I wish we had a Zelensky here in the U.S. to help us combat conservatism.
That would be John Stuart, if he ever decided to run for office. And holy fuck, he’d kill it. I mean, he says he doesn’t want to do it, but he knows more about policy, politics, and how the game is played than most politicians.
I get it, I wouldn’t want to either, but daaaaamn. He’d rip conservative a politics about 5 new assholes.
you know what they say, it’s exactly the type of people that don’t want to that should.
Yeah, Stewart is the hero we need but don’t deserve.
The dank knight
I think at this point it’d be Colbert since he’s still got his show
Plus, having a president who can wipe the floor with everyone else in Tolkien literary discourse would be the biggest foreign policy flex since bretton woods
What’s happening in the US isn’s even considered conservatism anymore. It’s the MAGA cult. I am definitely left, but conservatives don’t always need to be bad. It just so happens that the Republican Party has filled itself with people serving themselves and not the people who voted for them. Fingers crossed things go well this November.
Fascism is the natural result of unchecked conservatism. We are watching that natural progression play out now.
We’ve let conservatism go unchecked for so long that I think it will take physical action to stop the fascist infection at this point.
I think you’re conflating conservatism with capitalism. We have a corporatocracy that always takes precedent over the average voter. Worse on the right but enabled on the left. Ironically, as unpopular as Biden is, he is the most progressive president we’ve had in 50 years (and yes, before you downvote I acknowledge he is not even close to “being” progressive).
I won’t downvote you at all. You make good points.
However, I am not conflating conservatism with capitalism. The reason capitalism remains unchecked is because of conservatism (including neoliberalism). Conservatism is the tool of capitalism to remain unchecked.
If we were to eliminate or marginalize conservatism (including neoliberalism), capitalism could be well-regulated by the representatives of the normal people rather than the representatives of the corporations.
When I shit on conservatives, I’m shitting on so much more than their corporate knob-gobbling. I am also shitting on their racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, antisemitism and other conservative traits. Conservatism is just fascism that has not yet matured to its final form.
As for Biden, I much prefer this old neoliberal to any GOP conservative, and I despise neoliberalism. He gets a pass this time around. I admit he did way better than I expected his first term. And obviously the alternative next election is pure fascism, sooo… BIDEN 2024!
Finally, someone I 100% agree with!
I think I was confused by your use of the term conservatism. 99% of people will associate that completely with the right, when the reality is that there are plenty on the left also feeding conservatism which in turns promotes corporatism.
Keep fighting the good fight!
Fascism is capitalism in decay. Modern conservatism is still an offshoot of liberalism (as compared to old conservatives who were attempting to conserve monarchy). Liberalism is a capitalist ideology defined by promotion of individual rights, civil liberties, and most importantly free enterprise and markets. Fascism is capitalism in decay because those in power will use that power to maintain their rule, through whatever means necessary. For Trump, that was Jan 6th, which is a new low for US politics, but he’s not alone in manipulating the levers of power, and neither side seems keen on removing powers from themselves when they get in power.
Good comment.
I’d like to add an important point about your use of the word “liberal” for those who may not know… The word “liberal” in this context refers to economic liberalism.
The word “liberal” in this use is absolutely not interchangeable with the word “progressive”. These two words mean very different things. Conservatives have worked hard to cause these words to be confused with one another.
In 1980, Reagan’s conservatives re-defined the word “liberal” in conservative media to be a pejorative for “progressive”. This was an attempt to confuse public discussion. Before this, the word “liberal” was used to describe economic policy. Now, conservatives (and many progressives who don’t know any better) use the word “liberal” interchangeably with “progressive”.
Re-defining words is a common tactic used by conservatives (and fascists) to influence and confuse public perceptions.
Fascism is also the natural result of unchecked progressivism. Since what you mean by “fascist” is just “Authoritarian.”
Clearly, as we’ve seen globally and historically, Authoritarianism is the rule rather than the exception whenever extreme right and left wing politics go unchecked. Internally, the left wing Soviets appeared pretty much identical to the right wing Nazis in function, since their attempt at implementing communism was just a state/party run economy.
I’m so sick of this revisionist history “if we just keep going left nothing “fascist”/Authoritarian can ever happen” bullshit.
Fascism is also the natural result of unchecked progressivism.
Can you give an example? You cited 1940’s Russia, but Soviet Marxist-Leninism was not progressivism. It was also not leftism, despite decades of conservative deception on this topic.
Marxist–Leninists in the Soviet Union were famously opposed to “left communism” and social democracy. They openly opposed liberal democracy. They also supported an authoritarian style of government, which is definitionally opposite of progressivism.
Here’s a link to a wikipedia page on the ideological foundation of the Soviet Union (Marxist-Leninism) to support my position that their government was neither “left” nor “progressive”. The points in my paragraph above are stated almost verbatim in this wikipedia entry.
To use the Soviet Union as an example of a left or progressive government, you would first need to change the definitions of “left” or “progressive”.
Alright so clearly you’re going to just “no true scotsman” any and all examples that I could give, how about you show me the unrestricted left wing utopia that exists somewhere in the world? Or has no one ever attempted “true left wing” policies as you dictate them to be?
You’ve got some nerve citing fallacies when you’re the one who started out with a massive strawman argument and a balance fallacy. First of all, no, the guy you replied to clearly did not mean “fascism” as a synonym for authoritarianism in general like you pretended he did; these days when we say it, we really do mean specifically that thing that matches Umberto Eco’s 14 points (or a similar definition). Second, no, there’s no unchecked left-wing authoritarianism going on here; you pulled that entirely out of your ass so you could make a bullshit “both sides” argument.
deleted by creator
Do you have any? I’d be really interested to learn more. I wouldn’t have thought progressivism unchecked would lead to fascism. Without balance I guess I don’t know what it would lead to.
