You must log in or register to comment.
Anyone looking for the post, here https://social.kernel.org/objects/60bcac97-e7c7-4899-a1b6-bb72196cddaf
I’ve always liked Torvalds’ blunt style.
Sometimes it works against him, but at least he’s consistent about it.
Also, where do I sign up for my atheist card?
One could argue Linux, GPL, and Open Source are all based on woke communist concepts.
Lol to people that believe this is left. This is central. You know there is a party to support these beliefs? It’s called the libertarian party, Google it. You didn’t have to vote for someone who doesn’t represent you as a person regardless of what the Internet says!?
Very loose definition of “leftist” there but we take a W where we can.
soon the government will be run entirely on TeslaOS
If you believe in equality, you’re woke. You’re also a socialist. Because since fascism is a sincere belief in inequality based on identity, while neoliberalism (democrats) is a sincere belief in inequality based on class / wealth.
So yeah, this belief in equality or basic human decency needs to be destroyed in order to maximize profit. Invest in this propaganda, great ROI guaranteed!
neoliberalism (democrats) is a sincere belief in inequality based on class / wealth
This is actually a misconception! Liberalism (or neoliberalism, as the pejorative goes) is about allowing individuals the ability to dictate their own life on their own terms. Liberals want most of the same things you do, probably: clean air, a reduction in carbon emissions, everybody has a roof over their heads. guaranteed access to healthcare, and dense, walkable cities. The difference is the means by which liberals want to achieve these things. Liberals believe that the government should play as small a roll as necessary to guarantee these things, usually through economic incentives and staying out of the way of the free flow of commerce. Liberals do employ government action when necessary (i.e, making it illegal to dump toxic waste in to rivers).
Liberals also believe that the government should strongly guarantee legal equality and should generally do what it can to provide equal opportunities to everyone. Liberals think it should be illegal to discriminate against someone based on sex, race, sexual orientation, and other factors of one’s birth.
The point of liberalism is to lower the horizons of government. In the 16th century Europeans were quite busy slaughtering each other over what the official religion of their kingdom should be. Liberalism emerged as way to manage sectarian conflict from spilling over into actual violence by disestablishing state churches, or at least significantly reducing the political power of clergy. Liberals apply this principle to other aspects of governance
Recommend reading the book The Quiet Coup by Mehrsa Baradaran. Neoliberalism isn’t benign, could be considered akin to modern centrism, and above all else works to protect capitalism and the status quo in predictable ways that allow for exploitation. Which is exactly why corporate monarchy is now taking over our country in place of capitalism.
Liberals are pro-capitalism, which is the ultimate mechanism for inequality.
“Neoliberalism” isn’t a pejorative, it’s a political philosophy that has dominated the Western world for about 50 years, though it has roots much further back. It is a philosophy embraced by both Republicans and Democrats. It’s about privatization of services, lowering taxes, and deregulating corporations. It’s why we have for profit healthcare in the US, for example.
Liberals are pro-capitalism
That’s a completely US-centric view. All your liberals might be capitalists, elsewhere, various forms of social liberalism are very much alive and kicking. It’s one half of the ingredient in the EU’s compromise of “social market economy”: It’s a thing both social liberals and democratic socialists can lay claim to and, indeed, in policy terms there’s gigantic spaces of overlap. Parliament-wise it’s most directly represented mostly by Green/EFA but floats in various forms and shades in pretty much all parties, especially Renew though the neolibs are also part of that one.
It’s also ancient, dating back to the mid-1800s, bringing you things such as credit unions.
From a different angle: Marx was wrong, there’s indeed petite bourgeois who are capable of class consciousness. Also, understanding macroeconomics and how trickle down is bullshit. They may be millionaires but that’s still a billion away from a billion, they want people to have money in their pockets so you have money to visit their cinema or whatever.
Also once upon a time neoliberalism meant ordoliberalism but that’s a historical note. The current use refers to BS that indeed makes the word itself a pejorative, just as “shit” is a pejorative for shit.
