Communism more right wing than Capitalism?

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Communism would always end up more Authoritarian by default, because an Authoritarian government is needed to stomp out Capitalism.

So, if Authoritarianism is Right-Wing, then Communism is still more Right-Wing in it's true definition.

The fact of the matter is Capitalism seems to foster Liberal values, rather than Conservative values.

It just happens to be a system of profit margins, and cheap labor needs will sell things like Porn, Hollywood degenerate films, hire illegals because it's cheaper, outsource to China in anti-Nationalist measures to maximize profits, Rap music that's more degenerate sells more, and then there's Abortion Capitalists out of the Hospitals profiting off of Abortion.

Communism ends up Authoritarian because it can't meet consumer demands or motivate employees.

Capitalism works, therefore people seek to redistribute some of that wealth.

You couldn't outsource to China until it became a capitalist developing nation. Most of the rest of your statements make little sense.

Capitalism works for "Liberals" indeed.

The ultimate goals of Capitalism is the freedom to profit, which profits sell out to Liberalism.

Everything degenerate, and Liberal is on the table, selling Heroin, Crack, Cocaine, and Exctasy for profit, selling Porn for profit, selling Abortion for profit, selling degenerate Rap music for profit, selling Hollywood shoot 'em up, and raunchy films, Media promoting Liberalism, outsourcing jobs overseas as anti-Nationalist measures, importing illegal immigrants to maximize profits for the Capitalism.

Only Authoritarianism can combat this.

That's actually the Right-Wing, and Conservative values.

Nazis were the true Right-Wing.

Capitalist Liberals calling themselves Republican aren't.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Communism would always end up more Authoritarian by default, because an Authoritarian government is needed to stomp out Capitalism.

So, if Authoritarianism is Right-Wing, then Communism is still more Right-Wing in it's true definition.

The fact of the matter is Capitalism seems to foster Liberal values, rather than Conservative values.

It just happens to be a system of profit margins, and cheap labor needs will sell things like Porn, Hollywood degenerate films, hire illegals because it's cheaper, outsource to China in anti-Nationalist measures to maximize profits, Rap music that's more degenerate sells more, and then there's Abortion Capitalists out of the Hospitals profiting off of Abortion.

You couldn't outsource to China until it became a capitalist developing nation. Most of the rest of your statements make little sense.

People who I've spoken to who've visited, or come from Communist countries often admit in many ways it was in fact more Socially Conservative, and Nationalistic in Communist countries than here, not by a little, but by a lot.

Americans really have screwed up politics.

They think one of the main problems of Liberalism which is (Capitalism) is the best thing ever.

Not at all, unless you love socially Liberal values which Capitalism sells out to, and thus morphs society into Liberal values.

 

[dudmuck]

The basic tenet of conservative thought is little to no government interference in an individual's life. As long as you ignore that you're fine. Which you did at your own peril to a valid argument.

That the tenet of libertarian thought.
Conservative thought is about tradition and judeo-christian values, free markets and the individual. Its not limited government, because conservatives seek to subvert the separation of church & state to enforce their judeo-christian values, which ironically is in direct conflict with free market values. Perhaps this is why conservatives are angry all the time.

But the more important point:
The defining characteristic of left-wing vs right-wing is how you feel about social hierarchy vs a more equal society. The more you think social hierarchy is natural/desirable, the further you're on the right. The more you think social equality need attention, the further you are on the left. This is why racism is always associated with the right, since racism wants social hierarchy by definition.

 

[Pogo]

The defining characteristic of left-wing vs right-wing is how you feel about social hierarchy vs a more equal society. The more you think social hierarchy is natural/desirable, the further you're on the right. The more you think social equality need attention, the further you are on the left. This is why racism is always associated with the right, since racism wants social hierarchy by definition.

Thank you, well said.

This is what I try to get through to people when I note that "being on the right in no way means you're a racist, but being racist does mean you're on the right". For racism to exist requires a belief that striations of a ruler class over a ruled class are valid. Without that belief it's simply not possible to believe there exists an inferior race. Or, for that matter, an inferior religion or creed or national origin etc.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The defining characteristic of left-wing vs right-wing is how you feel about social hierarchy vs a more equal society. The more you think social hierarchy is natural/desirable, the further you're on the right. The more you think social equality need attention, the further you are on the left. This is why racism is always associated with the right, since racism wants social hierarchy by definition.

