do the same thing with white ethnicities. White Nationalism could reject Socialism and Leftist dialectics, and also not try for a kind of Pan-Europeanism unification. So for example, you could get someone saying "The Free State of Orange is a White country, and is made up of the White peoples of Africa, including English, Scotts, Americans, French, Dutch, Portuguese and Afrikaners; regardless of ethnic differences. As such, we will form a federated republic, which explicitly recognizes the white populations in the political structure of our constitution". This could easily be the statement of a non-Socialist, White Nationalist, but most Americans never really think this way. Instead, they revert back to the Leftist rhetoric of NatSocs.
White Supremacy is another ideology that can be taken two ways. It can be understood as a kind of White Nationalism that specifically mandates and enshrines the perpetual political, social, and economic power of whites in all cases whatsoever. Where White Nationalism enshrines and institutionalizes white populations within the framework of the state, White Supremacy mandates the dominance of those populations. White Nationalism could take a protectionist stance towards white populations, but White Supremacy would attack other populations.
Adolf Hitler really would have fallen under the expanded definition of National Socialism, because he really wasn't too hardcore into Aryanism. I'm not clear on how much of that he believed. He was clearly an avowed Socialist, but not clearly an self-avowed Aryanist. There was a Nazi religion that delved way more into Aryanism, but I don't think Hitler ever got very involved in that.
And just to be clear, Fascism is entirely outside of all of these.
Cato, we're already being brigaded. Please avoid making full on posts about how a user is wrong to start an argument. You can have the argument without mentioning him, and just going through your position.
Cato IS a brigader. He's a conpro poster, he probably doesn't even know what incident really created this board, let alone having been around for it a decade ago. Anyone with that board being a significant part of their post history isn't here for legitimate discourse.
Don't have a clue who "hellsbells00" is but in general it's impossible to win arguments with guys like that online because they can ignore any corrections you try to use on them. Better to just tell them to fuck off over and over once you've identified they're that kind of person.
Contradiction. "Ancom" is as much of a thing as "antifa" is actually anti-fascist. They are pro-fascist, much like yourself.
Nice callout, tourist faggot. Quite funny to see that you didn't have the balls to actually tag me in it. Go back to your fed-run forum sliding board where you belong.
Bill ayers and the weather underground were not anarchists. They were terrorists in favor of their own in charge of government, not an absence of all government. Pol pot was not an anarchist. Simply claiming a title does not make you that thing.
I haven't reversed anything by correctly identifying you wannabe nazi faggots as leftists. You are. I haven't claimed leftists are right wing. Communism and your crypto-lefty variant of socialism are both leftism. The only people that pretend wehraboo shit is right wing are people trying to subvert or destroy the right.
Like all conpro faggots, and all leftists in general, you are allergic to logic. You are here for subversion, not understanding.
Every government is collectivist. I think you have to establish this on a scale, with degree.
The most violent-criminal governments, to me, share the aspect of extreme inequality in power between groups. That can be the proletariat vs the kulaks, and it is often one race vs another. The power of Stalin relative to an average worker was greater than that of the US President to the same kind. In Conquistador-era Spain you had people judged by their level of Spanish blood with Indians being fit for slavery.
I have a simpler explanation:
The left NEVER want to admit they are wrong, it's why we 'never have had TRUE communism'
The right are at least more inclined to self reflection even if it means instead of carpet bombing they try to win hearts and minds with strategic bombing but it's still an improvement. Apply this to historically and they'll claim every evil was right and every good guy was left which ignores all nuance of it being a different time period that every socialist back then would execute the modern left for degeneracy.
It may be a simpler explanation but it's not useful. It does not help to IFF people, which is the whole point of the categorization in the first place.
I suppose it is easier to try True Anarchy.
Conservativism and progressivism are on a right-left axis, while authoritarianism and anarchism are on an up-down axis.
Trying to put Auth/Anarch (method) on the same axis as Cons/Progs (ideology) isn't a useful activity.
And individualism VS collectivism is yet a THIRD axis.