I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.
AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want, to dismantle the social equality state, deregulation, private schools, private healthcare etc. But they are usually smaller third parties after Social Democrats and Conservatives. But even the Christian Conservatives in e.g. Germany are more socialist than the third party liberals, and to the left of the Democrats in the US.
Of course, ever since the “Third Way” after the fall of the USSR and Clinton, the social democratic parties of Europe also have become far more neoliberal.
The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.
And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?
I’d be curious what liberal party in what country you mean.
AFAIK the liberal parties in Europe like Germany, France and UK want exactly what the US neoliberals want
Taking Germany as an example: The FDP, once upon a time, had a large social-liberal wing and was in coalition with the SPD, but that’s long gone by now they’re firmly neoliberal. The Greens are social-liberal, the Pirates are, and so is Volt. A social-liberal party that’s part of Renew instead of Greens/EFA would be Radikale Venstre.
The question is really who’s liberty? The liberation of the masses from economic exploitation? Or the liberty of the capitalists to exploit the masses? There is absolutely no doubt what is meant today with liberalism.
Part of the stated goals of the feed-in tariff system the German Greens cooked up was, aside from saving the planet by boosting renewables, to de-monopolise the market, to distribute ownership of the means of electricity production wider, and they indeed were successful we now have plenty of wind mills here that are owned by municipal-level cooperatives. Couple of farmers, the local machine shop, couple of pensioners, that’s enough own capital to convince the local cooperative and public banks to chime in with a credit, build the thing. Left to pure environmentalism they might’ve passed laws requiring the big monopolists to build more renewables, a more traditional leftist approach would be to build state-owned renewables, the Greens instead created, through smart regulation, market conditions that made it possible for small fish to get into the fray, out-flanking the monopolists.
That is, you missed something in your dichotomy: The liberation of the small fish from the accumulation power of the big fish. That policy is 110% ordoliberali: Regulate the market such that market failures are corrected. Neoliberals generally do the opposite, remove regulation that prevents failures because that pleases their monopolist overlords, or even regulate to fail though at that point it probably should be called straight-up kleptocracy.
And their virtue signalling you can mostly ignore. Why would they want to solve an issue they could run on next election?
Now you’re being a doomer. Yes, that happens, generally in politics not limited to any spectrum, but it’s also self-destructive as voters will consider you unfit to rule. It’s not like we’re limited to two parties over here, things can and do shift.
I agree that things in Germany are, by and large, far saner and far better than the US or the UK. The conditions of the market, the news media and government institutions is better, which allows the liberal dogma to work better. But it’s far from good enough.
And yes I’m a doomer lol. It’s simply a question of numbers: billions vs millions.
I’m not an ideologue and think a mix of ideologies is important, but the fundamental problem is the vast accumulation of wealth (=economic power) that brings unstoppable degeneration and collapse. Especially with social media being completely corrupt, and mainstream news media even in Germany only spouting misinformation and imperialist war propaganda and a pro genocide stance, things will deteriorate to the state of the US.
I believe your argument is reductive, and ignores the complexities of the politics of people who call themselves liberals. Neoliberalism is not a coherent political or economic ideology, it’s an insult for moderates used by leftists. Most liberals are not ideological; they pick their policy preferences pragmatically, though nobody can truly claim to be perfectly unbiased and non-ideological.
And if you had argued to me in 2010 that democrats and republicans can both be described as “neoliberals”, I might agree with you, but since at LEAST 2015, republicans have completely turned their back on the most basic aspects of liberalism, becoming the anti-immigrant, anti-trade, isolationist party with no respect for the rule of law or the principles of equality or personal freedom. There was maybe a 10 year period in which republicans paid lip service to these ideals throughout the 1990s, but today Republicans can better be described by Hungarian President Victor Orban’s prescription for “illiberal democracy”, though lately they’re not too hot about democracy either.