I would actually only think it would lead to fascism as an extreme reaction against progressivism, ala Weimar Republic.
There are plenty of countries in the EU that have favorable worker’s rights, free education and healthcare, and a healthy social safety net. Compared to the US at least.
You can’t just go around calling yourself or others Scotsman when you’re actually from Antarctica and have never set foot in Scotland but like to put on an accent.
What next the Nazis were socialists because they had socialism in their name? North Korea’s democratic because it’s in their name?
The Nazis had socialist in their name to sucker socialists into being useful idiots for them.
You’d think socialists would learn from that. Socialists aren’t immune from getting suckered into a fascist movement. But unfortunately many “socialists” see a red flag with some yellow symbols on it and are all “sign me up!”
In the end all ideology is just a scam to convince people to go along with a group without thinking too hard about it. Political thought for the intellectually lazy.
Maybe we should think about each issue individually? That’s hard and I won’t have a political “home”! I’ll just go along with everything the whateverists say even if it doesn’t make sense. Yay I’m in a group!
Oh, I’d love to know which extreme left wing politics have gone unchecked.
I bet it’s “treating LGBTQ people as humans worthy of dignity.” That really seems to piss off conservatives.
Nothing about human rights is extreme in any capacity, and not even remotely what im talking about.
I noticed you still didn’t give an example.
Perhaps you can give some examples since many of us have no clue what you’re talking about.
Fascism is also the natural result of unchecked progressivism.
u wot.
What would you describe as extreme left wing problems? I know there will be no response since you’re entirely full of shit.
Edit : wow crickets what a surprise
truth bro
When was the last time there was a conservative president in the US who didn’t cause tremendous lasting damage to the country?
Eisenhower(?) at the very least id say any damage he may have done was at least somewhat offset by good done. But he was still very much part of the new deal era so he is moreso the exception, besides him im pulling blanks both before and after.
Depends on your definitions. You could even say Lincoln (conservative or not) caused lasting damage through failing to prevent a civil war and then getting assassinated before finishing the affairs
Every time someone blames Lincoln for the Civil War, James Buchanan edges to completion in heaven
LOL
For those who don’t get it, James Buchanan was the outgoing president in 1861, and
He was an advocate for states’ rights, particularly regarding slavery, and minimized the role of the federal government preceding the Civil War. Historians and scholars rank Buchanan as among the worst presidents in American history.
Without looking up the answer, tell me approximately how long Lincoln was president before the Civil War started.
Like less than a year? (Looked it up, a month! huh) I’m not seriously accusing Lincoln of anything though, I’m saying that JoeCoT’s question doesn’t have much value.
Yeah I know what you mean. I want to have debates over subjects that are actually debatable. Big government vs. small government kind of discussions.
Instead I feel like we’re just struggling to constantly explain why burning down the Capitol and declaring Trump to be God Emperor is a bad idea.
I agree. They were always the worse option in my lifetime when looking in the generic but individually some were and option and was a good hedge against radical left things to help keep things centered. Again that being said the us has always been to right to me.
Conservatives are always bad.
The past was not great for many peoples, today is still not great for many peoples, there is nothing to be gained from going back or staying still.
We’re having the same issue in Canada. Conservatives are wanting to go back and not look forward. It wasn’t always that way.
Thanks for making another thread not about US only about US politics.
You guys have Jon Stewart, unfortunately he does not want to get into politics.
You nailed it! He is exactly who I was thinking of.
We also have Michelle Obama, who also does not want to get into politics.
Jon Oliver.
Damn fine choice too!
An embattled, beleaguered John Oliver in fatigues is a hilarious mental image, though I’d probably trust his command
deleted by creator
As someone born in the Russia, I support Zelensky looking at the old borders of the Kievan Rus.
From White to Black sea, Ukraine will be free
The problem is determining what from that period constitutes “Ukrainian” or “Russian”. The old “Rus peoples” were a lot of relatively different yet also similar groups, that homogenize and heterogenize across time depending on different political and social conditions, which at a certain point in time during the modern age some intellectuals try to categorize and end up reaching some sort of consensus with “Russian”, “Byelorussian” and “Ukrainian”.
In the end, forgetting this kind of nuance invites people who are a little shaky on the head to come up with pan-nationalist narratives that justify some sort of anachronistic imperialism. It’s already bad enough that Putin’s Z-morons are trying to appropriate Ukrainian identity as a breakaway of their own to justify ethnic cleansing, let’s not have some Ukrainians that try and do the same but in reverse.
It’s way easier when you have a look at Muscovy, which is the core of the so-called Russian empire. Also, how Muscovy made a huge rebranding effort to be called Russia, at the expense of Kiev.
The Russian imperialist narrative needs Kiev to be part of it precisely because that’s the origin of the very identity it stole. Without it there’s no grand history, no Orthodox legitimacy, just the history of being a Mongolian vassal.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
how Muscovy made a huge rebranding effort to be called Russia
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What’s the phrase again? Oh yes, turnabout is fair play. We need to clone Zelensky.
This is about combatting against Kremlin’s expansionist propaganda, so I see it as an active effort to promote their own cultural and historical legacy.
Exactly and frankly it’s only right to point out this cultural heritage even if obviously Ukraine doesn’t want to conquer these territories. Especially since Russia actively tries to rewrite cultural history about it. And that’s by no means limited to people with Ukrainian roots in Russia but they actively rewrite Russian history to discredit dozens of cultural minorities. Very similar to China’s ongoing “project” to make China as “Han Chinese” as possible.
