Well, it’s hard to tell liberals and conservatives apart, mostly because liberalism isn’t left wing, but actually slightly right from centre, and both liberalism and conservativism share some similarities.
This is what McCarthyism did. It’s the great goal post mover.
Conservatives:
Liberals: “no nazis or bigots. We want fair pay and basic human rights”
Wow, it’s so hard to see the difference.
CPAC organizers did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
How does that change anything? In the past they were willing to eject these people, but not this time.
It doesn’t. I just found it funny they expected a comment. The news not calling this fascism is why it’s going to get worse.
I doubt they actually expected a comment. Reaching out for a comment is just part of what you do as a journalist.
I used to think that the type of hatred displayed by the filth guy was a small backwards group ina larger whole, but I’m not seeing anyone else in the larger whole, who might be less ridiculous, saying anything about the fridges. It makes them all appear the same.
This is a basic example of issues caused by not policing extremist views within your own group, or a group being too big and not representing the majority of people’s views.
I’d say slightly center from right
Liberalism is solidly right of center, its Social Democracy that is slightly right of center. Conservativism is just fascism.
Far centre: Would you guys just fuck already.
centrists are usually right wing wanting the votes/approval from left
Centrists are right wing afraid to call themselves right wing.
The right wing in the US is so fucking right wing that what is considered right wing elsewhere are called democrats
When your only idea to solve problems is violence you don’t care for having people’s needs met, you just want to dominate others and still claim to be the good guy. I see that on the side of “the left” and you can distance yourself from that without becoming right wing or conservative.
Centrist here. I don’t think the point of horseshoe theory is that the far-left and far-right are the same. The point is simply that they have similarities. Like both wanting to use violence to achieve their aims.
Tankies on Hexbear: Both fascists, you really shouldn’t vote
Tankies and fascists get along well.
Leftists: never show up to vote
Also leftists: nothing ever gets done. Both parties must be the same
It says something, that securing people’s basic needs is considered “far” left.
FAR LEFT IN SOUTH AMERICA : let’s do deals with dictators and narco generals.
It’s the means of how they do so that the centrists see as the same
What would those means be? Because I don’t remember the far left trying to stage a coup so that they could begin their genocidal dictatorship. And they’re still planning that genocidal dictatorship.
Oh so you like to pretend that “the far left” exists in any quantity in the United States and the US is what you’re talking about? Lol.
Have you seriously not heard of Tankies?
I’m not sure what quantity has to do with anything.
And Tankies are not far left because they embrace authoritarianism, which is an inherently conservative idea.
Authoritarian regimes may be either autocratic or oligarchic and may be based upon the rule of a party or the military.
And Tankies embrace both types of regimes. They love the autocratic Kim regime in North Korea and the PRC and their excuse is that both countries call themselves communist.
“There are sheltered teenagers on the internet with dumb political views, which is indistinguishable from actual attempted sedition by current members of government”
Couldn’t hit you over the head with it any harder.
>only the usa exists!
Show me one case of far left political organisation taking control of any country worldwide in the last 60 years.
I can only think of one example.
It is my understanding, and please someone correct me if I’m wrong, that after Nepal ended its monarchy in the 1990s, a democratically elected Marxist-Leninist party took control.
And then they lost the elections eventually and a socialist party took control.
But that’s all I can come up with.
Exactly, democratically elected.
And they’re wrong for that.
You gotta add more context bc without any context this comment looks stupid AF. Hence the downvote storm.
Edit: and referencing tankies doesn’t make any sense either so let’s dial it in.
No far left is “dissenters will be forcibly ‘re-educated’ or removed from society or put down”. “Far” is general violent intolerance. Your post is standard left vs. far right.
Fucking what? Far left is “putting people down”?
Was referring to killing of dissenters. Deleted my post though.
That’s not a far left position, though. That’s about strategy and implementation, which can be as violent as possible or peaceful as possible, and still be far left.
I know right? Who ever heard of a far left totalitarian state?
Seems You want to be sarcastic with this question. Care to give an example to back up Your argument? I might be wrong, but I think “totalitarian” is the opposite of leftism.
The politicial compass may be flawed, but finds a perfect spot to put totalitarian left regimes.
Hey, who doesn’t love a purge? It’s cathartic.
I have been missing the nutty and nonsensical comments from Reddit. I’m so happy Lemmy has grown big enough that we now have our own weird bots to rewrite history for us. #Blessed 🥰
You can argue that this time we can make communism work guys and abolishing most private property would be considered far left. I don’t think violence is implicit in the extreme left like it is with the far right its just the natural consequences of any authoritarian government regardless of orientation.
The other problem with comparing the two is that even though left and right—by American standards— are SOMEWHAT equally represented the far right is like 30% of the pop and the far left more like 1%. Electing the left caries no risk of the extreme folks running the show they barely have a voice. Electing the right implicitly means letting the extremists run the show they are the majority of the right.
The centrists has their basic needs met and isn’t part of a social group that is threatened so they see both as a waste of tax spending.
“If we just improve the education system, racism will go away.” - My centrist friend
Bro, no. Also, who the fuck do you think is trying to fund education? Assuming we even accept your premise.
Your friend is sort of correct. Improving education across the board would do leaps and bounds to help solve the problem.
Education does help, or the right wouldn’t be trying to gut it so hard. But it’s not all we need
Education is a step in the right direction, but a lot of issues are systemic and require bigger overhauls of change to see marginal impact. Unfortunately, with that comes rebuttals.
As if whole branches of science hadn’t been proved to be racist both bottom up and top down
Education system is broad enough term for your friend to be correct
You’re right, of course, but a key trait of sociopaths is viewing people through the lens of what they can do for them.
