Are most right wing arguments against liberalism, not socialism?

[RadioRaheem84]

Are they even really debating us when they engage us in discussion? I mean, it's always strange that they love to debate but seem to resort to debating against welfare state liberalism/social democracy, not socialism or communism. I mean, can a right libertarian, conservative, neo-classical proponent even come up with an argument against socialism that is not dressed up in the "statist" framework? They seem to really get sidelined when we debate them and think we're totally coming at them from left field! Are most of their arguments really geared toward dismantling welfare state liberalism/keynesianism and social democracy, not socialism? Because they're really weak against Marxists in debate.

This would be good to know when engaging in discussions with right wingers.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Often they will conflate the two. They make no meaningful distinction (although their arguments against social-democracy and the welfare state are generally pretty weak as well), but they have learned what kind of rhetoric will make it seem like they are doing a good job, and since they don't particularly care about what socialism or for that matter social-democracy is, they will throw the same crap around again and again.

I think they genuinely don't know the difference - and more importantly, they don't care.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

My experience is that all three conservatives, liberals and some social democrates are often very idealistic and emotional in theire argumentation and thats just good for a socialist with down-to-earth-materialistic analyses, to use that to explaine things and show how unrealistic many of right-wingers arguments often is. Like when liberals say that the free market will save the world because its the moste faire system, i mean then the road is cleared and you just have to explaine that in the reaaal world... ;)

[ContrarianLemming]

Are most right wing arguments against liberalism, not socialism?

Yes.


My experience is that all three conservatives, liberals and some social democrates are often very idealistic and emotional in theire argumentation

No.

[Stephen Colbert]

It's sort of like look at how significantly easier it is to argue marxist or revolutionary standpoints on issues, than to try to defend the liberal bourgeois interests as well.

"I really hate the government's control over how affluent I can be!"

Response: Yea me too but a different reason than that(mainly protecting elite interest and advocating more and more of a welfare/corporatist state in which there is no responsibility in economics or public policy). :P

I actually feel bad for most liberals because they can't win arguments versus conservatives half the time because they lose to the almost always inevitable "equality does not and should not trump liberty and constitutional mandate, end this federal hocus pocus" paradigm that they get raped on.

[Obs]

Considering people are calling Obama a socialist, I think it's fair to say a lot of conservatives have no clue what they're talking about.

Also, liberalism is right-wing.

[mollymae]

Probably because liberalism tends to be a much greater "threat" than socialism. And although they have very little in common, liberalism and socialism are both, in at least a few ways, contrary to the conservative/libertarian idea of freedom and personal liberty.

[Obs]

the conservative/libertarian idea of freedom
haha

[Stephen Colbert]

The freedom to exploit and be more equal than others! yay!

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

Most people are linking their arguments to Progressivism. Progressivism is hard to classify because when you look at things like FDR's Economic Bill of Rights, a lot of our goals were in that. But overall, progressives seek to limit personal freedoms and are considered the ones to have started the political correctness movement...

[Agnapostate]

Most rightists aren't sufficiently knowledgeable of socialism to carry on an informed discussion about it. The idea of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, or Glenn Beck debating Noam Chomsky is laughable. Then again, I happen to think that the idea of one of them debating Murray Rothbard is also laughable.

The central reason is that deviation from a norm usually requires additional effort. While I'd expect that the average person on this forum could defeat the average layperson or even the average political forum user in a debate about socialism, I'd expect that the average 9/11 conspiracy theorist or white supremacist could do the same. If Joe Schmo is debating a Holocaust denier, and says, "But what about Ann Frank's diary?", how will he respond when the denier says, "The diary was written in ballpoint ink, and the modern ballpoint pen wasn't invented yet." Joe is likely to be stumped.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

Probably my greatest moment debating a right winger was when he came up with some Kruschev quote about how the only way to turn America into a Communist State was reform. I just laughed, and laughed, and finally said, "You think Kruschev was a Communist? You think Communist States are created by reform?" :lol:

But yes, a lot of the problem is the whole, "Obama's a Communist!" "(Insert Liberal Politican) is a Communist!"

Mainly because it's one of the strongest indicts due to the Cold War, second only maybe to "Nazi".

[Klaatu]

I don't think right-wingers realize that socialists and communists are NOT liberals. :confused:

[RadioRaheem84]

Well I mean going all the way back to Hayek's Road to Serfdom and the countless arguments supposed libertarian intellectuals like Rothbard, Mises and Friedman all tout the same "statist" mantra. They went to their deaths repeating the same drivel directed at Keynesians. Right wing radicals on the radio prove our points all the time about capitalism 101 with their "common sense" arguments against liberalism on issues of the economy. The presume the logic of the businessman is sound without realizing their describing what Marx said all along he would do.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Often they will conflate the two. They make no meaningful distinction (although their arguments against social-democracy and the welfare state are generally pretty weak as well), but they have learned what kind of rhetoric will make it seem like they are doing a good job, and since they don't particularly care about what socialism or for that matter social-democracy is, they will throw the same crap around again and again.

I think they genuinely don't know the difference - and more importantly, they don't care.

Makes me think of Glenn Beck; "This is socialism, which basically equates to fascism"

Or Margaret Thatcher when attacked for her policies which attacked the poor; "This is the problem with liberalism, you're happy to make the poor poorer just to make the rich poorer".

