Communism more right wing than Capitalism?

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I think such an argument could be made.

Communists were generally pretty anti-Gay, pretty prejudiced against ethnic minorities, and they had major border-control, almost no immigrants.

Ethnic turmoils were even solved by Soviets in Poland, by deporting Germans out of Polish territory, and deporting Ukrainians out of Polish territory.
or
in Russia by deporting Tatars, or Germans out of Russian territories.

There was generally more patriotism, and nationalism as they all had products made in their own country overall, as opposed to Capitalism which is very diverse in products of origins in general.

The Communists tended to have big marching parades for the nation.

Communists put the jobs into their own hands, rather than into the hands of foreigners like Capitalism has done over, and over again.

Now, the Communists also have some aspects which aren't really Right-Wing, for example being anti-Religion, and rather than fostering some cultural elements, they banished them.

But, ultimately by actual true Right Wing definitions, as well as Socially Conservative definitions, it would appear Communism on the whole was actually more so than Capitalist nations today.

While, I'm personally anti-Communism, because of it's poor economic achievement, and stifling of progression by over-using government, as well as mass-murders done by Communist.

However, I think it's probably a bit of a myth, that Communists are the ones ruining the West, if anything I'd argue the most Capitalist societies in the West cave into Liberal values much more, like the U.S.A the least White of the West, or Switzerland the biggest immigrant society in the West.

The Communist bloc ultimately successfully warded off the Immigrant hordes, now-a-days Russia as a Capitalist country is not successful against immigrants, but rather a big immigrant country is what Russia has become.

 

[Pogo]

None of these forced social-engineering exercises you cite in the OP have jack cheese to do with 'communism'.

Whole lotta wags around here seem to have no clue how to distinguish "communistm" from "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" -- which is what you're describing here and which does belong on the 'right'.

Not knowing that difference is like having no clue how a blueberry is different from a hubcap.

To cite the obvious example, Hitler too was anti-gay, prejudiced against minorities and way-over-the-top nationalistic, and he (they) despised communism.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

None of these forced social-engineering exercises you cite in the OP have jack cheese to do with 'communism'.

Whole lotta wags around here seem to have no clue how to distinguish "communistm" from "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" -- which is what you're describing here and which does belong on the 'right'.

Not knowing that difference is like having no clue how a blueberry is different from a hubcap.

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.

 

[peach174]

The farther you go towards the left is big government.
The farther right you go is less government.
Communism is far left.
Libertarian is far right, practically no government other than the basics needed.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Pogo]

None of these forced social-engineering exercises you cite in the OP have jack cheese to do with 'communism'.

Whole lotta wags around here seem to have no clue how to distinguish "communistm" from "authoritarianism" or "nationalism" -- which is what you're describing here and which does belong on the 'right'.

Not knowing that difference is like having no clue how a blueberry is different from a hubcap.

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.

Nope. You've assumed a strawman that doesn't stand up.

You seem to be approaching backward. Nothing is needed to "stamp out capitalism". Rather, capitalism simply needs to be left alone to operate itself. That's why Liberalism fosters it (not the other way 'round). Capitalism becomes inhibited under a strong state.

But these are economic systems, not military ones. If communism is the chosen course then that's simply how things work. It too doesn't need "stomping out" some competing system that is not what's in place.

You seem to be assuming that if the chosen course is communism, then the State owns and runs the place. I think it's rather that the collective owns and runs the place. The former is a striated authoritarianism; the latter is not.

If the collective is in charge there can be no striations of ruling and ruled classes -- whereas if the State is in charge, there must be. A capitalist company making widgets will have an upper class (CEO) giving orders to an upper-middle class (managers) who delegate orders to the lower class (laborers) in clear divisions of power, profit and responsibility. But a co-op making widgets doesn't have those striations; they meld.

And when an authoritarian State is in charge it can run the economy the way it wants ---- but it will have much more control over a communistic system than it will if it chooses a capitalistic one. But it doesn't follow that the communistic system must have a strong State to function, just as the co-op doesn't need an abstract uninvolved hyperstriated CEO to make its widgets.

Bottom line to the topic is that neither capitalism nor communism are "left" or "right" since they are economic systems, and not governments. A government may operate "left" or "right" but an economic system can't.

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.

Now you've spun way out of control and abandoned your own topic. Chinese porn over rap? Can't even imagine it.

 

[Pogo]

The farther you go towards the left is big government.
The farther right you go is less government.
Communism is far left.
Libertarian is far right, practically no government other than the basics needed.

Whoa Peach. That's the same hole Rottweiler went down here some years back and had to come back with a different name. That's why I call him Buttsoiler.

"Less" and "more" government have nothing to do with 'right' and 'left'. Nor is Libertarian 'far right'. Libertarian is more at "far Liberal", being a matter of degree.

Liberalism means government stays out of the way as much as it can. It is opposed by those desiring "bigger" government from both the right AND the left. And the opposite of Liberalism is Authoritarianism --- the strong State.

Which are we? We're the Liberals, or at least we were when we started. But every time we start a Guantánamo, invade foreign countries, spy on ourselves, curb free expression, start a military draft, require people to buy insurance, institute income taxes, require minority quotas etc etc etc etc etc --- we take a step in the other direction. And those steps are taken with both feet, right and left.

 

[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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

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?

 

[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.

