For years society has accepted as truth that Extreme Left = Communism and Extreme Right = Fascism.
This is false. The extreme right on the political spectrum is in fact Anarchy. Absolute freedom from the state. The extreme left, communism, is in fact fascism. Absolute control by the state.
All dictatorships in history have been a result of communism. Absolute control by the state. Where the collective is all that matters.
What ideology preaches collective identity? Group Identity? Identity politics? The fucking left. Individualism being the opposite, is a trait of the right.
White Nationalism, is a form of group identity. White Nationalism, is Liberal, on the political spectrum.
Hitler was a socialist. He rose to power through the socialist party. Any "Historian" who tries to spin history as the contrary, is a fucking shill.
>boomer posts >thinks he's redpilled You're not as far along the journey as you think.
Benjamin Hill
Efficient as defined by the dictionary: "achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense."
I believe in Efficient Government. Maintaining the bare minimum amount of government necessary for society to function.
William Cruz
You’re kind of right. I’ve pondered the same idea a bit. Identity politics and the far left are more of the same thing, but on opposite ends of the coin. But being a con who says “I don’t see color, only individuals” etc “I’m not racist” is somewhat further away from the right. Although it comes down to how you look at it.
Jeremiah Gray
>Cant refute OP >Thinks he is red pilled
John Hernandez
Individualism is what got us in our current mess.
Ryder Garcia
Racism exists among all stages of the political spectrum. Today's liberals are very apparent about their anti-white agenda. Being pro-race however is a very liberal idea.
A liberal will tell you that pro-black is not anti-white. That pro-black is not racist. or that even minorities can not be racist. This is how they justify their group identity.
Consider this: I can be pro environment and consider myself conservative. Even though Pro-Environment is a liberal idea. It requires government to uphold. Same goes for racism. A conservative can be racist, but that doesn't make them a liberal. And that doesn't make racism any less of a liberal idea.
Jose Fisher
What "Mess". I'm not going to play guess who with whatever the fuck you are trying to say.
Clearly state your idea, or you can fuck right off back to the farm you came from sheep.
Adrian Ortiz
>Left and right are economic >Communist and capitalist
>Up and down are societal >Authoritarian (fascist) and anarchist
Lrn2politics. Left can't be economic structure with right as societal structure.
give an example of a communist anarchy, and a Capitalistic Dictatorship.
I'll wait
Logan Adams
Also, liberals are people who believe in personal freedom and *liberty*
Anyone who wants a fascist or communistic or dictatorial state is not liberal, even if you've been brainwashed by modern rhetoric. Leftists are not liberals. Alt-right are faggots just like leftists.
This mess. Libertarianism is a beautiful idea, but it simply can't work when the nation is composed of competing groups, many of which just want gibs and a bloated government. You can't have a free society with 100 million communists running around wanting to take your shit and enslave you.
The Nazis were a good example of a capitalsit dictatorship, regardless of the fact that their party plan was socialist.
Anarcho-communism obviously, but that I suppose would have been early humans before we started forming larger groups. Couldn't happen now, realistically.
>liberals are people who believe in personal freedom and *liberty*
heh, is that why it's significantly harder for asians to get into a good university? or why libs and constantly bullying white people that aren't constantly apologizing for something they didn't do?
Michael Perez
I guess you missed the >Leftists are not liberals part.
Correct, Libertarian cannot exist in our government's current state. That does not mean it is not achievable.
Majority of Communists sprout of Idealism. Idealism being how the world ought to be. With the other side being Realism. How the world actually is.
Traditionally, Idealism was combated by religion ironically. Religious groups and personal donations took care of a lot of the morality crisis, so that the government didn't have to.
This is why we've seen a rise in liberals as we see a decline in religion.
Government however isn't the solution. The people ultimately have to come together to solve their own problems in their own communities. I see no reason why someone in Iowa should have to pay for the shit infrastructure in California. This is why the founding fathers believed in dispersed power, and not the massive centralized government like we have today.
Aiden Fisher
I agree with you entirely, but you're not thinking in the long term. We need to heavily restrict voting and immigration or we are beyond fucked in the very near future.
Caleb Baker
Liberal used to mean that, but it was adopted by the left and now they own the word.
Just like feminism used to actually be about women's rights, until 3rd wave feminists took over.
