#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Why do the most moderate leftists think that hard core leftists aren't real leftists?
| Add New Argument |
|
1
point
1
point
I will try to illustrate the true political spectrum in text. Think of each line as being a number line with 5 points from left to right and the ideologies on the bottom or second-to-bottom line being more authoritarian whereas the ones that are higher are libertarian further left/right means further left/right, further up/down means more libertarian/authoritarian blank spots where no ideology fits are shown as 6 dashes /RBE/ ////// ////// ////// /Absolute Anarchy/ /Dem-Soc/ / libertarian Soc-Dem/ /Libertarian-republican/ /Ancap/ ////// ////// /Soc-Dem/ /Liberal/ /Conservative/ ////// ////// /Authoritarian Soc-Dem/ /Anarcho-Primitivist/ /Feudalism/ /Fascism/ /The Borg/ ////// ////// /Absolute Monarchy/ /Technocracy/ 1
point
1
point
1
point
I think of it as a circle. The bottom of the circle is divided in half to be liberal and conservative. If you exit that part of the circle in either direction, you wind up at the same exact place at the top of the circle. Tyranny. Totalitarianism. Groupthink. Hive mind. Justified violence per ideology. Shoutdowns of opposition. Censorship of opponents. Genocide. Death. Fuck the line. There is no straight line. There's sane left, sane right. Groupthink. 1
point
1
point
Hey, you got one. Probably why in reality, Hitler used a term to describe Nazism. "Syncretic". Many of his follows moved left on the circle. Many of his followers moved right on the circle. It turned out they were the same exact type of people. Groupthinkers in need of the state to control and guide them. It explains why David Duke and Jason Kessler can jump parties at a moment's notice. The hive has no wing. It's just a fucking hive. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Do you seriously not understand that studying Marx and incorporating some principles to completely different ends does not make you a Marxist? Are you seriously unaware that Mussolini changed from being a socialist to a fascist because he saw fascism as more realistic than socialism? Are you seriously not aware that Giovanni whats-his-face is philosophically opposed to Marx on almost every level? 1
point
1
point
Obviously it doesn't make you a conservative. It doesn't make you a Marxist either. it makes you someone who is hijacking rhetoric for the sake of populism and taking all the worst parts of Marx that make communism look like nothing but totalitarianism for the sake of totalitarianism and implementing them without any of the socialism Marx intended. 1
point
Obviously it doesn't make you a conservative. It doesn't make you a Marxist either. it makes you someone who is hijacking rhetoric for the sake of populism and taking all the worst parts of Marx that make communism look like nothing but totalitarianism for the sake of totalitarianism and implementing them without any of the socialism Marx intended The interesting thing about Marxists is they always claim these leaders aren't really Marxists, then go vote for them. According to the Marxists, no one is a Marxist, which makes me skeptical of any leader claiming to be a Marxist.... 1
point
1
point
Are you seriously unaware that Mussolini changed from being a socialist to a fascist because he saw fascism as more realistic than socialism? Yes. I'm aware that actual dictatorial Socialists will and do shift shapes as needed to control the masses. Notice, he didn't start out as a Conservative. He started out as a Marxist. A conservative isn't comfortable with omnipotent government control by definition. 1
point
People can change a lot more than you might think. I am a perfect example. When I was a kid, first starting to understand the most basic concepts in politics, I admired and looked up to people like Thomas Jefferson and was essentially a classical liberal. But as I started to become a teenager and go insane, I was actually a genuine Neo-Nazi (this is at the time I was a satanist sacrificing baby goats, that was me not Nom). Later I become a Muslim Theocrat and after that I had a period of confusion where I had no actual ideology and after I finally stabilized a little bit mentally I started identifying with the Resource Based Economy. At that point I was still insane as I explained in the "re-examining" debate and I am just now starting to stabilize fully as a Soc-Dem. 1
point
1
point
1
point
I literally went from a centrist to an extreme right winger to an extreme left winger who was secretly an extreme right winger to a genuine soc-dem I'm going to cover you in feathers and female chicken piss and call the fighting roosters with spurs out for mating season. I expect a harvest of eggs out of your ass. 1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
So Thanos type insane. So why didn't you start with yourself? Do tell. Because the reason I wanted to kill so many people was to eliminate those who aren't capable of being scientific and rational. I thought I was going to be a high ranking social engineer in the NWO which I believed was going to come in the form of a technocratic one world government which would eventually evolve into a stateless RBE once reason became the status quo and centralized authority was no longer needed. 5
