I do not believe any serious future society will allow completely anonymous internet for its users. There’s just too much harm that comes from being able to say and do whatever without your person being associated with it.
Honestly, many of these posts aren’t even “right-wing” views, they’re just shared positions like “guns are empowering to civilians”, “have some respect for cultures you’re entering and learn to communicate”, “people raising a child should be supported”, “child abusers should be removed from society”.
The framing of some of these as “right-wing” or “anti-left” due to progressivist liberals is harmful and something we have to punch through. In my union, I had to put on a nice face and discuss with a member who only knew how to frame their legitimate proletarian objections to offshoring and porky’s cost-cutting through terms like “woke nonsense”, “diversity” and the like. And it sucks for them too, because their unfortunate, inaccurate choice of words lumps them in with absolute scum, and so they have to justify every other sentence with a good ol’ “I’m not a racist” to try and clarify their objection (which, in this case, based on their other views and talking to them further, I really think was true and not just the classic shield tactic that Nazi scum abuse to feign humanity). When progressive liberals have garbage analysis and advocate idealist misguided solutions, that alienates reasonable people who might end up believing themselves to be “anti-left”, given the Overton window puts proglibs in the “left” here.
I can only imagine if they talked to someone else who took their language at face value and then (understandably) dismissed them as an anti-worker pro-bigotry bastard etc. etc., instead of realizing it’s just (for lack of a more neutral word) ignorance. Their legitimate proletarian concerns would be answered with dismissal or an attack. That’s why we need to say loudly and clearly that we have shared proletarian values, not just “leftist” values.
(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
I’m not convinced it’s nonsense as a whole, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Especially in situations like US electoral “republican-democrat” dichotomy, where people sometimes label republican as right and democrat as left, which is indeed nonsense. I think it’s kinda like “fascism” where there is historical meaning and then there is how it gets bandied about, and there’s a lot of muddied use of it.
Well said. This really gets to the heart of it. I forget where I heard this quote but “the culture war is a proxy class war” is something I feel has a lot of truth to it.
Great phrase, I’ll have to remember that one! And that’s absolutely at play here from the “progressive” liberalist side too - I suspect a significant chunk of the frustration with “DEI” and “woke” is due to the capitalist abuse the underlying progressive movements, comparable to rainbow capitalism. Offshoring (I originally miswrote that as “outsourcing” before you replied) to cheap underqualified labor is justified as “diversity”, but local workers suffer because the capitalist is hiring people who aren’t doing the job as well. The capitalist is justifying their anti-worker exploitation as being social justice! So for people who are brought up in a casually racist environment [read: most citizens here] and just not used to thinking about how they say things, they can thoughtlessly say something that’s easily misinterpreted as racist bigotry. Consider: “They keep giving our jobs to Indians who can’t do it as well” - it absolutely comes off as racist (or nationalist) to me, but could also just be someone who seriously doesn’t care about whether they’re from India or a different race, they’re objecting to the outsourcing which just happens to currently be to India. Thoughlessness, which leads them to have to justify with defenses: “I’m not a racist, the Indian coworkers over here are wonderful, I have an Asian wife”, you get the idea. Again, I know those lines are also abused by dissonant racists, but we would be foolish to just assume.
The person I was talking about before had earlier complained that they were also getting in trouble at work for being direct and blunt, rather than diplomatic and polite, like if someone was talking loudly on their phone while others are trying to work, or they didn’t put enough greetings and sugar in their email and someone got offended. And they mentioned that it wasn’t easy for them to adjust, because they’d been conditioned in certain engineering and military [fuck the troops] jobs where you don’t have time to formulate and beat about the bush or worry about politics, direct and timely communication matters, and I suspect that leads them toward this thoughtless unfortunate phrasing, forcing them to backtrack with those defenses; “they can’t say anything anymore”. And, yes, again, that’s the same line we also see used by pieces of crap who want to say racist garbage. It’s all so tiresome!
yeah definitely. I think a those of us who have beliefs we’ve taken the time to think through choose our words carefully, we assume others do the same. in reality most working people haven’t, they just regurgitate things they’ve heard on TV, Facebook and other corporate platforms. the silver lining is that our ideas are not as unpopular as they might appear. you really don’t know until you find a common language with someone what you really disagree on.
In a functioning post-capitslist society, people should be expected to work if they are reasonably able. (I’m not sure if this is really even right wing but I know a lot of people who would say that it is).
You’re right, this isn’t right-wing, guaranteed employment is in socialist constitutions. The more of us working, the less we’ll individually have to. Contrast with, say, nazi Germany where they had relatively few people working many hours.
