Why is being "Right-Wing" considered as bad these days?

Kraychik?

Returnedbro is pretty good user

He had a point that there's a bit of a no true scotsman argument going on with regards to the U.S.S.R.. But when you add in the characterization of liberals as being ignorant (in real life liberals are smarter and more educated than conservatives in practically every field), insistence on using terms like "left" or "leftists" and the idea that the nationalistic, homophobic and militaristic Nazi Germany was "liberal" because of a few economic policies, who else could it be?

people who generalize the right have the same simple minded mentality of those who generalize sexualities and certain demographics. The same stupid mentality that let's people look at Chelsea Mannings actions as a point of evidence to not let gays serve in the military. Even some of those that didnt really agree with using manning as a excuse to justify preconceived notions seemed to have this sense that what's done is done and we have to live with it

The right is more right than ever before, while information does not favor the right. Afterall its an old ideology based on supply side economics, when supply side economics have largely fallen out of favor and been proven ineffective.

However at a certain point the right discovered the value of fear mongering and the primal emotion of fear's capability to override logic and reasoning, and have been using it to the fullest extent for many years now.

Communism as envisioned by Marx and Engels has never been implemented anywhere. Lenin may have attempted it and Trotsky certainly pushed for it until Stalin finally had enough of him and had him assassinated. The Soviet Union under Stalin essentially became an imperialistic dictatorship regardless of whatever they called themselves and it looks like Putin aspires to be the next Stalin. China under Mao was essentially just a modification of the imperial system with Mao functioning as the Emperor of China. North Korea is a cult of personality, with North Koreans being taught that Kim Il Sung was a god who took human form to protect them from American Imperialists and that his descendants, Kim Jong Il and Kim Jong Un are descendants of god (interestingly enough, the Japanese Imperial Family line started with a similar myth centuries ago, so that kind of mythology has staying power). China and Vietnam currently are autocratic states with quasi-capitalistic economies, not even close to what communism was envisioned as. The concept of communism has been used as a tool to obtain power, but it has never been practiced by those who used it to leverage said power.

I'm a classical liberal which is center-right in most countries.

you're a pseudo intellectual who sucks at reading graphs.

My proof? You use the term "classic liberal" to sound smart when the only place people use that term is GameSpot

QFT

@Hiddai: QFT or WTF? The opposite is actually true. Right-wingers tend to be less educated than "liberals." I also assume that "ignorance of the nature of man" means "not a religious zealot."

How are young people necessarily more ignorant?

@deeliman: Generally speaking, a young person who is left to their own political devices is often ideological, meaning they'll buy into the general "leftist Democrat" way of thinking. Not always the case, but I've met more left-wing Democratic teens and 20-somethings than I have Republicans or independents.

Again, generally speaking. I'm 21 and buy into the moderate Republican viewpoint more than anything, but that still doesn't make my political views necessarily more correct. I think it stems from the fact that since few people are willing to do the research necessary to have a good grasp of the ever-changing political field, young people are seen as more ignorant than older people who do the same as the older ones at least have experience of a different socio-economic time and grasp onto an archaic way of thinking as it worked at one time, whereas the younger generation are seen as ideological with only theories and speculations to back up their hasty reasoning. That's the general thought process among many, anyway.

I don't think "Right-wing" is considered a bad thing. It is in some quarters of course. Leftist people consider it bad to be "Right wing", but "Right Wingers" probably don't, instead they consider it bad to be "Left Wing".

Also for some reason you can use the terms "right wing" to refer to conservatives, and "leftist" and "left wing" to refer to liberals, but the term "rightist" isn't used much. Also I remember years ago, after Sarkozy first was elected as president of France that some people in the media complained about his hobby of jogging which they found to be "right wing" (I don't know why. It must be a French thing. One of my college professors likes to go running outside and he seems to be a big leftist, although another one of my professors also likes to run and he's conservative).

Of course in the military, both your right wing and your left wing are important.

Because most of the people representing the right wing are idiots.