Thank you, well said.

This is what I try to get through to people when I note that "being on the right in no way means you're a racist, but being racist does mean you're on the right". For racism to exist requires a belief that striations of a ruler class over a ruled class are valid. Without that belief it's simply not possible to believe there exists an inferior race. Or, for that matter, an inferior religion or creed or national origin etc.

Racism is Right-Wing because it's Hierarchy, indeed.

However, one can use Authoritarianism to keep the ethnics separate like Stalin did, or they can use do-nothing Libertarianism to achieve nothing, like Republicans who are Racists have achieved nothing on Racism.

I'm so sorry, but Stalin, Che Guevara, and many other Communists were actually more Right-Wing than modern Republicans.

Republicans are actually very Liberal, considering everywhere outside of the West, or everywhere in the past was less Liberal including the West.

The fact is Republicans only look Conservative in comparison to Democrats, and many Republican elites are by classical definitions actual huge Liberals like Reagan, Reagan cutting taxes was Liberalism, Reagan's amnesty was Liberalism.

 

[Pogo]

The defining characteristic of left-wing vs right-wing is how you feel about social hierarchy vs a more equal society. The more you think social hierarchy is natural/desirable, the further you're on the right. The more you think social equality need attention, the further you are on the left. This is why racism is always associated with the right, since racism wants social hierarchy by definition.

Thank you, well said.

This is what I try to get through to people when I note that "being on the right in no way means you're a racist, but being racist does mean you're on the right". For racism to exist requires a belief that striations of a ruler class over a ruled class are valid. Without that belief it's simply not possible to believe there exists an inferior race. Or, for that matter, an inferior religion or creed or national origin etc.

Racism is Right-Wing because it's Hierarchy, indeed.

However, one can use Authoritarianism to keep the ethnics separate like Stalin did, or they can use do-nothing Libertarianism to achieve nothing, like Republicans who are Racists have achieved nothing on Racism.

I'm so sorry, but Stalin, Che Guevara, and many other Communists were actually more Right-Wing than modern Republicans.

Republicans are actually very Liberal, considering everywhere outside of the West, or everywhere in the past was less Liberal including the West.

The fact is Republicans only look Conservative in comparison to Democrats, and many Republican elites are by classical definitions actual huge Liberals like Reagan, Reagan cutting taxes was Liberalism, Reagan's amnesty was Liberalism.

Hell, Republicans began as the Liberals of the day by virtue of their stance on Abolition. At times Republicans have also operated from the left-liberal, e.g. Affirmative Action, whether we count that from Nixon's Philadelphia Plan or from the "forty acres and a mule" concept from Reconstruction. Plenty of examples of Democrats operating from the right could be noted as well.

It's vital to distinguish between political parties and political philosophies to understand how the dynamics work. The former never changes; the latter frequently does. The only true goal of a political party is to perpetuate itself. "Republican" and "Democrat" are in effect brand names, like Toyota. Toyota could make an outstanding car one year but it could also make a lemon in another.

 

[Pogo]

The basic tenet of conservative thought is little to no government interference in an individual's life. As long as you ignore that you're fine. Which you did at your own peril to a valid argument.

What you just described is Liberalism, not "conservatism".

Conservatism means to adhere to the old order, the established.

Liberalism rose up to oppose the old order of what was then a heavily striated meritocracy based on a ruling class (Aristocracy/Clergy) over a peasant class ('the ruled'). It proposed that no such meritocracy had a right to exist, that 'kings' and 'emperors' were invalid concepts and that the masses could govern themselves by mutual consent, and to do so would require a laissez-faire hands-off government that would, as you put it, extend little to no interference to an individual's life. The "conservatives" of the same time wished to maintain those striations of authoritarian classes, i.e. the King.

You realize that Liberals of today have highjacked the term?

Nope. This Liberal is defending it. I do realize a lot of hacks who are anything but Liberal have hijacked it to try to morph it into its own opposite. That started with the "Red Scare" daze, so we can consider the source.

I see you accept the term as used today, yet support its morphed state.

I accept the term when it's used properly and I call it out when it isn't. Simple as that.