Lenin said that he who does not work shall also not eat
maybe that being a communist doesn’t require to be a militant atheist. Atheism is a method for some people to avoid reactionary traps that usually come with religion
It doesn’t necessarily require it, sure. But people are frequently presented with issues which have a materialist solution that conflicts with directly with their religious idealism. It happens all the time and when that’s combined with the threat of eternal punishment for doing the “wrong” thing, the idealism usually wins to the detriment of everyone.
Out party consists of many religions and (so far) no problem has occurred. Not between the Muslims and the Christians, or even Muslims and LGBTQ+ community like so many libs like to go on about. Nothing. It can absolutely work when working towards socialism.
To be a communist is to be a materialist. You cannot separate the two of them
I agree, I think a materialist perspective in the realm of political thought is key, but as for people’s personal lives they can believe what they wish about the nature of the universe outside of that. So long as the org is secular and people are applying a materialist philosophy in their analysis of the natural world here then it’s completely compatible
We should attempt to get rid of alcohol and drugs in society. That’s not say immediate criminalization but we should go after producers of these ills and work to eliminate them through gradual, supportive-of-addicts means entirely.
Agreed, but there’s a lot of places where being a leftist = liking weed and people really think letting recreational drugs go loose is some benefit to society.
I partially agree, I think drugs should be outlawed and/or limited. I’m not against people in certain mental health situations being given ayahuasca or similar drugs with potential therapeutic effects but I don’t think people should be able to buy heroin at the corner store for regular recreational use and that there should be allowed this drug culture (420, etc) around it.
I think ceremonially people should be allowed reasonable limited amounts of certain substances like alcohol (and weed) in state regulated amounts (like tied to a state ID card) like a bottle of wine for new years and a few other holidays and a bottle of whiskey a year but not like 2 bottles of whiskey and a case of beer a week type consumption. Not you know spending every other day high out of your mind on weed for hours at a time. I think what weed that is available recreationally should be weakened back to mid 20th century levels of THC and no one under 24 should be allowed access to it given the potential dangers to developing brains. As smoke is a carcinogen by itself consumption in that form should be discouraged for those who wish to use it, those who require it be done that way for traditional ceremonial/cultural reasons can still do so but most should be encouraged to bake it into foods or imbibe in some other manner that reduces the harm.
I understand why under capitalism people drink heavily or do lots of drugs, how miserable life can be, how hard labor conditions are so I’m not in favor of harsh restrictions on alcohol/weed under capitalism (though I’m also not in favor of legalization of more hard drugs which would be used to harm the proletariat, drug people into a sense of uncaring acceptance, exploit people to addict them to a product for profit, etc).
I think it’s a definite harm and people don’t understand that say the type of weed that Stalin smoked was like a hundred times weaker than the stuff you can buy in a shop today. Back in Stalin’s day weed was a mild relaxant really compared to what it is today.
Even if marijuana could be more mild, it still impairs driving. There is absolutely no reason for recreational marijuana to be legal and I think that attempts to take down these dealers is important since they kill people through impaired driving. I think it needs to be dealt with through long term social reform, elimination of poverty, arrests and destructing of the dealers, and education.
I don’t want no gubbermint taking my guns.
Not even right wing, Marx said this shit
Definitely not my most rightwing view, but my most rightwing conscious position is that comrades should join and build up whatever organisations they can, even if they are right-deviationists or contain reactionary elements, and fight over those inside the organisations. This includes parties with settler, LGBT-phobic, misogynous among other deviations.
I also have another view that may be seen as rightwing here (and is definitely controversial) that settler-colonialism is not the principal contradiction in current day USA, North America, or most of the rest of the Americas. It’s first between the international bourgeoisie (with home base in the US) and the international proletariat, then between peripheral nations and the imperial core finance, military and cultural sectors, and only after that it’s between oppressed minorities (be they native or “imported”) and the national state repression force. Some day I’ll take the time for this struggle session.
Rothbard has awesome smile
That if you move to another country you should be learning that language to the best of your capabilities. I work with a lot of foreigners and the amount of them that are incapable or simply unwilling to speak, in my case, Dutch is insanely high. I do think we as a society should invest more in schooling and developing both the native and the new language of course. But learn the fucking language. At least try.
a) languages are hard. but immersion helps
b) I think the vast majority if expats won’t even consider learning the local language.
Languages is hard that’s true. An initiative our party took is the ‘festival of the mother tongue’ in which many different nationalities can showcase their language and local cuisine and whatnot. Really helps people think about language.
