Things US Conservatives and Communists Agree On

[Jason]

I think in some ways communists and US conservatives have things in common. For instance, conservatives totally accept capitalism in it's true state with all it's war, racism, and greed and make no apology for it. Likewise, Communists can also only see capitalism in it's true state, but unlike the conservatives, don't cheer it on.

So to sum it up, US conservatives and communists have a realistic take on the world as opposed to mainstream left wing parties who wish to hold on to the "free market" system.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Yes, I have noticed that the attitude of many American Republican right wingers is similar to ours. We stand for gun rights to the people, so do the "conservatives" (although I have a problem with this label for US right wingers). We stand for honesty about our goals and the conservatives are as well unabashed about their positions. I personally enjoy talking to conservatives more to be honest, the only thing that is missing is critical thinking on their side and propaganda on our side.

[Avanti]

both leninists and conservatives are afraid of the dark.

both dislike different people and people with differing opinions. at least most leninists i've met have displayed that attitude.

leninists are far smarter however. most conservatives are dumb as stopped clocks.

[l'Enfermé]

Well the thing is, American conservatives, generally, are pretty stupid people. And stupid people, in general, are more honest.

[Rafiq]

That Obama will not solve the crises and that a disastor is impending.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

both leninists and conservatives are afraid of the dark.

both dislike different people and people with differing opinions. at least most leninists i've met have displayed that attitude.

leninists are far smarter however. most conservatives are dumb as stopped clocks.

I certainly share most if not all of these traits, although I am not sure what the metaphor "afraid of the dark" should mean.

[GPDP]

That liberals are stuck-up schmucks.

[GoddessCleoLover]

This thread seems to adopt the old adage that the enemy of ones enemy is one's friend. Although both leftists and conservatives may be enemies of liberalism, it would seem to be coincidental. Speaking for myself, I can't stand American conservatism and its callous disregard for the dignity of the working class and other poor people. American conservatives regard workers and the poor as subhuman and conservatives are just as much our enemy as is liberalism.

[campesino]

a

[zoot_allures]

Most US conservatives see themselves as being in favour of "smaller government" and the "free market" and all that stuff, while at the same time supporting a party whose primary goal is rather obviously to protect the increasingly bloated pockets of the rich at everyone else's expense, often using enormous government intervention to achieve this. So I'm not at all convinced that they "totally accept capitalism in it's true state". Rather, many of them seem to hold very simple-minded, idealistic ideas about capitalism, while being totally blind to the nature of the current system.

And re they "make no apology for it" - huh? It's not at all unusual for conservatives to try to shift the blame for economic problems onto the victims and the oppressed.

[Jason]

Another problem with US white liberals is elitism. I mean it's no surprise, a lot of conservative working class whites like generic country music, the Confederate flag and whatnot. Liberals have done a major job alienating the white population. (The generic country music really isn't that good. The only explanation for the fan base is "a middle finger to liberal elitism").

It's good that liberals stand up for US racial minorities. I'm all for that, but a large segment of the population is white. Look at it this way, how can a party in China win by opposing and demonizing Chinese? What kind of strategy is that?

[Avanti]

"afraid of the dark" means afraid of discovering one self as the creeping monster beneath the bed. most leninists and most conservatives have a secret desire to be de-alienated, but leninists are over-socialised and super-paranoid while conservatives feel emasculated by modern society.

they are symptoms.

i am the cure.

[Avanti]

USA no China Jason.

what the conservative country-side folks hate inner-city liberals for is because the country is stagnating while NY, LA and other metropols are booming. the country-side always hates the big cities, and feel their identity threatened by 'em. the other issue is that modern society has eroded masculinity, since you don't need to be able to kill bears and timber houses any more to survive. another big issue is that women are allowed to control their vaginas today. this is basically a middle-age men vs young women thing, not a capitalist vs worker thing (US politics, not world politics, lol lol).

[#FF0000]

White males aren't the majority anymore, tbh. Plus I don't think they've alienated "white people", period. They've alienated older white males.

And I don't even know if they alienated them. I'm not sure what's going on with older white males in the U.S.

[Jimmie Higgins]

There are some superficial overlapping with conservatives, but the same is true in a different way for liberals - so really it's not too different.

They can be more realistic and unapologetic about some of the nasty parts of the system whereas liberals would tend to try and wish it away or come up with some reason that it's an example of an "isolated problem" rather than systemic. Of course where conservatives might acknowledge the "might makes right" they are on the opposite side of that "might" from us.

[Jason]

USA no China Jason.

what the conservative country-side folks hate inner-city liberals for is because the country is stagnating while NY, LA and other metropols are booming. the country-side always hates the big cities, and feel their identity threatened by 'em. the other issue is that modern society has eroded masculinity, since you don't need to be able to kill bears and timber houses any more to survive. another big issue is that women are allowed to control their vaginas today. this is basically a middle-age men vs young women thing, not a capitalist vs worker thing (US politics, not world politics, lol lol).


