Free association, State's Rights, Entitlement, the Welfare State, Merit

[Stephen Colbert]

It's seems that A/C's and other Rev Lefter's have radically altered stances on things such as these from progressives/liberals.

Anyone have any distinctions and thoughts? It just seems like once you denounce capitalism and the use of the state to protect capitalist interest,... you literally have nothing in common with the more soft left ideologies

[¿Que?]

This is basically the problem with liberals. Their position is more contradictory than the right, mostly because they start off with the same assumptions about society that the right does. For example, if you deny that a classless society is possible, perhaps by appealing to some cliche idea of human nature, then where does that leave you theoretically. Basically, in a philosophical purgatory where you're trying to justify the existence of an unjust system without injustice. You see? It has no internal consistency.

At least the right embraces the unjust system and everything that implies. They look at injustice as the personal failings of those being oppressed, except where their money is concerned. Then they can believe in real injustice. In the end, the right is wrong for a number of reasons, that's beside the point. The reality is that at least their position happens to be more consistent than liberalism.

The left on the other hand, attacks the very basic assumptions of the right, and this is why it's correct. Liberals let the right define the terms of debate, thus they always lose. Instead the left rejects the premises on which the right bases their arguments on, and then redefines the terms of debate. The right then is forced into the position that the liberals were in. They have to argue for the existence of injustice, when it becomes obvious that injustice is not a necessary condition.

*When I speak of injustice, I am referring to extant injustice, rather than in a more abstract sense.

[Adil3tr]

Weren't they called bourgeois socialists by marx in the manifesto and principles?
"[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]

The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow."

[NGNM85]

That's a lot of issues. The right to free association is an important one and should be defended. I'm not a huge fan of state's rights because in actuality it tends to be just a trojan horse for racism or some other kind of bigotry. I think we should endeavor to support entitlement programs like Social Security which is invaluable to many senior citizens, and to expand social welfare programs like unemployment, at least for a little longer, and a national healthcare program. These are concrete steps that would really meet the needs of working people, and take power away from private corporations, putting more power in the public sphere. Moreover, these things are actually doable.