Republicans, in contrast to liberals, believe in enforcing cultural conservatism through state power, state intervention in markets to benefit in-groups, majoritarian ruling with very slim electoral margins to the detriment of marginalized groups or opposition parties, and a general hostility to freedom of speech or the free press
Yes, liberals ARE pro-capitalism, but capitalism has been the ultimate mechanism for REDUCING inequality. Since the 1970s (the heyday of so-called neoliberalism), the number of people living in extreme poverty has gone from rougly 50% to about 10% today, accelerating in the 1990s with the downfall of communism across Europe.
To reiterate: thanks to free trade and capitalism, most of the world no longer lives in extreme poverty for the first time in human history. It is in very wealthy countries where we are able to take this for granted because we’ve been living very high standards of living since the end of the 2nd world war, which has coincided with a large gap in wealth equality. However, the living standard of the average American today is still MUCH higher than the living standards of the average American in the 1960s or 1950s.
Healthcare in the United States is not actually really a free market. The specifics of how our system works lives and dies by the letter of the law. What many blame on deregulation is in fact due to specific regulations which were written by the insurance companies. To be clear: this is called regulatory capture, which is NOT a principle of liberalism. Liberals believe in a fair and unbiased bureaucracy which serves the public and not special interest groups. The American healthcare system is a failure to live up to liberal principles. This can be said of most other policy failures in the US: housing has exploded in cost because of regulatory capture in zoning commissions, reducing supply.
Words have definitions often with histories.
Neoliberalism is a far right ideology. That’s just a fact you can look up yourself. It has almost nothing to do with classical or social liberalism which is about freeing people.
Neoliberalism is a far right ideology. That’s just a fact you can look up yourself
I’m sorry but you’re simply wrong. “Neoliberalism is a far right ideology” is inherently NOT a fact; it’s a normative statement. It’s an opinion. You can’t present your opinions (or those of people who think like you) as facts. If I said “Neoliberalism is a moderate or even left wing ideology”, I would also say that that is not a fact; it’s my opinion, and the opinion of people who think like me
Neoliberalism is very much a far right ideology.
You should probably read more. This is from Wikipedia. Neoliberalism is about freeing capital not people.
Neoliberalism has become an increasingly prevalent term in recent decades.[16][17][18][19] It has been a significant factor in the proliferation of conservative and right-libertarian organizations, political parties, and think tanks, and predominantly advocated by them.[20][21] Neoliberalism is often associated with a set of economic liberalization policies, including privatization, deregulation, depoliticisation, consumer choice, globalization, free trade, monetarism, austerity, and reductions in government spending. These policies are designed to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.[22][23][24][25] Additionally, the neoliberal project is oriented towards the establishment of institutions and is inherently political in nature, extending beyond mere economic considerations.[26]
The term is rarely used by proponents of free-market policies.[27] When the term entered into common academic use during the 1980s in association with Augusto Pinochet’s economic reforms in Chile, it quickly acquired negative connotations and was employed principally by critics of market reform and laissez-faire capitalism. Scholars tended to associate it with the theories of economists working with the Mont Pelerin Society, including Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and James M. Buchanan, along with politicians and policy-makers such as Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Alan Greenspan.[7][28][29] Once the new meaning of neoliberalism became established as common usage among Spanish-speaking scholars, it diffused into the English-language study of political economy.[7] By 1994, the term entered global circulation and scholarship about it has grown over the last few decades
You should probably read more.
Grow up. Attack ideas, not people.
The article only says what I’m saying: it’s a term given to certain people as a pejorative, and not an actual ideological program endorsed by people who are labeled by it. You’re telling me that there is a fundamental similarity between Augusto Pinochet, who threw communists out of helicopters, and the US democratic party, which is categorically unwilling to inflict any kind of political violence against their opposition? Pinochet was not a neoliberal, he was a fascist, and if you can’t tell the difference, then I encourage you to not only read more, but to get outside more and talk to people who have actually grown up in fascist and communist countries and see if they think that living in the US is anything like growing up in a fascist state.