I qualified the ignorance of left-wingers as being related to the nature of man. Left-wing ideologies are predicated on this ignorance, as they promise utopia and seek to perfect mankind. As Milton Friedman said, the Garden of Eden is not of this world. Those of us on the right are not ideological, as we acknowledge the tragic nature of humanity - we are flawed. Our positions on political issues are based on an examination of the history of man, whereas leftism is predicated on utopian promises of a new era. As far as left-wingers being more educated, that's another left-wing meme to attempt to shut down debate with dissent. Moreover, "education" is extremely broad (from "gender studies" to aerospace engineering), and I am speaking specifically about political/historical astuteness. Lastly, I never said Nazi Germany was liberal, I said it was left-wing. You have succumbed to one of the most successful linguistic coups of the left, the hijacking of the term liberal. The left is supremely illiberal, yet has effectively co-opted the term liberal. You're using the term liberal in the pop culture sense, not in its true classical form. As has already been said in this thread by someone else, classical (true) liberalism is a right-wing political position in today's Western societies.

Again, what you don't understand is that socialistic policies will inevitably lead to similar outcomes as we saw in the Soviet Union (and North Korea, and Cuba, and Vietnam, and Iran, and the Congo, and Venezuela, etc). When you wipe out individual freedoms and empower the state to direct society's economic and social spheres, you end up with totalitarianism. You're like Stan and his father in South Park with that video game, chasing the magic dragon of utopia. Without private property rights and individual freedoms of expression and association, you cannot have a prosperous society. You think that Gene Roddenberry's utopian Star Trek setting of a universe without want is achievable. It isn't. Anyways, this argument of "communism has never existed" is too painful for me to continue with.

How sad is it that someone doesn't realize that there's a positive correlation between age and wisdom? Solzhenitsyn warned the West in the late 1970s about what he (accurately) perceived as the growing of socialism among its people, that a society is ill when it begins to regard the younger less experienced generation as the holders of knowledge at the expense of reverence for elders. I'm not surprised that this attitude is being expressed here in Gamespot's forums, though. You won't be twenty years old forever, and in time you'll likely realize that things change as you get older. That's not to say that we don't have exceptionally bright young people and exceptionally moronic old people, but I'm speaking in general terms, here.

There's a common theme among those on the left to believe that they are superior intellectually and morally, and I've already been attacked by many on this forum as an "idiot" or some other type of insult. Of course this istrategy is a concession of defeat - they can't debate substance so they resort to personal attacks. For the purposes of a humorous example to illustrate the stupidity of the Democrat's socialist base of voters in contemporary America, I'll invite you folks to check out the current propaganda campaign to promote dependence on the federal government's redistributive so-called ACA. They're essentially appealing to the lowest dregs of society, who again form the voter base of the Democratic party. This is the future of America if it continues this path, it's real life Idiocracy.

http://doyougotinsurance.com/

So you think you can fully comprehend political ideologies and their relevant histories by reading definitions in the dictionary? I guess university degrees relating to politics and history are worthless, those students can learn everything in a sentence or two on dictionary.com. Think of all those professors who could be as knowledgeable in a tiny fraction of the time if they only bothered to read dictionary.com. You're brilliant.

Thank you :)

Still, you do go by the popular understanding, rather than the actual definition...

In all seriousness, you are in absolutely no position to teach me one iota of anything about communism or its relevant history. By thinking you can obtain a deep understanding of communism (the political philosophy and its implementation over time and space) by reading a definition in the dictionary you expose your massive ignorance of not just this specific ideology, but also in your approach to understanding politics and history more broadly. By your absurd logic, national socialism has never been implemented because we've never seen it succeed in establishing a nation state where the borders of the state were contiguous with the entirety of its associated nation. Don't worry if you didn't understand the last sentence, I sort of expected it to be way above your head.

I guess all books ever written about communism should be reduced down to two or three sentences, as per your academic approach.

I have never seen anybody write so much but say so little.

People say "Communism has never been tried" for two main reasons:

1. Marx's theory of history was wrong, and his predictions of what capitalism and socialism would turn into were way off the mark. As such, communism was first tried in post-feudal societies, not capitalist nations like he thought.

2. The state seizing all property didn't end up creating the "new socialist man" who would work for the community without economic incentives to do so. Another Marxist prediction that didn't pan out.

In sense you can say that the kind of communism Marx and Engels envisioned has never been tried, but that's only because Marx was wrong about so much. This line of argumentation doesn't vindicate Marxism in the way modern day communists seem to think it does.

Sorry but that is nonsense. It is the same thing as saying there has never been a capitalist economy because no economy has ever been 100% textbook laissez faire capitalistic.

Did they have collectivism yes. Did they eliminate private ownership of the means of production, yes. Did they try their best at eliminating classes, why yes comrade. Were they socialist, why yes again comrade. Were they quite as good as the Khmer Rouge in mass murdering the middleclass, the intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie.... well not quite that good on a per capita basis. And that withering away of the state fantasy never really materialized.