Then when attacked for being a conservative; "And I have always opposed your socialist policies. Just like the other [left wing it's all the same] man, you're happy to make the poor poorer just to make the rich poorer".

:laugh: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

[Agnapostate]

Well I mean going all the way back to Hayek's Road to Serfdom and the countless arguments supposed libertarian intellectuals like Rothbard, Mises and Friedman all tout the same "statist" mantra. They went to their deaths repeating the same drivel directed at Keynesians. Right wing radicals on the radio prove our points all the time about capitalism 101 with their "common sense" arguments against liberalism on issues of the economy. The presume the logic of the businessman is sound without realizing their describing what Marx said all along he would do.

It's important to keep in mind that Hayek and Friedman are the only economists among those four that have made relevant contributions to the modern discipline, and Friedman more so. Mises and Rothbard are essentially eccentric, irrelevant cranks, along with their Austrian school more generally.

What the talk show radio hosts repeat are populist variants of the same nonsense, but the fact that they're just populist talking points mean that they can't function as meaningful anti-socialists. The thought of Limbaugh debating Chomsky is comical, as I noted.

[Klaatu]

The thought of Limbaugh debating Chomsky is comical, as I noted.

Here is how Limbaugh debates someone: "You're an idiot..." click...buzzz (dial tone) :rolleyes:

[Barry Lyndon]

My experience is that many conservatives and reactionaries have this recurring fantasy that liberals and social-democrats are closet Marxists, a notion that is laughable to any leftist. However, this provides an ideal trap for liberals. Liberals, who are just as if not even more indoctrinated with anti-communism as right-wingers(more indoctrinated in the sense that they continue to doggedly defend capitalism even while they recognize it has flaws), tend to lose many arguments with the right because they get dragged down into trying to 'prove' their not secretly communist/socialist/unpatriotic/don't support the troops, but that their part of the 'good', domesticated, 'responsible' poodle left.

I love it when I'm in an argument with a right-winger and they claim I'm a communist, and I reply 'Yes, I am, so what?'. They look stunned that I'm not trying to deny it, that their favorite trump card has no power with me. To me its a very liberating feeling.

[Adil3tr]

Most right wing arguments are against liberalism, but they keep a reserve of arguments against stalinism, which they fling at any radical left wing thought with wild abandon

[Agnapostate]

Most right wing arguments are against liberalism, but they keep a reserve of arguments against stalinism, which they fling at any radical left wing thought with wild abandon

But most rightists are so reliant on talking points rather than a critical thought process, along with adherents of mainstream politics in the U.S. in general, that I don't believe they could even beat Leninists in debates with the talking points they use against all non-Leninists that they perceive as leftists. Case in point. (http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/73800-commuists-against-oppression-anybody-else-see-oxymoron.html)

[ed miliband]

But most rightists are so reliant on talking points rather than a critical thought process, along with adherents of mainstream politics in the U.S. in general, that I don't believe they could even beat Leninists in debates with the talking points they use against all non-Leninists that they perceive as leftists. Case in point. (http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/73800-commuists-against-oppression-anybody-else-see-oxymoron.html)


Hmm, reading through that thread, while I do think certain people put up a good battle, I think they are too quick to distance themselves as individuals from people like Stalin and Mao as opposed to directly confronting the OP's misunderstandings of communism, and explaining why the deaths under 'communist' states cannot be blamed on communism as an ideology.

[Agnapostate]

Hmm, reading through that thread, while I do think certain people put up a good battle, I think they are too quick to distance themselves as individuals from people like Stalin and Mao as opposed to directly confronting the OP's misunderstandings of communism, and explaining why the deaths under 'communist' states cannot be blamed on communism as an ideology.

Finn can be expected to distance himself, as he's an anarchist. KC is a form of Leninist (though not the sort usually depicted as "Stalinist"), so he'd be expected to defend Communism to some extent. I don't know the ideological tendencies of the others involved, since they don't post on this forum.

[ed miliband]

Finn can be expected to distance himself, as he's an anarchist. KC is a form of Leninist (though not the sort usually depicted as "Stalinist"), so he'd be expected to defend Communism to some extent. I don't know the ideological tendencies of the others involved, since they don't post on this forum.

I didn't explain myself properly. It's not that people shouldn't distance themselves, but they shouldn't build an argument around it. If somebody is using a skewered definition of communism there is no point trying to tell them that there are other types of a concept they don't even understand. If somebody thinks Stalinism is the be all and end all of communism, they aren't going to have a clue about what council communism is and what it entails.

And... I'm not fond of Stalin, for the record. At all.

[Agnapostate]

I didn't explain myself properly. It's not that people shouldn't distance themselves, but they shouldn't build an argument around it. If somebody is using a skewered definition of communism there is no point trying to tell them that there are other types of a concept they don't even understand. If somebody thinks Stalinism is the be all and end all of communism, they aren't going to have a clue about what council communism is and what it entails.

That seems like more cause to distance from Stalin and authoritarian Communism. Instead of even explicitly addressing the issue of whether Leninist Communism and council communism are different interpretations of similar underlying theories, it might be best to simply say, "I'm a council communist; I don't endorse that," without even commenting on whether Stalinists are "real" communists.