To try to label the policies of Pinochet and the policies of the US democrats with the same term is either an expression of ignorance or privilege. Again, neoliberalism is a term which was made up by liberal arts and philosophy departments, not economists
I agree that many who vote for liberals believe those things, but those are not the goal of liberal parties. The historical meaning of liberalism was the same as what is called neoliberalism today. Calling it a derogatory term is just pretending to be a victim. There IS such an ideology as “belief in inequality based on wealth” and that includes the right to survive through access to healthcare. That is reality.
You argue as if good arguments win, and ideology matters - it doesn’t work that way. Ideology is merely a tool. There is only power, or money that you can exchange for power. And those who desire nothing except power have a competitive advantage to gain more power and shape the world over people who want other things. There is a selection process that has been going for decades that precludes normal people like us two.
Politicians in the US might write some other virtues on their flags, or they might even delude themselves to believe them - that is actually best. But when the chips are down, only those who pursue power gain more power. I believe this could be scientifically proven with game theory and a simulation.
What you are doing is kind of denying that economic power (or capital, or billionaires) have an overwhelming influence on politics and policies. If you say that the conservatives or democrats or whoever does this or that for ideological reasons, you deny political reality and obscure paths to improve things. We need transparency and better tools and countermeasures to these mechanisms.
Politicians are chosen by capitalists among thousands of candidates, and only the fringe that happen to fit into their plans are funded. Those who want power above anything else and who have neoliberal tendencies. The useful idiots to capitalists.
So no, neoliberalism is not a derogatory term that should be avoided. It’s reality. Or how else do you explain Elon Musk running DOGE?
The historical meaning of liberalism was the same as what is called neoliberalism today
This is not true; liberalism was created as a reaction to the religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries, as a way to prevent sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants, and later as a way to prevent violence between rival states. I am sure there are people who believe in inequality based on wealth, but that is not what liberalism is, and that is not what US Democrats, for example, believe in.
You argue as if good arguments win, and ideology matters - it doesn’t work that way. Ideology is merely a tool. There is only power, or money that you can exchange for power. And those who desire nothing except power have a competitive advantage to gain more power and shape the world over people who want other things. There is a selection process that has been going for decades that precludes normal people like us two.
I’m not so ignorant to as to miss that what you are describing is the Marxist idea of dialectical materialism, which I personally believe is overly reductive in explaining history. Ideas do matter. The ways in which people esteem themselves and their groups do matter. It’s not all just a cynical power grab by a bunch of godless lizard people pulling the strings on us.
What you are doing is kind of denying that economic power (or capital, or billionaires) have an overwhelming influence on politics and policies. If you say that the conservatives or democrats or whoever does this or that for ideological reasons, you deny political reality and obscure paths to improve things
That is absolutely not what I am saying, nor is it even relevant to what we are talking about.
So no, neoliberalism is not a derogatory term that should be avoided. It’s reality. Or how else do you explain Elon Musk running DOGE?
Your question is so bizarre as to be meaningless. You’re asking me “There exist people who believe that the government should be restrained in how it treats people. Otherwise, how do you explain a man who believes government should not be restrained in how it treats people?”
Neoliberalism is just a catch-all for any policy right of center that leftists conflate with actual honest-to-god jackbooted fascism.
Otherwise, how do you explain a man who believes government should not be restrained in how it treats people?
You’re saying you view Elon Musk and his DOGE department favorably? If so, we can save our breaths and don’t need to argue about anything any more haha.
He is such a good role model for being wealthy.
He is, when it comes down to it, pretty wealthy. But we are talking about the guy who created the kernel that now runs nearly every Internet service, all Android phones, most streaming devices, and a lot of various embedded devices. Anyone else with that much impact would be a billionaire many times over.
But he’s got a comfortable amount and has not exercised unreasonable ambition. A man who did someone very valuable and was well rewarded and sees no point in being any better off than he is.
I’ve started replying “ok, dozer” to anyone who complains about “wholeness” to me. The ennui I have with the regressives is just beyond description anymore.