Also, it turns out that further developing your native language can also help with learning a new language. Hence why I think it’s important to stimulate that as well though reading and stuff.
also the question is if there are programs to help people learn the local language, rather then demonising them for struggling
Ok but it’s Dutch, I understand the hesitation
Everybody ganster until they have to pronounce arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering
In my top 3 most ridiculous languages for sure, can’t keep a straight face listening to those people, lol.
I agree, especially for those American expats
As a global south citizen, I don’t care a single iota about domestic/social cultural policies of western politicians or parties, and would be glad to see a socially conservative movement take power there if it meant an end to Genocide, War, and economic exploitation in my part of the world. I guess it is some form of critical support, same reason I support Iran and Russia in their resistance to Imperialism despite their less than ideal social stances.
I thought the question was “what is THE single most right wing view” and i was like “Idk probably supporting genocide” then i read the comments and was so confused.
Glad i didnt comment without reading the question again that would have looked bad.
Its hard cuz idk what even is right wing or isnt half the time.
I don’t remember the exact quote, but i saw something like “To be a revolutionary is to be a ruthless bloodthirsty monster.” attributed to Che Guevara. I agree with it. I think to operate as a revolutionary successfully against something like a capitalist regime you can’t afford to limit your actions. You do what you have to do to win. No matter how cruel, no matter how unreasonable. Victory is the only goal. For any suffering you may cause pales in comparison to the suffering caused by your failure.
Death penalty is good actually, as long as it isn’t used just on minorities. Super useful to scare capitalists.
Death penalty, but only for the bourgeoisie and for politicians who betray the proletariat
And child pr3dators
Oh fuck yes, no list for them, just straight to the guillotine after sentencing
And for supporters of death penalty
I don’t think fear is a good reason to be using the death penalty. Tho tbf, considering the topic question, it does sound pretty right-wing to be wanting to use fear as a tactic to control people.
i know deterrence doesn’t work for regular crime but maybe it does for white-collar crimes that are premeditated conspiracies and continuously reaffirmed by the perpetrators?
I mean, I’m not against state intervention in suppressing the capitalist class during the transition to where class doesn’t exist. That’s an important thing. I’m not even opposed to China’s handling of corruption, which sometimes involves death sentence as far as I know - I don’t know what reasoning they’re operating from and why they think that makes sense for them, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to weigh in on it.
But as a general principle concept of promoting death penalty to “scare” “bad people”, I don’t see how it would accomplish anything on that alone. If regular people commit crimes in spite of scary repression when they are desperate enough, capitalists and the like no doubt will some of the time too because the inertia of their class circumstances drive them toward financial crimes. And fearing getting caught may deter some people some of the time, but it doesn’t address the inertia.
I can however think of at least one other reason more directly practical that a socialist state might go for death penalty for some financial crimes. Which is, in dealing with imperialism along with concerns about internal reactionaries, there’s always the possibility that a corrupt figure who is influential enough / has strong enough ties can escape or get released later by some form of opposition and used further against the working class.
The difference is that capitalists aren’t desperate. They commit crimes just to make numbers get bigger. Just fining corporations for doing crimes doesn’t do anything, because then it just becomes a cost of doing business. You must attack the people in the corporations making the decisions to make money, and the death penalty is one of the tools for that.
To understand the use of the death penalty, imagine how many worker hours a capitalist who steals a billion dollars takes away. Assuming the average US salary (~$66,000) and working lifespan (77.43 years - 20 yr childhood), they’ve stolen the entire life earnings of 264 Americans. These calcs look even worse for any non-U.S. country because the theft is usually done in USD, but all the workers make a much less valuable currency.
As of now, China mostly uses death sentence with reprieve for financial crimes, which means that if the sentenced person doesn’t commit another crime in a couple years, their sentence gets demoted to life sentence. Actual execution has only been used for extreme cases, such as Sichuan mining tyremoved Liu Han, worth $6.4 billion, for his crime syndicate of gambling, loan sharking, illicit arms trading, contract killing, and actual lethal shootings.[1]
Thanks for the context on how China does it. As far as the rest of it goes, I’m in total agreement that the damage done by some of these people is extremely egregious. I am specifically disagreeing on the idea of fear as a tactic, especially as it relates to the death penalty, in a general principle way. There may be some contexts where it makes sense, but if we’re talking about it in the abstract, it just comes off like the usual punitive philosophy on crime that is common in, for example, the US. Surely there is far more to it than fear of punishment that helps deter the capitalists in a place like China - that’s kind of where my mind goes with it. I don’t think fear is generally a healthy mechanism to be using against a populace and I’m doubtful that it does much as a deterrent, especially without negative side effects. But there is also the ideal and the conditions, and sometimes the conditions demand things that are not the ideal to get through. So that’s where I try to emphasize that I’m talking about the idea of it, not trying to judge how existing socialist projects do things, especially without understanding why.