Conservative white males want to be masculine, but at the cost of e-masculating other races. For instances, what's more feminine than a black guy in Mississippi saying "Yes, suh, No suh"? :D

One thing they don't like is non-whites with weapons. That's a fact.

[doesn't even make sense]

And I don't even know if they alienated them. I'm not sure what's going on with older white males in the U.S.

Some weird infantile fantasy shit?

[campesino]

a

[thriller]

True we agree on some of the aspects of capitalism, the lens is different. We see things through classes where as American conservatives usually like to use race and religion to justify their actions.

[Jason]

You can even expand on the "e-masculating" idea with nuclear weapons. Why do all these third world nations want weapons? Why does getting nukes have such popular appeal in these lands: Because they feel "e-masculated".

The "Fox News" crowd wants to make sure they stay e-masculated and never gain access to weapons which, probably, they would never use against the US.

[Avanti]

what do you mean "over-socialised"?

artificial socialisation centred around joining political sects and discussing all interior revelations of trotsky's thinking. we talk about people who feel deeply alienated and are seeking the answer in a togetherness limited by an extreme us-vs-them thinking which inhibits them from creative potential. eerily similar to christian sects. this means they kill their own imagination in return for being accepted by a group which worships the words of a dead man.

[hetz]

You can even expand on the "e-masculating" idea with nuclear weapons. Why do all these third world nations want weapons? Why does getting nukes have such popular appeal in these lands: Because they feel "e-masculated".
That's just bullshit.

[Jason]

That's just bullshit.

It's a fact. In Pakistan and other places, the people want nukes, mainly because of national pride. There is no real intention of ever using those weapons.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's a fact. In Pakistan and other places, the people want nukes, mainly because of national pride. There is no real intention of ever using those weapons.
While nukes do look like phalluses, I don't think emasculation or national pride is the base reason for it. For Pakistan, they have long been in an antagonistic relationship with India who have nukes. For North Korea, they used the threat of developing nukes to essentially pressure the USSR and then the US into giving aid (since a nuclear North Korea is more of a threat to the imperial balance in the area - more than a physical threat by nuclear detonation itself). I don't know if Iran really is developing the bomb, but from the perspective of the leaders there, I think they'd have to be stupid to not at least let other countries THINK they have such potential capabilities since Iran is now surrounded by countries allied to or occupied by the US.

These and other countries probably don't have a desire to use these weapons, but I think it goes beyond pride and to the dynamics of the international imperialist balence and competition. None of these leaders probably want nukes or want to use them, but the logic of national competition and the pressures of imperialism in the world may compel war. The European countries never wanted or thought WWI would almost destroy the capitalist world (both by self-destruction and by revolutionary uprisings) but once they got into it, it was a zero-sum sort of thing.

[Avanti]

i on my hand believe that emasculation is behind most of the violence on the planet. it is not a matter of resources, it is a matter of (real or perceived) lack of status. of course, the apex, the elite, the top of the Pyramid of Babylon are driven by a desire to dominate everything, but all others who are struggling to come up to the top are driven by a desire to get a status which can make them look themselves in the mirrors.

i don't have that problem.

my mirror looks at me. it asks what a curious animal it stares at.

[Marxaveli]

I think in some ways communists and US conservatives have things in common. For instance, conservatives totally accept capitalism in it's true state with all it's war, racism, and greed and make no apology for it. Likewise, Communists can also only see capitalism in it's true state, but unlike the conservatives, don't cheer it on.

So to sum it up, US conservatives and communists have a realistic take on the world as opposed to mainstream left wing parties who wish to hold on to the "free market" system.

We have nothing in common with conservatives, except that we hate one another.

[rylasasin]

We have nothing in common with conservatives, except that we hate one another.

And that we're both human...

.... in theory.

[Yuppie Grinder]

You can even expand on the "e-masculating" idea with nuclear weapons. Why do all these third world nations want weapons? Why does getting nukes have such popular appeal in these lands: Because they feel "e-masculated".

The "Fox News" crowd wants to make sure they stay e-masculated and never gain access to weapons which, probably, they would never use against the US.

Emasculated is a real word, no need to spell it that way.

The far left and republican right don't have much in common besides wanting guns, distrusting the feds, and hating social liberals and their patronizing bullshit.

[Jason]

Well the thing is, American conservatives, generally, are pretty stupid people. And stupid people, in general, are more honest.

I don't think they're stupid, but very indifferent to suffering.

Some conservatives will say that they're not indifferent, but believe churches should shoulder the weight of charity. However, I have yet to see real charity coming from a church.