I like this word to describe those responsible for us all going backwards now: regressives.
I’m going to start using this
Dozer sounds too cool, now bout nappers? It sounds like the british word for diapers
I like dozer because it not only suggests they’re asleep, but it also suggests bulldozer, which is what the people they voted for are doing to the country and world.
what do you mean by complaining about wholeness?
Haha I totally missed that and I even proofread. That’ll learn me to post in a precaffeinated state.
Autocorrect for ‘wokeness’?
Wow even autocorrect is against wokeness
What kind of lameass comeback is that? You can do better.
I didn’t know any of this man’s views, I shouldve started using linux sooner
We all should have
honestly, do it. if your laptop gets old, no matter windows or mac, it will be dropped by windows/apple. Linux will make it last a lot longer and run it a lot smoother. Do the switch. And you can actually have your computer the way you want it, not how apple or windows want it to be.
There are many good reasons to use and learn Linux. Political ideology of its creators is very much not one of them.
They’re largely professional people: their politics almost never influence what they’re building in a practical way.
The (generally) accepting and tolerant culture within which it was produced is part of what made it possible for it to be what it is, but you won’t really see that in the software itself.
Not a good reason for you, this is something that is only subjective lol
Can’t wait for Lemmy to jack themselves off to this while not analyzing all the eugenics, sexism, racism, and various other horrible bullshit on here every day that goes completely unconfronted
Ya’ll ain’t even white knights. You ain’t even keyboard warriors. You don’t even address the trash in your own yard. None of you shitballs is a feminist, communist, woke, or left in any regard.
Here in the Netherlands they accuse people of being a ‘deugmens’ which literally translates as being a ‘virtuehuman’, a human with virtues. Except for possible pretentiousness, having virtues is hardly a bad thing, quite the opposite. Being politically correct has negative connotations, but most of the time it’s very easy to explain why something is politically incorrect, because the incorrect route has often proven in the past to be disastrous. People used to talk about ‘political correctness gone mad’ but now very often any political correctness is deemed bad. Woke is considered by some to be one of the worst insults you can get, but waking up and seeing that there is terrible inequity in this world, seeing that we are very whatever-centric in our thoughts/actions and questioning all that, is hardly a bad thing. Now the question is, do we need to reappropriate these words, reclaim and reframe them, or should we ignore them and move beyond them because people have been so deeply conditioned with ‘woke=bad’ no questions asked.
I’ve always had a suspicion that so many simple things that trigger the right, like wearing a mask during a pandemic, do so because they are simple nice things you can do and every time they see someone doing it, they inherently know they are bad - and so they want to force others to stop being nice so they don’t have to face that reality anymore.
Are they?
The pandemic is a lie/is exaggerated -> there is no reason to wear a mask -> why is the gouvernment trying to make people wear masks, they must be hiding something
This is my uneducated take :
Conservatives have been taught to follow the leaders in their environment, without questions (see religion)
It gives their leaders a lot of power and thus, there is a lot of incentives to become a leader through whatever means possible. It gives leaders power and influence.
So comes along an issue and a non-conservative authority tells people they should do X. Conservatives leaders want more power and they hinge on that thing to gain more visibility and thus more power.
The other conservatives see that their leader is against, and so they take their leaders stance without question and hate that thing too.
Conservatives leader will say whatever they can without really really caring if that is true or not (remind you of someone?)
It is a lot easier to rile up people with negative emotions and tribalism, so the conservative leaders use hate and fear to further their strength and influence.
Well said. The people that have been clamoring “wake up sheeple” are now mad that people are “woke”.
In Germany the derogatory term used is “Gutmensch”, good human.
It’s the narrative the right has created, and you can see it in those terms. The narrative is of course that people on the left pretend to be full of virtue and good but in reality are dreamers full of idoologies that can’t survive in the real world. That and not beeing able to practice what one preaches (like still using airplanes while advocating for a more sustainable lifestyle) are part of what they have constructed “woke people” to mean for them, as far as I understand it at least.