Found Luigi’s account. hi
There should be substantial financial and social help given to families that want to have children, and they should get more help the more children they have.
(But to balance that out with a left wing policy, i also want free contraception for everyone who doesn’t want children.)
Definitely. I hope China will be the first country to find a good solution to the birth crisis faced by all developed countries, since no capitalist country has found a solution yet. Reducing working hours, providing social support, increasing household wealth and living standards, and decreasing stress from raising kids should hopefully fix this.
this 100%. We had a kid during the lock downs our government was paying everyone to stay inside. me and my partner got to stay in and focus on being parents, taking our time and doing a much better job then if we had to worry about making rent and feeding us on minimum wage.
What was that time like?
it was really great for the most part. the covid lock down part kinda sucked but the rest was great and it really shifted my perspective on a lot of things. the main one being having a kid isn’t actually the hard part about having a kid, capitalism is the hard part of having a kid, we just got to focus on what’s important instead of making money to keep us alive.
That’s beautifully put, genuinely.
I get the sense that despite all the hardship, was there a sense of camaraderie, unity, and love and togetherness and stuff, among your family and Chinese people in general?
Aren’t those both left?
Market reforms of Deng were amazing
I hope you won’t mind my ultra moment here. I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
Even in retrospect, Deng Xiaoping seems to be the rightmost someone can be and still reasonably be considered a communist. Looking at some of his unimplemented ideas and the policies that were reversed in the following decades, it’s understandable why someone would think he was a capitalist roader in his time. The path he set the CPC on meant that the party had to walk a difficult tightrope, fooling the westerners by obfuscating their long-term plans while keeping the creeping liberalism at check. Whole the capacity of her administrators and will of her people played the main part, China couldn’t have made it to today without fortune by their side.
Tldr I agree but only with hindsight
I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
It was a leap of faith and incredible trust in the future generations. If that went as market reforms did elswhere we would be now cursing him as second Gorbachev (or Gorbachev as second Deng). And the world could be as well completely doomed with no socialist China.
I don’t think this is an ultra moment, so much as leaving out dialectics. Luck always factors into things, yeah, but the results speak for themselves because communist theory and practice works, and socialist projects continuously show this. The way they went about it could have gone wrong in a number of ways, sure, but so can working toward a revolution, so can the start of a revolution, so can the day to day mundanity of organizing a local party meeting, etc. It’s how you use the dialectical process to adapt to the shifting circumstances and predict outcomes that makes the difference. And of course the people themselves, the struggle they put into it every step of the way. But point being, Deng and whoever all agreed with his path were picking a path and trying it, and in some ways it worked and some ways it didn’t, and they have adjusted since. It’s that adjusting that is so pivotal.
Or to put it another way, while luck is always a factor in things, analysis can usually reveal that there’s less luck than it might seem at a glance and sometimes it’s a matter of how deep you get into the factors in play. Casinos play on this all the time by having the appearance of handing over outcomes to luck, but in reality, being heavily weighted toward the “house winning.”
isnt that true all the time though? i remember reading in john reeds book that what made the soldiers finally break for the october revolution was kerenski demanding and not asking. Up until then a lot were undecided and the revolution might have failed because the ones that were decided were stronger on kerenskis side? so much in life is up to chance that the best you can do is hedge your bets
Public smoking should be banned. And I’m not sure why so many people insist that they have a right to pollute everyone else’s air. Especially when asthma is not an uncommom condition.
And kids are being hurt just by this drug abuse being on public display almost everywhere
deleted by creator
No, most of the views in this thread aren’t right wing views. Not allowing smoking in public because it’s hazardous to other health would be considered more of a left wing ideal because it puts the health of the working class as a whole over the desire of the individual to poison themselves.
So many of these comments are actually just extreme views that many people actually agree with. Most seeming to be left wing oriented. Threads like this are always stupid because the author is just trying to start controversy in the community and most of the commenters aren’t going to post their ACTUAL right wing thoughts because they know they will get downvoted and harassed for them.
deleted by creator
To be fair, this is lemmygrad
I suppose that’s a way to see it. In my experience being around hippies and ultra left people, a weirdly common view is that tobacco and weed are completely harmless and it should be allowed everywhere.
But that might have been them talking from their addicted perspective?
