Left and Rzzight

[barbarianhorde]

The left are moviestars and other privileged people, no? Unless I am mistaken. It is mostly rich people speaking out for the left.
For example, Michel Bloomberg said he personally bought the US House for a hundred million of his own money, because the country could not be left to the mercy of the elected president.

Such capital hardly exists where I live, but what is similar here and there is that the left insists on inviting ever more immigrants, but none of them would actually take an immigrant into one of their mansions. Quite weird. But then, humans are weird.

[Serendipper]

the first great society ever got rid of slavery. I'm not saying do away with the left. Only leftists think in terms of doing away with people that disagree.

Doing away with people rallying support for the redcoats, yes! Slavery isn't gone at all, but it's only that the responsibility of food ,shelter, medicine has been transferred to the slave via the paycheck. You still must work or die and you don't get a choice, and if you're not free then you're a slave working for the benefit of another against your will.

[Serendipper]

That's it, right wingers consider that a prosperous economy, to help this historical phenomenon of sorts be at its most unhindered productive best is likeliest to help people not go hungry. Working with what's there.

It was most productive when taxes were highest. The "great years" in the maga baloney refers to the 50s when taxes were 90% on the rich, and they paid it too! If the 1955 tax schedule applied in 2015, an extra $2 trillion in revenue would have resulted.

The left FIRST looks at what should be. People shouldn't be hungry. shouldn't be poor. And THEN they look around. "Hey, this guy's got a bunch of money."

Yeah, and the reason kids are growing up poor is so Bezos can keep a few extra billion. Conservatives are creating our future criminals, drug addicts, suicide victims with their bootlicking of the rich. And hell, the rich don't even want it. 3 people have more money than 50% of the population and 2 of them have been crusading to raise their own taxes for over a decade. The Patriotic Millionaires exist for the purpose of raising their own taxes. But the poorass dummies won't let them because somebody might get something for nothing.

[barbarianhorde]

The main, only real difference really between leftists and right wingers is that leftists see politics as the pursuit of attaining a perfect society, whilst right wingers see politics as a means to deal with what's actually out there.

Leftists want to start the world, right wingers consider it to already have started.

As a last post here I figure I might as well acknowledge the resident Intelligence. Excellent definitions.

Saw you were contemplating a musical creation. That should be something worth hearing.

[barbarianhorde]

That's it, right wingers consider that a prosperous economy, to help this historical phenomenon of sorts be at its most unhindered productive best is likeliest to help people not go hungry. Working with what's there.

It was most productive when taxes were highest. The "great years" in the maga baloney refers to the 50s when taxes were 90% on the rich, and they paid it too! If the 1955 tax schedule applied in 2015, an extra $2 trillion in revenue would have resulted.

The left FIRST looks at what should be. People shouldn't be hungry. shouldn't be poor. And THEN they look around. "Hey, this guy's got a bunch of money."

Yeah, and the reason kids are growing up poor is so Bezos can keep a few extra billion. Conservatives are creating our future criminals, drug addicts, suicide victims with their bootlicking of the rich. And hell, the rich don't even want it. 3 people have more money than 50% of the population and 2 of them have been crusading to raise their own taxes for over a decade. The Patriotic Millionaires exist for the purpose of raising their own taxes. But the poorass dummies won't let them because somebody might get something for nothing.

But dude Bezos is like Trumps enemy number 1. Trump tries constantly to get him to pay more for the services he elicits freely from US mail. Bezos is one of the manymamyManY billionaires that support the antitrumptrain. I... how can you not know this? Bezos. Zuckerberg. Bloomberg. Spielberg. The list is literally endless. Because as I list them more and more billionaires trying to impeach and what not Trump are made.

I said I had made my last post but I feel ... like , no. I made another one.

[Serendipper]

But dude Bezos is like Trumps enemy number 1. Trump tries constantly to get him to pay more for the services he elicits freely from US mail. Bezos is one of the manymamyManY billionaires that support the antitrumptrain. I... how can you not know this? Bezos. Zuckerberg. Bloomberg. Spielberg. The list is literally endless. Because as I list them more and more billionaires trying to impeach and what not Trump are made.

I know. And yet Trump handed him a 15% tax cut for nothing in return. The art of the deal = giving money away without asking for anything in return.

We are REALLY lucky that the 3 richest people are pacifist liberals. Buffett gives his money to Gates who gives his money to Africa and Bezos invests his money in space tourism. None of that is helping anyone I know, but at least they're not hellbent on world domination.

I said I had made my last post but I feel ... like , no. I made another one.

I hope you decide to stay.

[barbarianhorde]

The incentive created by lowering taxes which are far lower still in Europe (often 0 % in Holland) has brought many corps back to the US and creates a few hundred K jobs per month , that's the rationale and it does work.

I think honestly the main flaw in your reasoning which could be a great influence on the world ( kinda mean that) is over estimation of the rest of the world. Not seeing the bottom line is pretty gritty, dark. I think reading Nietzsche is good medicine against this. People who haven't braved N tend to use wobbly departure points even if they're smart as hell.

Humans aren't guided by reason. In fact reason only comes in play once you accept and sort of wrestle consciously with that other thing.

"Ride the snake.

He's old

And his skin is cold. ....."

[Gloominary]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Gloominary]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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?

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And they both sold drugs.

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

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

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

But the REPUBLICANS were not having any of it.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Gloominary]

@Pedro

Negative,nazis are leftists.

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?

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.

Maybe

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

[Gloominary]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.

[Pedro I Rengel]

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.