David Gonzalez
Education is how we got into this mess. Indoctrination.
Conservatives need to take back the school system, or start homeschooling. Then when those kids grow up, some will see public office, and the system will correct itself
Eli Williams
I refuse to call someone who actively campaigns for removal of rights and policing of speech a liberal. I don't care who co-opted the term.
Libertarianism is the best and most desirable society, but least practical strategy right now. It's a noble by losing strategy. It doesn't matter if you don't like identity politics, your entire opposition does.
Anarcho-communism is a political position, and Autocratic forms of government are not mutually exclusive with capitalism.
Egypt before the revolution, China, SA etc.
Parker Robinson
Even if we became a 100% white nation, we'd be socialist. That's not a win, that is a loss. Any solution where group identity is the outcome, is liberal. And I will not support that.
David Clark
> liberals are people who believe in personal freedom and *liberty*
It is quite a bit more than that. Liberals are people that consider the historical subject the individual and consider the nature of history to be one of "progress".
You can be a post-libertarian and concerned with liberty, while recognizing that authoritarian states actually aren't intrinsically exclusive to liberty itself. In fact, a libertarian democracy is an engineering contradiction and everything from monarchies to autocracies have historical track records of providing acceptable ranges of liberty.
Communist states like China only exist because on the global spectrum, they operate like a capitalistic economy.
Henry Hill
This
>This is false. The extreme right on the political spectrum is in fact Anarchy. Absolute freedom from the state. >The extreme left, communism, is in fact fascism. Absolute control by the state. I can't stop kekking
Lol no. Anarchy is left. Left is pro-personal freedom, right is about giving up freedoms for the sake of society's progress. Liberalism is just centrism.
Carson Sanchez
>This is why the founding fathers believed in dispersed power, and not the massive centralized government like we have today. That isn't true, the founding fathers were tasked with harmonizing the articles of confederation, which was exactly truly dispersed power. Instead of following that mandate they came up with the constitution, an entirely different kind of government, and has Washington sign off on it (preventing populist outrage over this).
To pretend this act was anything other than a federalizing, centralization of power is a fraudulent misreading of history.
I also find it amusing how you spout off about idealism and then proceed to suggest that "ultimately people have to come together" as if that isn't idealistic hogwash.
Libertarianism is no less idealistic than communism, it tends to be predicated on equally mistaken understandings of human nature.
Take the post-libertarian pill, in the real world there will always be a state and bureaucrats will always eat well. Any self-respecting libertarian minded person would address the world from this starting point. You're better off trying to encourage the commercialization of the state than fucking LARPing about a kumbaya future where communities magically harmonize and solve their own problems.
Andrew Miller
GET IN HERE FAGGOTS
Ian Jenkins
Liberalism still has that meaning in political science, something you would benefit from actually reading up on.
Feminism was initially about women empowerment, it recognizing the accomplishments of men and wanting aim high for similarly great accomplishments (though not necessarily identical accomplishments). It wasn't necessarily about "women's rights", we know this because there were some prominent feminist thinkers that were publically speaking out against women gaining the right to vote. These pro-feminist anti-voting rights arguments are very interesting and based on the idea that men and women are in fact very different and the accomplishments women can offer are in domains uniquely suited to women (which includes house and child rearing).
It turned around the second-wave when it became about implicit man hating and penis envy.
Liam Rodriguez
fascism isn't complete control by the state, it's the marrying of individualism to collectivism
It's a third position, where the individual does his duty to improve the wellbeing of the collective. That is literally what a fasces is: A bundle of sticks that together are strong, and individually are weak.
This is the fundamental behind fascism
What you call fascism is actually just authoritarianism or totalitarianism.
Benjamin Lee
I would like things to go back to the way they were aka status quo. Cut out welfare, no (((unions))), complete freedom and liberty for law abiding citizens. Harsh punishments for those who break the law.
Asher Nguyen
>To pretend this act was anything other than a federalizing, centralization of power is a fraudulent misreading of history.
If that were the case, we wouldn't even have states. We were divided into states on necessity, and those states were divided into districts on necessity, and those districts were divided into counties on necessity. The more dispersed the power, the better.
>I also find it amusing how you spout off about idealism and then proceed to suggest that "ultimately people have to come together" as if that isn't idealistic hogwash.
