Hypocrisy of the Right

[Oktyabr]

For one, the right is counter-revolutionary, but they are willing to perform a revolution themselves (Spanish Army in the Spanish Civil War) and overthrow the democratically elected government.

Any more? This could become a joke of a thread.

[StrictlyRuddie]

Theres a bunch, but the most obvious at the moment to me is that many conservatives are always ranting about how left-wing politics ~destroys the individual~ but when it comes to issues of individual libertys like gay marriage, responsible drug use, abortian etc.. they arre reactionary and very well against it..

of coarse when it comes to the "freedom of the idividual" to exploit there fellowman there all over it..

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

When they say capitalists deserve the fruits of their labor. :laugh:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Since many right-wingers tend to be religious I thought I would add this one: "Christianity is the most loving and tolerant religion" If so, why am I going to burn in "hell" for being a non-believer? :rolleyes:

[Black Sheep]

Just look back in history.Don't the bourgeoisie uphold the social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract)?
Any class has the right to revolt they said.Of course, they said that when they didnt see the working class coming :p, so now they condemn violence in general.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Some good Ayn Rand quotes:


Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

The second-hander who dispenses of gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible? :laugh: What class that remind you of?


If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

:laugh:

[Communist Theory]

Seriously Ayn Rand reminds me of that woman's sister off of Animal Cematary.

[mikelepore]

The second-hander who dispenses of gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible? What class that remind you of

Arn Rand and her ironic error comes from a long tradition. I have seen socialist literature quote the following excerpt from Herbert Spencer's 1884 essay "The Coming Slavery", because it so well describes how wage slavery operates, with the worker compelled to work for someone else's benefit, and the worker being "forced to yield up" more than the what the worker is "allowed to retain."

And yet Spencer's original intention was to denounce such improvements as workplace safety laws as "socialism" and "slavery"!!

***

"What is essential to the idea of a slave? We primarily think of him as one owned by another. To be more than nominal, however, the ownership must be shown by control of the slave's action -- a control which is habitually to the benefit of the controller. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labors under coercion to satisfy another's desires. The relation admits of sundry gradations. Remembering that originally the slave is a prisoner whose life is at the mercy of his captor, it suffices here to note that there is a harsh form of slavery in which, treated as an animal, he has to expend his entire effort for his owner's advantage. Under a system less harsh, though occupied chiefly in working for his owner, he is allowed a short time in which to work for himself, and some ground on which to grow extra food. A further amelioration gives him power to sell the produce of his plot and keep the proceeds. Then we come to the still more moderated form which commonly arises where, having been a free man working on his own land, conquest turns him into what we distinguish as a serf, and he has to give to his owner each year a fixed amount of labor or produce, or both: retaining the rest himself. Finally, in some cases, as in Russia until recently, he is allowed to leave his owner's estate and work or trade for himself elsewhere, under the condition that he shall pay an annual sum.... The essential question is -- How much is he compelled to labor for other benefit than his own, and how much can he labor for his own benefit? The degree of his slavery varies according to the ratio between that which he is forced to yield up and that which he is allowed to retain; and it matters not whether his master is a single person or a society."

[Dr Mindbender]

For one, the right is counter-revolutionary, but they are willing to perform a revolution themselves (Spanish Army in the Spanish Civil War) and overthrow the democratically elected government.

Any more? This could become a joke of a thread.

But not all revolutions are left wing. Sometimes the western ruling class needs to topple inconvienient states with puppet regimes. Sometimes, these are also referred to as revolutions.

Iran for example, had it's islamic revolution brought around with western complacency because marxists had significant support against the ruling authority and sharia law was seen as 'the lesser of 2 evils'.

[Oktyabr]

But not all revolutions are left wing. Sometimes the western ruling class needs to topple inconvienient states with puppet regimes. Sometimes, these are also referred to as revolutions.

Iran for example, had it's islamic revolution brought around with western complacency because marxists had significant support against the ruling authority and sharia law was seen as 'the lesser of 2 evils'.

True, but however, the right is anti-revolutionary, yet at times they still perform revolutions themselves. The only difference is that now, their revolutions are counter-revolutions that overthrow the current regime, and place a new one (based on the old order) back in power.

[Oktyabr]

True, but however, the right is anti-revolutionary, yet at times they still perform revolutions themselves. The only difference is that now, their revolutions are counter-revolutions that overthrow the current regime, and place a new one (based on the old order) back in power.

What is additionally ironic is that the right does it for the 'benefit of society", yet they harm, maim, and enslave society with their revolutions.

[STJ]

What are you talking about there is no hypocrisy on the right.

[NecroCommie]

The very idea that something should be preserved because it has always been preserved is idiotic to say the least. :thumbdown: And then some conservatist speak of moving forward in their propaganda.

[Holger Meins]

One thing that i find hypocratic among the advocates of the night watch-state (neoliberals) is in thier criticism of state-controlled market. They claim that people are mature enough to take care of them selves, this rendering the state based on taxes and state-controlled welfare oppressive.

But when they turn their attention towards anarchism the criticism against it is the same as that the statists use againt the night watch-state. The neoliberals are now claiming that anarchism will never be able to function because people are not mature enough to take care of them selves.

[Chicano Shamrock]

The right is not against revolutions. Just ours.

The left is probably just as hypocritical.