Maybe I’m drawing a connection that isn’t there, but I equate this with the behaviour in some circles of being suspicious of people who don’t partake in drugs, drinking, corruption, debauchery, etc. It’s kind of like you can’t trust people unless they have some vice, or at least an “edge” to them.
But maybe this behaviour is not related to this “deugmens” or “gutmensch” labeling.
derogatory
I suspect a lot of derogatory terms across many cultures/languages are generally rooted in sarcasm. Pointing out the irony/oxymoron in the term just makes them feel/act even more self-righteous.
Gutmensch in German usually refers to people who try to appear good and make decisions they feel are good without questioning if the side effects are harmful. Also they expect others to do the same without regard for their ability to do so (e.g. I manage to avoid plastic bags, so you must too. Which is at least somewhat reasonable. But I manage to live without a car so you must too is difficult for some part of the rural population.)
I live in buttfuck nowhere - France.
We need cars because the railways were deemed not profitable. We need cars because investment in busses is often very limited (depending on where you live). We need cars because village markets are dying and we then have to go to the supermarket the town over.
We need cars because of the capitalist atomisation of society.
And even then, the vast majority of our trips are very short (< 40’ round trip’). The car we need the most is a very small, kinda lowtech electric one. But those don’t exist as much…
In our 750 people village, I think we’d need about 1 car for every 3 to 5 families and 3 trucks.
TL;DR: Rural people need cars. But we don’t need big ones for most of our usage. We need better public transportation. Personal car ownership is dumb and wasteful.
I also live in rural France, and agree. People with giant SUVs are becoming a huge problem where I live. Every day I see countless older people whose kids no longer live with them driving these gas-guzzling monstrosities to the supermarket. Often they have the same amount of seats as a sedan, yet they take up waaay more space in the parking lot. Just why? I don’t get it.
Because bigger car = bigger margins for the manufacturer. I guess it’s a status symbol too?
Also some environmental legislations have amendments for bigger vehicles. It seems that it was easier to make bigger cars than to make explosion motors more efficient (which is technically true).
I find all of that pretty dumb.
A part of it was that to make ice engines more efficient, they got more complicated, which made them heavier. Weight and efficiency standards are looser on larger categories of vehicle, and consumers typically like more space and perceive them as safer.
So you sell more of them and it’s easier to keep pace with the regulations.My last vehicle switch was from a hatchback to a compact SUV. New car weighs twice as much as the old one, but also gets significantly higher fuel efficiency.
I took a trip through Europe in the early 00’s. We rented a large sedan. 5 Americans and luggage. Our intent was to drive through as many open countries as we reasonably could. After about a hour on the road, we had to get a second car. We were simply too fat to have 5 people in what was locally considered a full-sized car.
In the US we would have got an SUV and been able to sit without touching each other.
But our situation was A. Not Normal and B. Brought on by our own live decisions. There is a bit of a Why there though.
It’s called “being a decent human”. It doesn’t take much but the right just can’t comprehend that
Hear me out, people who belong to this stupid label “the right” can also hold those values. Shocking, isn’t it? I’ll even out myself as one of those morally apprehensive people of this homogeneous group, which is the exact opposite to the homogeneous group “the left” (because you’re either or, of course), "“the* right”. But I still hold the same values as Linus mentions.
Bro, idk how you are still Right-Wing then. What are these Right-Wing values that you hold?
If you’re seriously honest when asking that then you should really look up some political ideologies. I’d also recommend not hyper focusing on the US and US politics.
Glances are rightwingers in Germany, Japan, India, UK…
*corporate wants you to find the difference meme
You either dont believe in these things or you’re not as right as you think you are.
Maybe I’m not understanding. You’re a right wing person that recommends we dont look at right wingers in the US for reference? I guess I just start at Nazi then?
I’m recommending everyone to not look at the US as a reference for a sane and nuanced political system. In Europe we’re generally not A or B, although you can definitely say you’re left or right you don’t have to be either the left or the right.
