What the fuck? How in fuck do people pretend the right has any fucking legitimate argument at all and their entire political thought at it's core isn't just some fucking whingefest from the powerful that their privilege = freedom so expansion of freedom for the others is authoritarianism?
People jerk off over Burke so I thought he would at least be different, NOPE, same fucking shit.
Seriously what the fuck?
Been reading the works of notable right wing thinkers over the centuries
Liam Gutierrez
Other urls found in this thread:
marxists.org
twitter.com
Elijah Robinson
That's the point, right wing thought isn't about the expansion of the human zeitgeist but rather the affirmation and reinforcing of imperialism and racist laws that ensure the powers at be continue their hegemony of violence over the proletariat. The point of right wing thought is to conserve the current state of things there are no new ideas because new ideas, even right wing ones, threaten the current socioeconomic base.
Cameron Rodriguez
by right-wing you mean neo-cons/cuckservatives? sure.
"right-wing" are to the Right as "liberals" are to the Left.
Cameron Walker
No I mean the right, like as in THE right. Even fascism the most authoritarian right wing ideology doesn't threaten capitalism in any meaningful way, it is a reaction to change that conserves the capitalist state until it can be stabilized
Kayden Diaz
oh weird, what does? let me guess, an alternate materialistic view of life which views man in exactly the same terms, but slightly tweaks how his labour is rewarded. At last, I see!
Please wise sage, tell me who I should read to get WOKE.
Kevin Lee
Which right wing thinkers are you talking about specifically?
Henry Fisher
The essence of right-wing thought is the justification of currently existing inequalities. Theocracy defends them by invoquing religion, monarchy with either religion or family lineage, liberalism with "merit".
Right-wing thought believes the current institutions of their society directly equates to ideas and principles. To a right-wing thinker, the king is "holy", or CEOs are "meritorious". For him there is no difference between ideas and their current implementation. Therefore, if you want to reduce inequalities, you want to "destroy all good in the world", since "current feudal institutions = holiness = Good", or "current inequalities = meritocracy = Fairness". If you criticize the current state of things, it must be because you oppose goodness or fairness in principle, because the current state of things is good and fair.
Adrian Fisher
socialism
yeah, because the material conditions is the base that influences the superstructure of society. Fascism, and right wing ideology in general, doesn't change the base it changes the superstructure.
Benjamin Thompson
the goal should be to establish the correct inequalities and treat them as they ought to be treated. A child prodigy mathematician should not be put on the same ladder as an average math student. An athlete with top tier genetics and efficient training will expose the inherent inequalities between himself and his competitors. Likewise a prudent businessman will expose the inequalities between him and his more dim competitors. From a societal point of view inequalities are not to be "reduced" but their existence should be facilitated fairly, i.e don't handicap the beautiful, the clever, the competitive to the lowest common denominator, don't assume that one group dominating another group is inherently unjust and a sign of "oppression" or "theft" or something.
Jace King
yes, sure, I was talking in general.
Samuel Johnson
not true, the relation between substructure and superstructure isn't strictly one-way, the superstructure often affects the base, the idea that the base is predominant or mono-directional in influence isn't even empirically valid.
you still haven't explained why they are wrong, you only say they "complain and whine" when they get discriminated against. What's your actual argument? Is it wrong to complain?
Ian Lewis
provide evidence
Benjamin Hughes
Show me evidence to the contrary? Show me that change is purely onedirection via the substructure? Where is your evidence?
communist revolution happens first by re-education, ideological indoctrination (superstructure manipulation) not because new material conditions arose, new technology or labor arrangements magically appeared and turned people communist.
Even your own ideologs say the same:
"The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure — political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas — also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. There is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of accidents (that is, of things and events whose inner interconnection is so remote or so impossible of proof that we can regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary. Otherwise the application of the theory to any period of history would be easier than the solution of a simple equation of the first degree."
Ryder Miller
You said it is empirically invalid, so surely you can provide concrete empirical evidence and not just abstract pearl-clutching about commie brainwashing
We all know there are cases where superstructure affects the basis, but your assertion was that this relationship is predominant.
Ryan Gray
then prove it empirically?
I said the idea of unidirectionality is empirically invalid because it has never been demonstrated empirically, it's only a guess ( a guess that even Engels/Marx warned against) so brainlet, go prove your assertion empirically.
Carter Rogers
I never said it was predominant from either direction, from super or sub, or vice versa, read my initial post better.
Aiden Davis
Pretty easy to turn on their heads too and use everything they do against them. Ban Christians and conservatives from a business for example then they start feeling they have to look at their views again for a breif moment.
Isaiah Gomez
explain again how your logic works and is any different to fascism?
Luke Watson
HURDUR WE SHOULD LET EVERYONE BE FREE TO SUBVERT TO THEIR HEARTS CONTENT
Aaron Allen
Relevant to this thread. Read Liberalism: A Counter History
Justin Sullivan
Subvert has no meaning outside the moral realm. Why is it wrong to subvert your enemies?
Lucas Anderson
Read lothrop stoddard
Hudson Long
Huh?
What I was trying to say is that we shouldn't let our enemies? subvert us.
Ayden Morales
Ok.
Good.
Landon Robinson
You're a fucking top tier brainlet.
No. We should subvert our enemies and not let our enemies subvert us.
Dominic Richardson
alright, I'm done for the night.
Kevin Ortiz
Do you think war works in such a fashion that each side takes turn killing an enemy to be fair or something? I'm really confused what point you're trying to make.
Caleb Reed
its always been the same argument: What about the FREEDOM™ for slave owners to own slaves?
Logan Flores
What about monarchist, Primitivism and Classical Slave reactionaries?
Jose Gonzalez
Materialism is regarded as a threat under capitalism just as much as it was under sny other class system. Capitalist ideologies, from liberalism to fascism, are fundamentally idealist. Read Lenin.
marxists.org
Ayden Sullivan
this, is ebic
Andrew Wright
Okay, Ayn Rand, give me one good reason why we should want to cultivate the sort of unscrupulous people who pursue the accumulation and reproduction of capital at all costs who tend to end up successful businessmen. In fact, something like 1 in 5 CEOs are clinical psychopaths because that’s the sort of person who gets ahead in the business world. Why is that the sort of thing our society ought to encourage and reward?
Owen Rodriguez
Because that's my fetish.
Andrew Moore
Good thing none of that is incompatible with leftism, unless you're a college anarkiddie.
Julian Myers
>Plato