Left and Rzzight

If you want to simplify it, rightists believe everything belongs to the elite, leftists the people as a whole, and libertarians the people as individuals.

It’s all about different forms of ownership and attempting to justify them.

There’re also various subdivisions within right, left and libertarian.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuvEJ-U1UDc[/youtube]

Another key difference between left and rzzight:

The left views enemies as evil, to be wiped out.

The right sees enemies as not evil, but just wrong and disruptive to the desirable course of human activity. People to be worked with and maybe beat up, but not eliminated by any means. Anybody that seeks to eliminate anybody IS already an enemy to the right.

You seem to be using the term right wing very narrowly to refer to some political philosophies within the right you agree with.

The KKK, Nazis, paleoconservatives, neocons and many, many others normally regarded as right wing viewed their enemies (blacks, Jews, communists and radical Muslims especially and respectively) as evil, and wanted to wipe them out.

Negative,nazis are leftists. Except the KKK. But the KKK doesn’t actually exist anymore except as a kind of fanclub, like Magic the Gathering. they dress up and shit. No real intent there to do anything.

Neocons don’t seek to wipe anyone out, as proved by iraq, where they made a big mess but never wiped or tried to wipe anyone out.

Paleoconservative begins to be a bit too obscure of a term for me. Not a native gringo. Will you flesh it out for me?

But nazis really are communists. They are for the commune, against the individual.

If you look at it on a per policy basis, leftists today align almost perfectly with Nazis.

Like I said elsewhere, what sets communists proper appart from Nazis and Fascists is that communists are strong enough to be honest, to seek the commune for the sake of the commune.

Nazis and fascists are sniveling bitches that need a godhead dude to legitimize their collectivist project.

Communists do it for the communers. Nazis do it for the Fhurer, or the fatherland, or the Environement. See?

The US does it for Liberty, which is a short circuiting of the whole thing because Liberty is simply the Individual, anathema to collectivism.

And when the KKK WAS a thing, they worked with democrats, the left, not republicans, the right.

But then the KKK later also wored sometimes with the Black Panthers, which might seem weird, but makes perfect sense. They are both collectivist projects with the common enemy of the US right wing.

And they both sold drugs.

But anyway, that was later. The KKK was already not about lynching or wiping out black people.

But in so far as it was, it was a collectivist project.

The weird shift where racist orgs started to become seen as republican was with the civil rights movement. If you really look at it, Martin Luther King Jr was really a hardcore conservative dude.

And JFK was just an American. Anyway, it does start to get weird. North v South. But the racism in the south, think about it. Originally, in the civil war, it was an economic problem, not a hate problem. The slave owners needed slaves to remain competitive on the markets. And then to convince the poor folk to fight for them they convinced them to hate black people. They did have some reason to hate them, namely that if freed they were to become competition in the labor force.

But the REPUBLICANS were not having any of it.

Anyway, fuck it, why not, we do have some loony shit on the right. But theree is more than enough on the left to counter-balance it.

And, where it matters, Republicans get it right.

@Pedro

Okay, so you want to redefine right-wing to mean libertarianism or individualism particularly?
Because you think right-wing authoritarianism and collectivism has more in common with the left than with libertarianism and individualism?

Maybe :laughing:

Well the neocons have an agenda, as do liberals, I was merely discussing what they profess to be, or what people wish they were, not what they are in actuality.

The conservatives at the forefront of the republican party from after WW2 to Reagan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

Nazis are national socialists.

For you, socialism and communism are interchangeable, but socialists only want to regulate commerce, whereas communists want to regulate residency and even what we refer to as personal property, they want to do away with it.

Also for you, socialists and national socialists are interchangeable, but socialists want an internationalist democracy to internationalize, unionize (syndicalism) and/or externally regulate (Keynesianism) production mainly or solely for the benefit of consumers and workers (class warfare), whereas national socialists want a nationalist dictatorship to externally regulate production for the mutual benefit of capitalists on the right hand, and consumers and workers on the left (class collaboration).

Furthermore, socialists believe all nationalities and the sexes are equal and essentially the same, whereas national socialists believe some nationalities are inferior and women subordinate.
Socialists want to help the underclass, whereas national socialists want to eliminate them.

essentially socialists are egalitarian, whereas national socialists are more elitist.
Socialists intervene to narrow or eliminate disparities, whereas national socialists intervene to maintain them (they want what they perceive as a more just hierarchy, not to abolish hierarchy altogether).
I think that’s why libertarianism gets lumped in with the authoritarian right, because rightly or wrong, people believe libertarianism inevitably leads to large disparities between classes.

Democratic socialists emphasize regulation of big business, the upper class and essential goods and services over small business, the middle class and inessentials.

Socialism’s regulation is partial, communism’s regulation is total.

Under communism, all is public, everything is everyone’s, there is no private.

I don’t know. I don’t mean to be offensive, but those are all very academic definitions that I can’t really work with.

Concerning paleoconservatism, I looked at the wikipedia page. I don’t see anything that might indicate a will or intention to wipe anyone out. Maybe i’m missing something.

Also, you allude that neocons want to wipe some people out but can’t practically do it. But who do they supposedly want to wipe out? I know of no such group.

Like you have some odd definitions, or very set definitions. for example of socialism, what “it” whatever it is wants. But socialism is a term with a historical context. Originally it WAS interchangeable with communism, communism was just a more specific term used for the more academic theory behind socialism. But they are the same thing. Socialists like to say no, but separating the two causes more confusion than clarity. Like why is it that understanding communist theory I can predict what socialists will want or do next, whereas if you just judge what socialists say it seems to change from one month to the other with no rhyme or reason?

There is no “socialism” and what “it” wants. There are socialists and what they want.

Regarding the whole elitism vs egalitarian thing, elitism vs egualitarian is a separate discussion from collectivist vs individualist. Whoever is elite or stands out in fascism or nazism does so in the context of a collective, a race, a nation. If you look at the terms, social ist and commune ist, these indicate a preference regarding collective vs individual, not egualitarian vs elitist. that’s why nazis used national socialist and no one found it weird, it wasn’t dissonant.

A collective can explicitly favour elitism and incorporate it in its theoretical considerations, because it makes sense in the context of a collective, who is best in the collective.

Individualists can’t really explicitly even consider it, much less integrate it in theory. In that sense, it is much more egalitarian. Some distinctions may arrise between individuals eventually which might from the outside be discerened as elites and less elite. But even then, groups are implied.

An elite warrior. The best of the group orcollective "warrior,’ the one who best espouses the characteristics of the group, the ultimate expression of the collective.

An elite individual? Think about it, it doesn’t even make sense.