 

[saveliberty]

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.

 

[Pogo]

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

What if I showed you a group of communists who have been operating it quite contentedly and thriving for five hundred years, meeting their own needs quite handily, far more efficiently than their capitalist neighbors, seeing their numbers who venture out into the capitalist world almost invariably return, and have literally never been in a single war with anybody, ever?

We just did this over in this thread btw....

 

[saveliberty]

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

What if I showed you a group of communists who have been operating it quite contentedly and thriving for five hundred years, meeting their own needs quite handily, seeing their numbers who venture out into the capitalist world almost invariably return, and have literally never been in a single war with anybody, ever?

We just did this over in this thread btw....

Then I would point out you are pretending that some small minority represents an entire system. Normally that is a poor debate technique, but feel free to run with it.

 

[Pogo]

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

What if I showed you a group of communists who have been operating it quite contentedly and thriving for five hundred years, meeting their own needs quite handily, seeing their numbers who venture out into the capitalist world almost invariably return, and have literally never been in a single war with anybody, ever?

We just did this over in this thread btw....

Then I would point out you are pretending that some small minority represents an entire system. Normally that is a poor debate technique, but feel free to run with it.

I would make no such claim; that would be a Composition Fallacy. Rather, I use it to refute the claim, put here twice in this thread, that a communistic system requires a heavy authoritarian hand to function. Because clearly and demonstrably, it does not.

 

[saveliberty]

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

What if I showed you a group of communists who have been operating it quite contentedly and thriving for five hundred years, meeting their own needs quite handily, seeing their numbers who venture out into the capitalist world almost invariably return, and have literally never been in a single war with anybody, ever?

We just did this over in this thread btw....

Then I would point out you are pretending that some small minority represents an entire system. Normally that is a poor debate technique, but feel free to run with it.

I would make no such claim; that would be a Composition Fallacy. Rather, I use it to refute the claim, put here twice in this thread, that a communistic system requires a heavy authoritarian hand to function. Because clearly and demonstrably, it does not.

Using tribal or familial based groups is not a form of communism as government, your failure is complete.

 

[Pogo]

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

What if I showed you a group of communists who have been operating it quite contentedly and thriving for five hundred years, meeting their own needs quite handily, seeing their numbers who venture out into the capitalist world almost invariably return, and have literally never been in a single war with anybody, ever?

We just did this over in this thread btw....

Then I would point out you are pretending that some small minority represents an entire system. Normally that is a poor debate technique, but feel free to run with it.

I would make no such claim; that would be a Composition Fallacy. Rather, I use it to refute the claim, put here twice in this thread, that a communistic system requires a heavy authoritarian hand to function. Because clearly and demonstrably, it does not.

Using tribal or familial based groups is not a form of communism as government, your failure is complete.

I cited no "tribal or familial based group" so your failure is right above.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I think such an argument could be made.

Communists were generally pretty anti-Gay, pretty prejudiced against ethnic minorities, and they had major border-control, almost no immigrants.

Ethnic turmoils were even solved by Soviets in Poland, by deporting Germans out of Polish territory, and deporting Ukrainians out of Polish territory.
or
in Russia by deporting Tatars, or Germans out of Russian territories.

There was generally more patriotism, and nationalism as they all had products made in their own country overall, as opposed to Capitalism which is very diverse in products of origins in general.

The Communists tended to have big marching parades for the nation.

Communists put the jobs into their own hands, rather than into the hands of foreigners like Capitalism has done over, and over again.

Now, the Communists also have some aspects which aren't really Right-Wing, for example being anti-Religion, and rather than fostering some cultural elements, they banished them.

But, ultimately by actual true Right Wing definitions, as well as Socially Conservative definitions, it would appear Communism on the whole was actually more so than Capitalist nations today.

While, I'm personally anti-Communism, because of it's poor economic achievement, and stifling of progression by over-using government, as well as mass-murders done by Communist.

However, I think it's probably a bit of a myth, that Communists are the ones ruining the West, if anything I'd argue the most Capitalist societies in the West cave into Liberal values much more, like the U.S.A the least White of the West, or Switzerland the biggest immigrant society in the West.

The Communist bloc ultimately successfully warded off the Immigrant hordes, now-a-days Russia as a Capitalist country is not successful against immigrants, but rather a big immigrant country is what Russia has become.

It could, but it would be completely ignoring the whole system of classifying political sides.

Far left is closer to far right than it is to left.

The left and right part of far left and far right are to distinguish them from each other. Not to make them comparable with left wing and right wing.

Far left and far right will often share some things, they'll also share some things with left wing and right wing. But they're FAR rather than what you see as left and right.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The farther you go towards the left is big government.
The farther right you go is less government.
Communism is far left.
Libertarian is far right, practically no government other than the basics needed.

Since by classical definitions authoritarianism is right-wing, then if anything the exact opposite holds true.

Americans really don't understand politics at all.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

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.

Nope, not only is this the opposite of Authoritarianism which Authoritarianism is considered as Right-Wing by classical definitions.

But, Capitalism really does sell out to Liberalism, Capitalists want to sell drugs, sell abortion, sell porn, sell illegals for cheap labor, outsource in anti-nationalist measures.

Rather than Capitalism being Conservative, it's actually Liberalism.

In fact, by classical definition Liberalism means less government.

Americans really haven't a clue about politics.