Are you saying centrists are sociopaths?
I’m saying anyone who views other people this way has sociopathic tendencies. They just mentioned centrists.
Implied by this: centrists see all this mainly as a financial matter.
Centrists are unwilling to accept change or inconvenience. This differs from conservatives who think things should go back to some sort of old way.
That would be reactioners, not conservatives. You guys also have problem of reactioners taking name of conservatives.
American Centrist are reactionaries, American conservatives are not reactionaries. That is my point.
It’s really impossible to know what you mean here, because conservative should mean to keep doing what works: They should be social democrats (what worked to build the US e.g. Nixon lol). So we shouldn’t use that word any more. True conservatism would be more left wing than democrats today.
The GOP has become a reactionary or “paleo-conservative” which is really a misnomer too. What they really are now is a theocratic fascist party. But really they have no values at all except power and hate and inequality.
There are no real centrists, there is no center here. They are really corporatists who are willing to play politics in order to please the big capitalists or plutocracy. They love trump because they can keep cutting of left wing politics and not have a platform. In foreign policy they are fascist as well (american exceptionalism, a belief in inequality based on identity).
The gop are not the reactionary part, the DNC is. They are also centrists between the gop and a ghost of policies to the left.
I think we’re speaking different languages.
We gotta stop callin he them conservatives. These shits are trying to roll things back, not keep it as-is. They’re the opposite of progressive: they’re regressive.
“If this were a real problem then Bill Gates would have fixed it but now.”
If by centrists, you mean neo-liberal Democrats, you got it.
I would not mean those people because I would consider them to be on the right. I mean people to the left of them but not left enough to reject corporate influence and embrace ideas like socialized medicine and housing.
I guess I see neo-liberals (focusing on white liberalism as a political movement) as not seeing themselves on the right. They think of themselves as being on the left, but are effectively antagonistic towards leftist policies, a highlighted example of this being the tension between “mainstream” Democrats and the progressive caucus within the Democratic party. White liberalalist ideology is fundamentally Neo-liberal and anti-revolutionary. Bipartisanship, institutionalism, incrementalism, these are the hallmarks of white liberalism. They extend from the ideals of a class of people who benefit from the existing structures in society. They don’t support racisim ‘explcity’ but they do benefit from it implicitly, and so support the institutions that build a racist society. In this way they can ‘oppose’ racism, but still benefit from it. They support ‘change’ but only want to pursue it in nickels and dimes, unwilling to commit to universal programs that benefit everyone (Obamacare is a perfect example of this). White-liberals have no problem making common cause with explicitly fascist or racist groups, because to them the politeness of society is more important than its outcomes. Not Nazis, but willing to caucus with them. See the recent border vote for an example of this.
Its easy and convenient to see right-wing fascist as the entirety of the problem, but those people would have no ability to drive their agenda forward if not for white liberals. White liberalism ineffectual approach to governing, disinterest in revolutionary or universal programs, and insistence on decorum and appearances is fundamental to why the right-wing has been so effective and capable in furthering their project and agenda. This is why everyone should be challenged by the blue-no-matter-who arguments. All you have to do is look at the previous 24 years of history to recognize that this is a fundamentally white-liberal argument (as in, a direct extension of white liberalism as a political philosophy). Its not working. It hasn’t worked. It doesn’t work. We shouldn’t expect it to work in the future. IT results in the worst possible match ups to win elections. If you are a leftist, it leaves you strategically vulnerable at every possible turn and historically has generated only negative progress.
White-liberalism is the second partner in a dance with white-nationalism towards fashism. White nationalists simply would not have been able to progress their agenda this far without it. It wasn’t just the Nazis that drove Germany into fascism. It was also the other parties who empowered, emboldened, and appeased the Nazis in their pursuit of power, which is precisely what we see ‘moderate’ Democrats doing today. If you want to deal with the rise of fascism in the US, you need to address white liberalisms control of the Democratic party first.
MLK knew.
yeah well, people here don’t.
USA: we don’t have a left. Democrats are at best center.
This. Republicans and Democrats have been moving steadily to the right for the last 40 years. So now, Democrats are where Republicans were in the 1980s: boring corporatists who are best friends of banks, insurance and pharmaceutical companies. We haven’t had a real progressive president since Jimmy Carter and that was 50 years ago.
Meanwhile, the right has moved all the way into an insane asylum. Their best friends are Russian oligarchs, fascists, religious nutjobs and civil war re-enactors, who communicate on Twitter and “Truth Social” and call themselves “Republicans.”
You don’t have a right either though, at least not a right on the democratic spectrum.
All you’ve got are “unacceptable” and “fascism”.
They are more right than russian right-wing politicians. Even in USSR second opposition party was right-wing Liberal-Democratic Party of Soviet Union.
Nowadays the right-left-continuum is already broken inside a single political region, I am pretty sure comparing getting the USSR into the boat doesn’t make it easier.
And by the way, who was the “second opposition party” in the One-Party-System of the Soviet Union?
And by the way, who was the “second opposition party” in the One-Party-System of the Soviet Union?
I already mentioned LDPSU. Fist one was Democratic Union, right wing, but no longer exists. One-party-system was abolished in 1990
Does Russia have a living opposition party?
Putin: “Who are you going to vote for, me or the corpse?”
Also Putin: “The answer is me. Or else.”
It’s the SP party. It stands for sock puppet and are just for show to give everything a veneer of democracy
USA has a left. They almost never win at the ballot box, though. You have to find them in the streets.
But isn’t being forced to pay taxes a form of extermination?!
Extermination of inequalities