Of course, communism as espoused by Marx and Engel is utter crap as an intellectual undertaking because it doesn't explain jack shit about how or why these mysterious waving of the arms things that lead to a collective workers paradise are to occur. To be clear, I am not even commenting on whether the moral, social, or individual underpinnings are inherently good or bad. I am stating that the intellectual rigor behind communism is joke worthy in both economic and philosophical disciplines.

Consequently, the flaccid argument trotted about by apologizers for communism on the basis that 'it has never been implemented' demonstrates an obviously weak mind. The reason being that no one can actually tell you what it is supposed to be because no one has ever stepped up to the intellectual challenge. Therefore hiding behind the veil of imperfect implementation is inherently flawed and laughable.

Actually, Lenin maintained and even increased the capitalist modes of production that existed in Russia at the time. That's what the New Economic Policy was, essentially. It was Stalin who began massive nationalization and government seizing of property and modes of production, which is in accordance to the Stalinist interpretation of Marx's proletariat dictatorship.

Also, Maoism was supposedly a correction of Stalinist policies. In turn, Pol Pot's regime was supposed to be a correction of Maoism. You can argue all the communist dictators perverted Marx's vision, but in their minds they were applying it the way they thought it could be applied at the time. As much as communists try, you can't wholly divorce the authoritarian regimes from Marxist political philosophy.

I use the term 'classical liberal' because modern day 'progressive' liberals have perverted the word.

They only believe in liberalism and individual freedom as long as it doesn't interfere with their government mandates.

Anyone who thinks that the term "classical liberal" is only used on Gamespot is not remotely worth arguing with. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of political and philosophical history would know how absurd that is. It really is sad that people can be that stupid with the resources we have at our fingertips in this day and age.

No, you use it because you're an idiot who is trying to sound smart by using an uncommonly used word.

No. The term 'liberal' was used for hundreds of years prior to the perversion of the word by the 'progressives' a hundred years ago.

I am a classical liberal and don't really care if you don't like that.

Interesting, because I often do not agree with you.

But you are 100% correct.

You didn't accurately understand what I said. Every state that has claimed communism has been an autocratic, imperialistic state with a ruling elite and a working class and no middle class. That isn't what the original vision of communism was. The problem with true communism is that it would take a sense of Buddhist compassion on everyone's part to make it work, and few people can manage that. In any case, the Soviet Union collapsed because it ran out of money. Bad fiscal management combined with out-of-control military spending became unsustainable. The failure of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with any inherent flaws in socialism. Most of Europe is socialist, including Germany, which has arguably the most stable economy in the world at present. China recognized the problem of trying to sustain an economy without productivity and converted their economy from a pseudo-Marxist one to limited capitalism while keeping the autocratic structure of government intact. They now have the world's second largest economy. I should also point out that socialism and communism are not the same thing, a distinction that right-wingers never seem to comprehend. If you're going to make sweeping statements, at least know the subject matter and its history.

There is some controversy over how committed Lenin actually was to true communist principles while there is no doubt that Trotsky wanted communism implemented in its purist form. They were both ultimately undermined (Trotsky was assassinated) by Stalin as a result of his lust for power. It's hard to figure how being a ruthless dictator is an interpretation of a Marxist proletariat dictatorship considering that the proletariat are the common people, thus proletariat dictatorship was Marx's term for government by the people. Communism was envisioned as a cooperative state, not an autocratic state.

This

Extremism of whatever side is bad. Recently the right in the western world has been pushed to be more extreme.

Also I swear people who often retread arguments start throwing out more and more words while managing even less content.

Seriously? It's not your fault that you're ignorant. you just haven't had as much life experience as someone who is older. You haven't been a part of 'the system' as long. With age comes wisdom.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" never works, and I don't believe there anything wrong with utopia or communism as long as you don't attempt to get there with wishful thinking (especially about states and vanguard parties).

Ironically, you seem to hold the religious view of human nature. Our behavior greatly is effected by our environment and institutional roles. I believe we should not create environments that foster terrible behavior. Humanity is not fixed, and I would be ideological to believe private property directly benefits me rather than the owner.