points
Because the reason I wanted to kill so many people was to eliminate those who aren't capable of being scientific and rational The "NWO" might just see you as the one fitting the category of one who must be killed. That's why these idealist positions are nonsense. Those running these types of ideas will most likely think you are one of many who should die. Figuring out who should live, in and of itself, would become political. 1
point
1
point
1
point
Then why did Hitler kill off all his allies who were genuine socialists as Nom has pointed out multiple times? He killed and attacked anyone in his way. Many of hist worst enemies were right wing, from Winston Churchill to Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton. Your wing didn't mean shit to Hitler. 1
point
1
point
He is a far right winger attacking more moderate right wingers He's a lunatic who had so little in common with Conservatives that he persecuted the church while being high on drugs. Something that today describes Obama more than Trump regardless of your wing claims. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ https://www.amazon.com/ 1
point
1
point
There are all kinds of fringe idiots. We don't describe groups by the fringe but by the typical. For example, the leader of the Westboro Baptists was an anti homosexual Democrat. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ That position in no way describes the Democrat Party as a whole. 1
point
The right wing isn't inherently christian It is overwhelminly Christian and/or Christian tolerant. or anti-drugs It is overwhelmingly anti cocaine, the drug choice of Adolf and Barack. Most Conservative states are still yet to legalize marijuana, much less approve of harder drugs. 1
point
You are confusing right wing in general with your particular brand of conservative. What about the Islamic theocracy version of conservative that exists in the middle east? What about the right wing alien that doesn't even know what cocaine is and snorts extraterrestrial drugs? 1
point
You are confusing right wing in general with your particular brand of conservative Not really because I don't believe in "wings". I simply use the terms to taunt Nom. You are either Conservative or something else all together. You are either Liberal or something else all together. If you are an ANTIFA member or an actual white supremacist, you are neither Conservative or Liberal. You're just a jackass claiming wings to justify violence and get sympathy for your behavior by inserting politics. 1
point
You are either Conservative or something else all together. You are either Liberal or something else all together. Conservative does not refer to any particular ideology in general, if the status quo is to be liberal in your country then liberals ARE conservatives. The term conservative has even been used to describe Marxists in socialist countries. In America, democrats are typically center-left neo-liberals and conservatives are typically right leaning republicans. Classical Liberals which used to be conservative in America but no longer represent the status quo were more like the Libertarian party than what is typically called "conservative". 1
point
Conservative does not refer to any particular ideology in general, if the status quo is to be liberal in your country then liberals ARE conservatives Or it can be based off of a default version worldwide. Conservatism = X. Liberalism = Y. Which is what I use. In modern times, I would describe Conservatism simply as pro capitalism, love of your own country, family values, freedom and liberty, limited government power and control, free speech meaning all speech, and the individual over the group. 1
point
In modern times, I would describe Conservatism simply as pro capitalism, love of your own country, family values, freedom and liberty, limited government power and control, free speech meaning all speech, and the individual over the group. So in your view there is only a specific version of conservative, slightly more left wing version of the same thing, and everyone else is a bunch of insane jagaloons? 1
point
So in your view there is only a specific version of conservative, slightly more left wing version of the same thing Yes, generally. and everyone else is a bunch of insane jagaloons? It depends how far outside that paradigm you go. The further you move from that point, the less you are liberal or conservative. If you move very far, you aren't liberal or conservative. You're simply neither, and need your own independent label, which could be sane, but a person of an outside view would have to have a logical defense of their position. Much of it is insane, dangerous, idealistic, utopian, groupthink, etc. When I was young, the parties agreed on about 80% of political positions, and the differences weren't enough to hate your opposition or consider them dangerous. That has changed in the U.S. In those days, the biggest difference was positions on general social programs. |