You can be a collectivist conservative anarchist. You can be a individualist progressive authoritarian. And every combination in-between. The overlap of a collectivist prog anarchist and an individualist prog anarchist is going to be quite high, but they will still have very noted points of disagreement, as would any extreme edge of one of the axes even if it aligned with the other two.
Ideology and methods are inextricably linked, not separate. Ideology defines methods. The reddit political compass is meme-grade bullshit, much like horseshoe theory.
The only reason Horseshoe Theory is bullshit, is it assumes all political philosophy exists on a single axis, when the "Curl together" part of the horseshoe is almost always collectivist influences upon the Left-Right line (and the remaining time is authoritarian influences).
Which supports a 3 (minimum) axis political compass. If you think the compass is fundamentally impossible, "meme-tier bullshit", then you're likely trying to define the axes of the compass as something stupid like "good vs evil", and not proper labels. "Change for the sake of change vs Stability for the sake of stability", "More government power vs Less government power", "people as individuals vs people as classes".
Thinking right-wing = 0 government is a foolish way of looking at left/right because I'll tell you right now, the average left anarchist wants a completely different looking society than your average right libertarian. Just like how there's a significant difference between National Socialism and Modern Communism.
What really throws off the high vs. low government people is that you can have an absolute power government with very limited impact on the economy whereas you can have a "democracy" with lots of "mAh fReEdOms" that has significant economic impact on the economy. Just because a government has absolute power doesn't mean it enforces it absolutely. And just because a government's power is minimized by constitutions doesn't mean the government isn't corrupt and will still maximize its use of power regardless.
The USA today is more "left-wing" under the government power metric than the British Monarchy was before the revolution. Today, the argument is well I can at least criticize the president without being executed. Sure, I guess... but you can't even go fishing without a license or you get fined. I don't know about you but I'd rather be able to go fishing without a license than care about calling Biden an invalid. The way in which the government today uses its power is worse than the way the government used its power historically.
Right wing is a preference towards less government power. The extreme end of that is anarchism.
The current US government is very left wing. It is not as leftist as a monarchy. It is also very possible for democracy to be left aligned. None of these things are contradictory. That is why the simple scale works, where the reddit political "compass" does not. It correctly measures ideologies, instead of applying relative cultural shit.
For example, there is no "left libertarian". That is bullshit. Those goons don't hold to any actual principles of reduced government in any reasonable scale, they just want their drugs and legalized faggotry. They have no libertarian ideology, they are not "left libertarian", they're just degenerates. There is also no "auth right". There is functionally very little difference in behavior between natsoc fags and commie fags. The primary difference is not their methods, practices or core ideological structures, only their targets.
See, this is where you fail with your left/right distinction. A monarchy can in fact be extremely right-wing as per your scale.
To give you an example. Pretend I am an absolute monarchy and I say the only rules in society are simply, don't be an asshat. The end. No other rules. Occasionally, I utilize my power to have an asshat killed for being an asshat but that's it. You want to tell me that the USA with all its rules and government involvement in people's lives is more right-wing than me because it's a "dEmOcRaCy"? LMFAO.
I'm with you on suggesting that a government that uses its power to force changes in society is more authoritarian than a government that doesn't use its power to force changes but whether the government has power or not isn't a factor on "authoritarian". I would rather be ruled by a benevolent dictator with absolute power who used that power fairly rather than a corrupt fake-democracy like we have today in which the power is used to an extreme degree in a negative manner. If that makes me "left-wing" by your metric then great. That means I'm left-wing.
But your metric sucks because I want a society that would look NOTHING like what a communist left-winger wants. I am a National Capitalist who belies in class-based societies with an Imperium-style military dictatorship ruling the society; however, you would find under my leadership you would have more freedom than what you have today in the USA as long as you aren't an asshat.
You want different things enforced by absolute rule but ultimately you want the same structure as other leftists, just with "your guy" in charge.
You really don't understand how politics works or the point of classification, or why the right left distinction exists. Or why right wing beliefs exist, at that. The only benevolent dictatorship that stays benevolent is one under a literal god. Leftists all share this slavering lust for the world to conform to their fantasy - right wing ideology recognizes and deals with human reality.