Because right-wingers lack compassion. They didn't even want to help out the other states when Superstorm Sandy hit.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/11/13/foxs-heartless-response-to-the-philippines-call/196882

Only place I've ever seen it, and the only people I see use it are people like KC who think they're really intelligent yet struggle to read a graph.

I've never heard it on talk radio, on television, or in person, just in GS. Sorry for your saltiness.

On the subject of classical liberalism: A lot of libertarians declare themselves classical liberals while not actually possessing the beliefs of a classical liberal. In much the same way they claim modern liberals stole the term liberal they themselves are ironically stealing the term classical liberal.

I understood what you said completely. Your argument isn't original, I've been hearing it from people far more knowledgeable than you on this subject matter for many years. It doesn't make it any more compelling. Like I said earlier, there's absolutely no point continuing such a dialogue about "communism never really have been implemented". It's an absurd talking point for communists to protect their illusions. Yes, that includes you.

I find it rich that someone like yourself, who clearly lacks an even basic comprehension of political theory and contemporary Western history, refers to others as "idiots" because they use common political terminology that you don't understand. Moreover, you think you can deeply understand political theory by reading two or three sentences in a dictionary. As has already been said about you, your ignorance on political matters is massive. I won't call you an idiot, because I don't think ignorance over this subject matter qualifies you as an idiot. It may very well be that there are several subjects about which you know a lot and can teach many others. Politics, economics, and history, however... are not among those subjects. Learn humility, because without it you'll continue to expose your ignorance and even worse, you'll be unaware that you should be embarrassed. Classical liberalism is a term that is learned in basic/introductory political classes as early as high school.

I wouldn't say he's stupid (he may very well be stupid) because he's politically obtuse. Just because he's massively ignorant about politics doesn't mean he's an idiot. He's certainly not worth responding to on these issues, but again, that doesn't mean he's an idiot. I think it's unbecoming to lower oneself to the juvenile and ignorant conduct that we see from people like MakeMeaSammitch. Let him embarrass himself, he seems to enjoy it.

Well said. If I may, judging by your screen name, do you have an eastern European connection somehow? Do you have some personal attachment to this relevant history?

While everything you said just went completely over MakeMeaSammitch's head (he's obviously a kid who probably struggles to read posts that more than a few sentences long), I for one appreciate it. It's interesting for me to encounter different ways of expressing the same idea. Well said.

I know this may shock you, but there's an entire political world that exists outside of your extremely limited experience. Your unfamiliarity with basic political terminology says everything about you, and nothing about those of us who use and understand the terms.

MakeMeaSammitch is pretty bad.

He's no Iostrib, though. Dude sucks

Because the sheeple who believe in the liberals that demonize anyone and anything that goes against their agenda and ideology are rampant.

Just to many sheeple drinkin the socialism koolaid.

Wow sammitch guy got bent over in here.

Communism appears to be nothing more than a label to you. Read The Communist Manifesto by Carl Marx and Frederick Engels. That was the blueprint for communism. You wouldn't be arguing with me or your more knowledgeable experts if you had ever read that book because you would understand why we say that communism has never actually been implemented. In the example of the Soviet Union, etc., the concept of communism was used to manipulate the masses just as religion is used to manipulate the masses, but it doesn't make it communism just because they said it was communism. Communism, as an ideal, was intended to free the masses, not oppress them.

Because social conservatism is dumb.

It will always be used to oppress the masses in good time. It lends far too much power to the central government, and in the wrong hands, it will become no better than every other example of failed communistic states. That's just one possible way it could fail.

The human element is the weak link in the system. It's an idealist concept of government that will only work if the people put in charge and the people it is in charge of are truly only interested in making the system work. Communism has never been truly implemented because it works against human nature, on many fronts. Emotions would take over in time and cause rifts and tears in the system. A key component of communism, from what I remember from uni, was the equal distribution of resources among the populace. Over short periods, this works fine, but if people realize over time that they get the same amount of resources, no matter what they contribute as a whole, they'll produce less. This'll force others to either become spiteful of the slacking populace and react any number of ways, from open resentment or attempted modification of the system to give only if they contribute, to open warfare or worse. Human nature is fickle and greedy. It demands attention for its work, and due reward for what it does. If the slacker gets the same as me when I contribute the most, you bet something will go down, from cracks in the system to its utter destruction. Human nature wants power and acclaim, and will do whatever it can to get it. In some, it goes too far, and the system of communism becomes a totalitarian dictatorship. The whole of Communism relies on people acting selfless, and that just isn't how it works. Capitalism flourishes because it relies on people acting selfish. You gain recognition for the work you do, and this pushes you to do more, or at least work as hard as you are.

