Left and Rzzight

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.

Why is there never any talk of “elite” businessmen or elite merchants?

Elite traders?

It’s because individuals, and capitalists (not as in adhering to the ideology capitalism, which doesn’t exist, but as in people out to accumulate capital as Marx used it), aren’t measured against a group or collective. They are measured aginst themselves, against their own success.

“He’s an elite filmmaker.”

No.

Weirdly there is the term business elite. but still weirdly there is not then an elite businessman.

that’s because business elite is a cover for fascist corporatist ideology. The idea that there is a group of people versed in the best characteristics of the collective of merchants. Silly.

Anyway, when mentioning business elite, they rarely mean entrepreneurs. they tend to refer to the type of corporate operator that can only thrive and indeed exist within the frame of heavy regulations. The elitism arises not from their business savvy, but from their knowledge of the intricate web of regulations that create a collective where governments, businesses and corporations become indistinguishable.

Maybe I ot lost with that last post.

But I did say, from the outside, there may arise individuals that can be differentiated from other individuals to form something that can perhaps be called an elite. A business elite. But only post facto, never from the inside where the term elite businessman can make no sense.

And like I also said, it already implies a group, it already doesn’t refer to individuals but a kind of collective.

No entrepreneur setting out aims to be an elite businessman which, again, doesn’t make sense as a term, or part of a business elite. They just set out to crush and get rich. Then if they make it perhaps they can be considered part of the business elite. But even then… I can imagine people using the term business elite, but I can’t imagine them then pointing out specific people within it. It is a sort of nebulous term referring to a vague thing. A group that perhaps doesn’t exist, as it cannot. It is refering to what is a measure of success, not to what characteristics a member of the collective would have to hold to make part of it.

Business elite. It’s sort of dissociated from the actual activity of capitalism.

Yeah, fuck it, I stick by that. Business elite is a term that refers to corporatism, not entrepreneurship. There is crossover, so the term works, but not an actual correspondence.

Is Jay-Z part of a or the business elite?

How I feel about communists:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJXKVOxqkWM[/youtube]

Even Patton. You can say Patton was the best goddamn general in the war, but you can’t say he was elite.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sv9XNFpRdhg[/youtube]