[Avanti]

us conservatives are generally people who are content or who want to be content with life, and want to keep the "natural hierarchy". they don't hate women or minorities, they just wish we weren't so visible.

to some extent, liberals are the same, but more sophisticated.

the more far right conservatives are very similar to leninists in that they are very intolerant. and opposites are often more alike than they want to admit.

[Jimmie Higgins]

i on my hand believe that emasculation is behind most of the violence on the planet. it is not a matter of resources, it is a matter of (real or perceived) lack of status. of course, the apex, the elite, the top of the Pyramid of Babylon are driven by a desire to dominate everything, but all others who are struggling to come up to the top are driven by a desire to get a status which can make them look themselves in the mirrors.

Induvidual will has little to do with it and staus is immaterial. Capitalism is based on competition between the capitalists, sometimes to the point that industries are backed by state-power to enforce the needs of that industry. Competition for the rest of us is foisted apon us - aside from I guess trust-funders who are independantly wealthy but not really elietes. Most people have been convinced that no alternatives are possible, and so they internalize the values of capitalism and see no other road to either personal material stability or personal respect from others, than through induvidualist attempts at obtaining higer wages or striving for upward class mobility.

If a bourgois state's agressiveness was the result of feelings of emasculation, rather than international capitalist competition and the balence of power in the world-system, then Canada would have invaded the US decades ago.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i on my hand believe that emasculation is behind most of the violence on the planet. it is not a matter of resources, it is a matter of (real or perceived) lack of status. of course, the apex, the elite, the top of the Pyramid of Babylon are driven by a desire to dominate everything, but all others who are struggling to come up to the top are driven by a desire to get a status which can make them look themselves in the mirrors.

i don't have that problem.

my mirror looks at me. it asks what a curious animal it stares at.

Would you mind explaining what makes you think you're so special that you're exempt from status-seeking behaviour?

I don't think most people have any problems looking themselves in the mirror.

[Guayaco]

artificial socialisation centred around joining political sects and discussing all interior revelations of trotsky's thinking. we talk about people who feel deeply alienated and are seeking the answer in a togetherness limited by an extreme us-vs-them thinking which inhibits them from creative potential. eerily similar to christian sects. this means they kill their own imagination in return for being accepted by a group which worships the words of a dead man.

The problem with your position is that it presupposes that the above-described behavior is inherent to Leninism. It is not. All people naturally gravitate toward a worldview that paints their own role as both good and important, and then they later proceed to surround themselves with people who confirm their bias. The groupthink dynamic has a long history of undermining the reality testing of all ideologies.

[NGNM85]

Again, not to be a vocabulary Nazi, but 'Republicans', or; 'Right-wingers' would be far more accurate than; 'Conservatives.' I mean, there's nothing particularly 'Conservative' about amending the Constitution to ban abortion, and gay marriage. Quite the contrary.

Two words; Citizens' United. (Although partial credit will be given for; 'Not much.') While the Republican party (Whose representatives on the Supreme Court are responsible for this atrocity, in the first place.) has largely supported the Supreme Courts' decision, polls show that they are completely out of touch with their base, on this issue. In fact; one poll I saw showed no difference between registered Republicans, and Democrats, on this issue. It crosses ideological boundries. Roughly three-quarters of the electorate absolutely hates it. That's a substantial wellspring of popular outrage waiting to be capitalized upon. As such, it seems that the obvious course of action is to put forward a bipartisan, or, perhaps, more accurately, non-partisan, platform calling for overturning the Supreme Court decision, and establishing a new system of public campaign financing. Of course; I've been suggesting this for some time, now.

[RadioRaheem84]

Again, not to be a vocabulary Nazi, but 'Republicans', or; 'Right-wingers' would be far more accurate than; 'Conservatives.' I mean, there's nothing particularly 'Conservative' about amending the Constitution to ban abortion, and gay marriage. Quite the contrary.

Two words; Citizens' United. (Although partial credit will be given for; 'Not much.') While the Republican party (Whose representatives on the Supreme Court are responsible for this atrocity, in the first place.) has largely supported the Supreme Courts' decision, polls show that they are completely out of touch with their base, on this issue. In fact; one poll I saw showed no difference between registered Republicans, and Democrats, on this issue. It crosses ideological boundries. Roughly three-quarters of the electorate absolutely hates it. That's a substantial wellspring of popular outrage waiting to be capitalized upon. As such, it seems that the obvious course of action is to put forward a bipartisan, or, perhaps, more accurately, non-partisan, platform calling for overturning the Supreme Court decision, and establishing a new system of public campaign financing. Of course; I've been suggesting this for some time, now.

NGN, we're talking about economic conservatives, not social issues, really. They're more honest about support for capitalism. Doesn't matter Dem or Repub.

[NGNM85]

NGN, we're talking about economic conservatives, not social issues, really. They're more honest about support for capitalism. Doesn't matter Dem or Repub.

Fiscal conservatives.