I hold values which are generally right leaning, as well as left. But overall I vote blue, not red (which would be the other way around in the US, for whatever reason).
If you look at the strong right party Kristdemokraterna in Sweden you’ll find that they support Swedens current abortion laws, which allows for it. Even though they’re strongly for traditional family values and overall a strong right political ideology.
In contrast, the Swedish Vänsterpartiet (literally the left party) with roots in communism, have voted the same way as the far right party Sverigedemokraterna with its roots in nazism and white supremacy. (Just to clarify, Sweden does not only have these two “extremes”. The Riksdag has a total of 8 parties as of today.)
Things are more nuanced outside of US politics. I know what beliefs I hold and live by. I don’t necessarily think those should be put into law (I support the liberty for women to chose whether to abort or not. If I were put in the situation that my wife got unexpectedly pregnant, I would never support aborting.)
Ah, not a piece of confusion here, the US is a good example of when people with right leaning views actually have control the government, there is no left to compare to.
Also, am I reading that you wouldn’t support your wife’s right to choose an abortion? But do you support her decision to choose, which is what I read the current laws states?
I support women’s liberty to choose. My personal belief is that abortions are immoral and should be avoided.
Brazil has a decent political diversity on paper, but the right here is pretty much a copy of the USA right, who mainly defend the interest of the rich (basically they’re all in favor of destroying the environment for profit, privatizing health and other public services, “defending” family values, anti abortion, pro “free speech”, voting en masse to increase their own salaries and being USA’s obedient little bitch). The “center” parties are pure mercenaries and, when not bought by any one side, will ally with the right.
When you boil it down, being right wing means you value property rights over human rights, and left wing is vice versa. Right wing is maintaining wealth and power, and don’t let anyone else get in the way of it.
It’s deontological ethics vs keynesian ethics I think. That’s why the left and right accuse each other for being based more in emotion than reason. Because from each’s perspective, the other is doing something objectively wrong, when they have different moral systems in the first place.
Having said that, I prefer to value the well-being of people, over some archaic devotion to a piece of land, or letting humanity go extinct so that we can respect the rules of some weird game I didn’t sign up for called “who grabs land first”.
When you boil it down, being right wing means you value freedom and being left wing means you value making others work for you.
You can boil it down to whatever punchline you wish.
Freedom until it’s taken from you by those who are wealthier and more powerful.
Wait the right doesn’t have people working for them?
You should get a check up. You sound absolutely fucked. Probably brain worms or some shit. Do you sometimes notice foam in the corners of your mouth when you speak?
Haha you’re an idiot trying to sound smart
Freedom is a big word that without clarification doesn’t tell us much of what you believe in. I think you boiled it for too long.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Trump is a leftist then?
No, right auth is when you prefer hierarchy. Left auth is bureaucracy. Left and right is how much you think capital is a commodity.
Personally, I’m market socialist so I believe that workers should directly own their labor thru worker cooperatives. Right winger believe that owning capital indefinitely is their right which only leads to capital accural and oligarchy.
If you think you’re on “the right” and are not advocating actively and persistently for Trump’s removal from office, you’re a fucking useless moron.
Thanks! I’m actually European, but it seems that a lot of people here on Lemmy forget that there exists other places than the USA and US politics. Being not-American I don’t actively focus on the US, but actually what happens on my continent, my country, my county and my municipality.
(No, I do not endorse Trump. I hope he’s replaced soon.)
You must recognize that Trump will affect you personally. The US influence is vast. At the very least, some European politicians will try to emulate Trump’s success, to the detriment of everyone they represent if they are successful.
Of course there’s a spectrum. In the US, the spectrum only applies to the populace, though, as the politicians themselves are behaving so polarized that there only exists “the right” (far-right culture warriors) and “the left” (center-right with lip service to the left).
Then you are either uninformed or somewhere the right is significantly less corrupt
Lift your focus away from the US. it’s good for you.