Actual right wing beliefs involve recognizing the nature of power and how it is inevitably corrupted. Knowing that the best way to preserve liberty is to deny the concentration of power entirely, to limit the government to only what is essential to preserve this. Your ideology is only superficially different from any other leftist.
And again, purist democracy is shit and I'm not defending it. It is not inherently right wing. Democracy is not an ideology, it is a singular element, like nationalism. You can have very right or left wing governments both be democracies, and the US is not supposed to be a democracy. Universal suffrage is a large part of the corruption of the US. You goons always want to argue against things I haven't said.
The corruption is from the jews who have all the money and influence. Restricted suffrage wouldn't change the outcome.
And yes, I do want absolute power in the way I want which would be better than the way others want. I would never be corrupted because it's me and I'll always do what's best for me.
The lack of awareness here is astonishing.
Trust me, I wouldn't be corrupted. Just give me all the power. Thanks. You're already ruled by a bunch of corrupt fucks so you've got nothing to lose letting me rule you instead.
Well I think you're in a different country than I am, but then again we don't seem to mind being ruled by foreign powers.
I can't take trolling of this level seriously. If this post is actually serious you are the exact kind of fool that powered every bolshevik massacre of the 20th century.
Go change your fire alarm batteries.
Bolsheviks were jews. I am against jews. I would not have powered the Bolshevik movement because it's jewish.
You are exactly like them.
Good post, I think it’s important to try and nail down what we’re really talking about, otherwise our words can quickly becoming the meaningless Babel of the mainstream (too bad it seems like some people found it antagonistic? I guess? but don’t want to explain their beliefs - I wish discussion/text posts got an algorithmic bump, if a forum culture can’t sustain it over the junkfood of ragebait and memes).
Definitional slip is an insidious means of mass-control. Think about the slip on the definition of “vaccine” a few years ago to now include “experimental gene therapy”. If you can change the words people are using, you can change their minds, quite literally.
Tangentially from this subject, dom just wrote an interesting response to me in a dead thread, so I thought I might paste here for more eyes and discussion:
[i ask how much he differentiates between these terms which have been conflated, especially recently]
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 3 - Harass, bully, defame, threaten users
Cato, we're already being brigaded. Please avoid making full on posts about how a user is wrong to start an argument. You can have the argument without mentioning him, and just going through your position.
Cato IS a brigader. He's a conpro poster, he probably doesn't even know what incident really created this board, let alone having been around for it a decade ago. Anyone with that board being a significant part of their post history isn't here for legitimate discourse.
Don't have a clue who "hellsbells00" is but in general it's impossible to win arguments with guys like that online because they can ignore any corrections you try to use on them. Better to just tell them to fuck off over and over once you've identified they're that kind of person.
Contradiction. "Ancom" is as much of a thing as "antifa" is actually anti-fascist. They are pro-fascist, much like yourself.
Nice callout, tourist faggot. Quite funny to see that you didn't have the balls to actually tag me in it. Go back to your fed-run forum sliding board where you belong.
Bill ayers and the weather underground were not anarchists. They were terrorists in favor of their own in charge of government, not an absence of all government. Pol pot was not an anarchist. Simply claiming a title does not make you that thing.
I haven't reversed anything by correctly identifying you wannabe nazi faggots as leftists. You are. I haven't claimed leftists are right wing. Communism and your crypto-lefty variant of socialism are both leftism. The only people that pretend wehraboo shit is right wing are people trying to subvert or destroy the right.
Like all conpro faggots, and all leftists in general, you are allergic to logic. You are here for subversion, not understanding.
Exactly. It is a tool like any other. A means to enforce your will upon the world.
Every government is collectivist. I think you have to establish this on a scale, with degree.
The most violent-criminal governments, to me, share the aspect of extreme inequality in power between groups. That can be the proletariat vs the kulaks, and it is often one race vs another. The power of Stalin relative to an average worker was greater than that of the US President to the same kind. In Conquistador-era Spain you had people judged by their level of Spanish blood with Indians being fit for slavery.