I said communism stems from idealism. I didn't say idealism was inherently bad.
>Libertarianism is no less idealistic than communism, it tends to be predicated on equally mistaken understandings of human nature.
Libertarianism is predicated on the full understanding of human nature. That is why it sees the need to inhibit power, because power corrupts.
>Take the post-libertarian pill, in the real world there will always be a state and bureaucrats will always eat well. Any self-respecting libertarian minded person would address the world from this starting point. You're better off trying to encourage the commercialization of the state than fucking LARPing about a kumbaya future where communities magically harmonize and solve their own problems.
It's not magic. The reason religion is falling is because of atheism, free thinking, and science. All we require as a society is a non-god based religion, and society will correct itself.
Ayden Gomez
>thinks being redpilled is predicated on countering shit-tier boomer posts I don't believe you have read a single political science text in your entire life.
To say that necessarily everyone who claims to be alt-right is a liberal doesn't understand what liberalism even is or what many prominent advocates of alt-right thought say. To simply redefine terms arbitrarily (and implicitly privilege liberalism) and base your argument around a left-right spectrum is virtually useless. Self-placement on a left-right spectrum is one of the least meaningful aspects of one's actual political thought and about the least informative approach to understanding politics.
Cooper Martin
Op likes to inhale his farts
Jonathan Hughes
This is simply false. Political science has always referred to the right as conservative, and the left as liberal. I have no idea where you fell off in that.
Socialism, insofar as it applies generally in Orthodox Marxism, is a stage of society that the communist considers as a necessary precursor before a communist reorganization of society can take place.
If you actually read Lenin etc., they explicitly talk about how during socialist phases that capitalism is necessary. The big issue that socialist experiments ran into is was how to address the socialist allocation problem, and how much to lean towards centrally-planned distribution (considering the lack of computational power at the time) and market distribution. China has opted for mixed-market allocation, which still accords with their socialist vision even according to Orthodox Marxist thinkers that preceded them.
If you're going to shit on communists at least understand what the fuck you're talking about.
>That gets into central economy vs global economy. This is too stupid to even respond to.
William Reyes
There is no individualism in fascism. neither is it marrying. it is forced servitude to the state.
There is no opposition in fascism, there is no choice in fascism, which you conveniently left out of your definition.
Chase Gray
You're a retard boomer who knows fuck all about fascism
Lincoln Brooks
>Fascism is a great for a society.
Said no one ever.
John Scott
The fascists did. Then the communists and neo-liberals killed them for global hegemony of banking.
Tyler Rodriguez
>If that were the case, we wouldn't even have states. Districts at different scale are useful, even in autocratic systems of government, so your point doesn't logically follow. A federalization/centralization of power doesn't have to be absolute for it to be in fact a federalization.
>I said communism stems from idealism. I didn't say idealism was inherently bad. Ah so you were rambling for no reason then because that section of your comment has no utility or bearing on the rest of your comment. Cool.
>Libertarianism is predicated on the full understanding of human nature. Oh you sweet summer child you. Libertarianism overwhelmingly views humans nature as a tabula rasa, and holds to the old liberal view that humans are at root rationalist creatures. Hell the anti-scientific view of total free will isn't called "libertarian free will" for nothing.
>atheism, free thinking, and science. All we require as a society is a non-god based religion, and society will correct itself. I'm not even a religious person but you are so naive it hurts. Successful religions emerge out of innate animist intuitions that the human brain, not being fundamentally rational but rather the product of evolution, has evolved to have. Even non-theistic religions that have noteworthy levels of heritability, (Buddhism, Scientology) still are heavily predicated on making use of these animist intuitions.
Animist intuitions are necessarily at odds with science and critical thought for one, and for two atheism itself has a very low success rate of heritability. So good luck creating this new religion, totally practical.
Lastly, none of that leads to the conclusion that if you had such a religion that society would magically correct itself. Merely a society based on those three things doesn't necessarily lead to advantageous government systems or political policy. In fact, it could still fundamentally embrace the same failures of liberalism.
Chase Brooks
That isn't political science you mong, that is American colloquialism. Political science is a descriptive discipline, it doesn't adhere to colloquial, prescriptive norms in any given country. If you disagree, actually fucking cite political scientists.
