Just found this inane ranting in the cursed land known as the YouTube comments section. I can't even... Does anyone understand what the fuck this guy is talking about?
ok let's get some things straight:
- The idea of a “Right Wing Party” is an oxymoron, as the idea of internally antagonistic elements within a civilization is inherently leftist and Marxist, Right Wing ideology is intolerant of internal factionalism
- There are no discreet parties in US politics, there are two nominally opposed positions that are not actually different at all because they both believe in Liberalism, Capitalism, Materialism, Secular Humanism, and enlightenment principles generally, and thus could never be considered Right Wing
- Anything about the US that could be considered remotely right wing, capitalism, nationalism, liberalism, are actually left wing
- Capitalism is not ideological, but a politically nihilistic mode of production, one that even Marx identified as “progress” in relation to feudalism, and progress is incompatible with right wing values
- Nationalism is not only an French Republican ideology, but inherently populistic and incompatible with the right wing values of elitism and order. The idea that nation and citizenship are important can only be true if the masses are valuable and possess worth for their own sake, which they obviously do not in a right wing worldview
- Liberalism is generally subversive disease, but what commies like you have a problem with it is it’s defense of property rights, private property, and wage slavery. Private property is not compatible with the right wing, its creation lead to the subversive capitalist decay and end of European aristocracy and the stability of feudal order
- Any attempt to say that the right wing “adopted” these ideas, and that they are now “Right Wing Ideas” is obviously flawed because a) it is completely against the nature of the Right to change with the times, or adopt new principles, or to evolve period. To do so would be progressive b) to believe that the right wing has adopted these ideas, but is merely pretending to adopt others, (for example, the anti-free trade attitudes of the Trump regime, the welfare state of Nazi Germany, etc) is arbitrary particularism
- No, I have never felt a woman’s touch
- Lmao 😂 go outside and play Kickball get of the internet smh
I like LivPosting's read of CHUDS having a very strong desire to be ruled in the Nietzscheian sense, and would add that these people are monarchists who don't realise they're monarchists because the US never had its own Monarchistic period.
This is what zero dialectical materialism does to a motherfucker.
This analysis is basically premised on the idea that ideology exists in a vacuum, and not as a response to changing material conditions. How is it relevant that early capitalism, which was made up of a large number of handicraft producers, could be considered progressive when compared to feudalism? Feudalism isn't a relevant political system in most modern contexts, and capitalism has changed form alongside the advancement of technology to become dominated by a small number of large scale producers rather than a large number of handicraft producers.
This also reeks of Fukuyama "End of History" type bullshit, and just assumes that liberalism is the end of ideological development and we've already realized the pinnacle and optimal way of organizing society, and no further progress can be made. By leaving this premise unstated, they don't have to put any effort into supporting or defending this hypothesis.
I mean, pretty much most modern political parties grew out of either liberal or communist movements, it's just that wielding power does something to a mfer
There is little to understand because he's making an ontological case for some arbitrary version of "right wing" ideology. At least there are well reasoned and contextualized ontological arguments in various disciplines, but this is just complete mush for brains. There is nothing here that you should waste brain power on.
I see some sense to it. 'Right wing' originally meant monarchist. There's no parties advocating old school, absolutist monarchy anymore.
We generally update the meaning of right and left to keep pace with changing ideas, values, and conflicts. He's just not.