Communism doesn't exist because it can't exist. It's a utopian pipe dream. Your argument seems to be more of a straw man than anything. Yes, communism may never have been truly implemented, but that's because it won't work in the first place. It's been tried, and it failed exactly the way people thought it would, by the greed and selfishness of man, either through implementation of capitalistic elements to placate the hard work and egos of the common man, or through takeover by a dictator. At best, it's a temporary patch for economic troubles, but it can never work on large-scale permanently.

@WiiCubeM1: The human element is the weak link in every system, including religion. Communism has never been truly implemented because it is too idealistic to be possible. It isn't supposed to have a powerful central government, it's supposed to be a cooperative state where everyone participates and everyone shares the results. It is supposed to be a classless society in which no one is rich and no one is in poverty. It is not possible to understand communism without considering the context in which it was conceptualized. Marx was deeply concerned by the exploitation of labor in 19th-century industrialized Europe where the barons of industry (or job creators, as they are called now) amassed fortunes on the backs of low paid laborers who worked long hours in often dangerous conditions for subsistent wages. He was also deeply concerned about the abandonment of humanistic principles in the pursuit of material goods and the failure of religion to truly address the plight of the common man. He viewed industrialization as little more than the continuation of feudalism in a new, more attractive package. Communism was articulated as a way to eliminate the divisions between the ruling class, or bourgeois, and the common laborer, or proletariat. Everyone shares in the burden of labor and everyone shares in the results of the labor.

@WiiCubeM1:

I understand the ideas behind communism, and I know what you mean by it never truly existing, but the sad and ugly truth is it is still a utopian pipe dream. People, as a whole, cannot be selfless and share in the collective burden. Capitalism placates people by rewarding them for the amount of work they do. Religion promises salvation to those who believe and damnation for those who don't. The successful systems thrive because they feed the selfish part of us all that tells us people will reap what they sow. Communism, pure communism, wants to throw this element out the window entirely and hopes that everyone under it's umbrella can suppress this selfishness for the common good, that no one will seize more or want more than they need.

Trust me, I understand entirely what you're saying, and sometimes I wish that a system like this could work, but communism offers no way to placate this side of ourselves. It won't work because some people don't want to participate, and others want to take as much as they can for themselves. Communism runs off of a trust system, that man can be trusted to regulate itself without some kind of intervention that would constitute the beginnings of a totalitarian state or some type of socialism/capitalism hybrid state. I agree with what you are saying, that a purely communistic state has never existed, but again, that's because it simply can't. If that is all you are trying to get across, that pure communism has never been practiced, most people agree with you, but if are trying to say that Communism could work on a large and permanent scale, that's where anyone with political insight would draw the line.

@WiiCubeM1: As I said in my previous comment, communism as articulated by Marx and Engels is too idealistic to be possible. Despite Marx's disdain for religion, it's actually a religious ideal sans religion. Marx's admonition that we should eschew materialism and selfish desires in order to be able to work together for the greater good of all humanity is not fundamentally different from the teachings of Buddha or the teachings of Christ. They are ideals that are very difficult for we flawed humans to achieve. To say that the Soviet Union was an example of true communism is about the same as saying that the mutant American style Christo-capitalism represents a true implementation of Christianity in the US.

That is true of a lot of marxism, maybe not libertarian marxism or left communism. I believe anarcho-syndicalism would be greatest course to take.

A key component of communism, from what I remember from uni, was the equal distribution of resources among the populace. Over short periods, this works fine, but if people realize over time that they get the same amount of resources, no matter what they contribute as a whole, they'll produce less.

False, the more people produce, the more every individual could get. In communism, people would be doing what they want to do. The market would no longer dictate the individuals choice of career.

It demands attention for its work, and due reward for what it does. If the slacker gets the same as me when I contribute the most, you bet something will go down, from cracks in the system to its utter destruction.

Competitive reward systems are wasteful in the workplace for many reasons. The stress it causes for one, shifts focus away from the work itself to worthless communication with supervisors, it also causes less cooperation and solidarity between workers. Why shouldn't individuals be allowed to labor more organically, and thus more efficiently?

The whole of Communism relies on people acting selfless, and that just isn't how it works.

That is complete BS, you obviously don't understand communism. One should not mistake communism for philosophical collectivism.