I got my parents to almost agree with free healthcare if only whites had it, but they caught on and doubled down on “waiting times”. Despite surviving on socialism Medicare.
That’s not far off what Strasserism was/is. Though ultimately being x left and y right always means your just a right winger as people drop the x left to preserve the y right.
That’s not what I meant, but sure, that’s a position someone could have.
Or someone could want single-payer healthcare for all but thinks abortion should be outlawed. Or hell, the opposite is possible too. Someone could want to remove all safety nets, but want marriage equality.
For example, a party like https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform is a combination of left and right positions. Their first two party positions are: 1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice. They explicitly support workers rights and economic security as well as care for the environment. At the same time, they have a pretty conservative view on family (and probably by extension homosexuality, though I haven’t seen that explicity mentioned).
Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice
literally mutually exclusive.
Anyway, what you’re describing is liberalism and neo liberalism, and both serve the status quo and enable fascism, hence are garbage. You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist.
That would be one possible position, but that is not what is espoused by the link I gave. " You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist." They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.
They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.
My point exactly - they uphold and maintain the status quo that is oppressing and killing millions if not billions for the benefit of a few hundred people.
Anyone who not only supports those systems, but wants to make them stronger, cannot, sincerely anyway, claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of anyone but themselves and the oppressors whose boots they lick.
Sorry, I misread what you wrong and thus was very unclear. My mistake.
They explicitly support “a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party
If you view that as supporting the status quo, then I don’t think I understand your position.
My position (well, the reality) is that it doesn’t matter if you support workers rights if you’re also opposed to some people’s human rights, and that it is literally impossible to support universal healthcare while opposing abortion. The Nazis called themselves socialists and were all for (some) workers rights, that doesn’t make them leftist, on anything.
There is no such thing as socially one way (left/right) and economically the other since the two (social and economical) are inextricably linked, and being conservative on one automatically means you are a hindrance (at best) to progress on the other.
Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is just doing mental gymnastics to defend their cognitive dissonance, while serving those at the top, who are known to co-opt leftist ideas to get in to power.
The disingenuous party’s platform isn’t really relevant. It’s not a real platform and their “solidarity” is a lie, they’re just republicans with a different label.
I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks “widespread economic participation and ownership”[15] and providing a social safety net program." … “The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)
That doesn’t sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.
Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, “The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]” With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.
But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying “that’s not what they really believe” seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that’s your response?
I’m not sure why you think quoting their platform has any meaning whatsoever as a reply to me.
While your point may be valid in general, this example is counter to it. Find a real example or don’t use one at all next time if you want to have a discussion.
I’m quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.
But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.
If you think they are describing their own platform I’m bad faith, I think it’s on you to demonstrate that.
I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.
"We support strengthening the specific rights of animals against abuse and neglect at the hands of those meant to steward them, recognizing them as more than inanimate property. We seek to regulate more strictly animal research, especially pound seizures. We call for stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards, and the repeal of food-disparagement laws and so-called “ag-gag” laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture. We support local and family-owned farms and farming cooperatives as essential to ethical, sustainable, and humane consumption. "
It’s possible to be left in one area, and right in another. Someone could be left economically, but not necessarily socially.
Left economically but right socially? Like, they’d want single payer healthcare but only for straight white people?
I got my parents to almost agree with free healthcare if only whites had it, but they caught on and doubled down on “waiting times”. Despite surviving on socialism Medicare.
That’s not far off what Strasserism was/is. Though ultimately being x left and y right always means your just a right winger as people drop the x left to preserve the y right.
That’s not what I meant, but sure, that’s a position someone could have.
Or someone could want single-payer healthcare for all but thinks abortion should be outlawed. Or hell, the opposite is possible too. Someone could want to remove all safety nets, but want marriage equality.
For example, a party like https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform is a combination of left and right positions. Their first two party positions are: 1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice. They explicitly support workers rights and economic security as well as care for the environment. At the same time, they have a pretty conservative view on family (and probably by extension homosexuality, though I haven’t seen that explicity mentioned).
literally mutually exclusive.
Anyway, what you’re describing is liberalism and neo liberalism, and both serve the status quo and enable fascism, hence are garbage. You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/
https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9
https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/
https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/
That would be one possible position, but that is not what is espoused by the link I gave. " You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist." They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.
My point exactly - they uphold and maintain the status quo that is oppressing and killing millions if not billions for the benefit of a few hundred people.
Anyone who not only supports those systems, but wants to make them stronger, cannot, sincerely anyway, claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of anyone but themselves and the oppressors whose boots they lick.
Sorry, I misread what you wrong and thus was very unclear. My mistake.
They explicitly support “a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party
If you view that as supporting the status quo, then I don’t think I understand your position.
My position (well, the reality) is that it doesn’t matter if you support workers rights if you’re also opposed to some people’s human rights, and that it is literally impossible to support universal healthcare while opposing abortion. The Nazis called themselves socialists and were all for (some) workers rights, that doesn’t make them leftist, on anything.
There is no such thing as socially one way (left/right) and economically the other since the two (social and economical) are inextricably linked, and being conservative on one automatically means you are a hindrance (at best) to progress on the other.
Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is just doing mental gymnastics to defend their cognitive dissonance, while serving those at the top, who are known to co-opt leftist ideas to get in to power.
The disingenuous party’s platform isn’t really relevant. It’s not a real platform and their “solidarity” is a lie, they’re just republicans with a different label.
I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks “widespread economic participation and ownership”[15] and providing a social safety net program." … “The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)
That doesn’t sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.
Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, “The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]” With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.
But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying “that’s not what they really believe” seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that’s your response?
I’m not sure why you think quoting their platform has any meaning whatsoever as a reply to me.
While your point may be valid in general, this example is counter to it. Find a real example or don’t use one at all next time if you want to have a discussion.
I’m quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.
But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.
If you think they are describing their own platform I’m bad faith, I think it’s on you to demonstrate that.
I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.
Why would people who believe in the sanctity of life focus on abortions instead of veganism? There are way more cows dying than fetuses.
They specify human life.
But, I would point out they also say
"We support strengthening the specific rights of animals against abuse and neglect at the hands of those meant to steward them, recognizing them as more than inanimate property. We seek to regulate more strictly animal research, especially pound seizures. We call for stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards, and the repeal of food-disparagement laws and so-called “ag-gag” laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture. We support local and family-owned farms and farming cooperatives as essential to ethical, sustainable, and humane consumption. "
Oh, they support slavery and murder as long as it’s “ethical”. Mmmm, right. Very logic, much morals
Do you believe basically every politician supports slavery and murder then?
Yes.
Religion is the one oppressing lgbtq+ and humans outside of their in groups…
They call you devil sent witches… yet you still protect their abusive cults…
Conner ripped a picture of the pope then joined islam. You’re a Fucking hypocrite.
…do you believe they don’t? Can I come live in your fantasy world please? Have you seen any of the last 10,000 years on this planet?
Lmaoooo
I think it’s more common that people claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Yeah that’s been my experience. It’s a stupid position that’s logically inconsistent, but those people definitely exist.
I will never understand people that claim to be “fiscally conservative” and vote R.
I’m fiscally conservative and I vote greens. I want there to still be an economy in 100 years!
(Also I’m australian and would really like to go back to the communist way of doing things. This capitalism fad is dangerous.)
Is it? That’s not been my experience, but I guess that would depend on the group of people you happen to interact with.