That might be what you're talking about, or what you want to talk about, but that's not what the OP was talking about.

[RadioRaheem84]

Fiscal conservatives.

That might be what you're talking about, or what you want to talk about, but that's not what the OP was talking about.

Yes it is. The OP was basically talking about economic or fiscal conservatives. He was saying that the conservatives are just brazenly open about defending capitalism, the inequalities it creates and are defenders of Empire.

The social issues don't fit in much to this discussion because there are both Dems and Republicans that are against gay marriage and abortion.

So the issue isn't Republican or Democrat.

Again you're trying to insert more liberal punditry into a discussion where it was not needed.

[NGNM85]

Yes it is. The OP was basically talking about economic or fiscal conservatives.


How predictably tedious.


There is no evidence to support this contention, quite the contrary. Not only does the OP not indicate this, in any sense, in his original post, or anywhere else, but his subsequent posts strongly suggest the contrary. Also; most of the participants in this thread, including, but not limited to; Jimmie Higgins, L'Enferme, GPDP, workers-control-over-prod, and Rafiq, to name a few, have, clearly, interpreted it exactly the same way.



He was saying that the conservatives are just brazenly open about defending capitalism, the inequalities it creates and are defenders of Empire.


I don't accept the premise, because I think it's bogus. As zoot allures pointed out, Right-wingers typically display a number of incorrect, or antithetical ideas about how capitalism functions, for example; that the free enterprise system allows anyone who wants to to prosper, therefore; poor people are simply lazy, their confused, and contradictory support for 'free markets', they also tend to support supply side, or; 'trickle-down' economics, which has been demonstrated, time, and again, including a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, to be total bullshit, etc., etc.



The social issues don't fit in much to this discussion because there are both Dems and Republicans that are against gay marriage and abortion.


That assertion necessitates a consensus on exactly what is the subject of the discussion we are having. If the topic of discussion is; 'What do American Radicals and Fiscal Conservatives agree upon?' then civil rights probably aren't relevent, however; incidentally, as fiscal conservatism, or what is described as fiscal conservatism, is pretty much exclusively a Right-wing phenomenon, this would still be accurate, if not relevent. If the question being discussed is; 'What do American Radicals and Right-wingers agree upon?', it's much more relevent.


There may be Pro-Life Democrats, and Pro-Choice Republicans, there are homophobic Democrats, and gay-friendly Republicans however; these numerically insignificant individuals are the exception, not the rule, and their views are substantially out of step with their respective parties.



So the issue isn't Republican or Democrat.


Again; this would require a consensus on what it is that is being discussed. I would invite the OP, Jason, to weigh in, but I would charge that all of the availible evidence supports my interpretation, which is the same conclusion reached by most of the other participants.


Second; as Fiscal Conservatism, or what is characterized as; 'Fiscal Conservatism', is pretty much exclusive to the Republican party, the conversation would still fall along those lines.



Again you're trying to insert more liberal punditry into a discussion where it was not needed.


First; as I've said, it all hinges on the subject of the thread. If the question being discussed is; 'What do Radicals, and Right-wingers agree upon?', as I charge, (Which, again; is how most people have interpreted it, and fits most closely with the OP's posts.) then my answer is both topical, and accurate; we can agree on Citizens' United. Polling data shows that while the Republican party overwhelmingly supports the atrocious ruling by the Supreme Court, most Americans, including most Right-wing Americans, absolutely oppose it. That is, absolutely, something that Radicals and Right-wingers agree upon, without question.


Second; this is so pathetically predictable. There was nothing fundamentally; 'Liberal' about anything I said, in the aforementioned post. You're just throwing out the preferred in-group pejorative. Citizens United was, depending on your perspective, a soaring victory for the elites, in that it dramatically amplified the ability of special interests, namely corporations, and their puppets, to directly control the legislative process, or a body blow to the working class, for that same reason. In the words of a piece in Monthly Review, a publication which you, supposedly, take as gospel;


'American elections are being transformed and supercharged by the Supreme Court’s January 2010 Citizens United ruling. But the changes, ...have proven more dramatic and unsettling than all but the most fretful analysts had imagined. ...This is going to be a defining political struggle going forward, until it is resolved.'
http://monthlyreview.org/2012/04/01/the-bull-market

It's a good piece, if somewhat dated. The glaring omission, however, is any kind of specific suggestion to remedy the situation, which I would argue is even more dire than the article suggests. My humble suggestion, in the light of the subject being discussed, or, rather; my understanding of the subject being discussed, (Which appears to be the majority view.) being that, by all availible evidence, this is something that Radicals, and Right-wingers do actually agree upon,(The purpose of the fucking thread.) that, in broad strokes, we should exploit this wellspring of popular discontent in order to build a broader coalition, to acheive a common goal, and, ultimately, score a win for the working class. Just my two cents.