Are Right Wing liberals wannabe degenerates?

[Alexander99]

In the UK it looks as if gay marriage is going to become legal.

Part of the debate has shown that there is now a socially liberal majority made up of Liberals, Right Wing Libertarians and some of the Left that make up "the establishment" and Conservatives with Christian conservative moral opinions are arguably demonised. Opposing Gay marriage is a reactionary position (the Church of England was founded by someone just so that they could get divorced) however the people supporting the legislation are free-market reactionaries who support it because of Libertarian reasons.

My question is when reactionary free market liberals are pushing through liberals reforms to what extent does Communism have to incorporate liberalism?

After WW2 a bourgeoise labour government nationalised 25% of the economy which was unchanged when the Conservatives got back in power. Social democratic/democratic socialist reforms had arguably been successful at reducing in-equality up until the 1980's when Margaret Thatcher was elected and undid all the work of previous Labour and Conservative governments by privatizing industries. One of the problems with Thatchers reforms was that when capitalism had Protestant self restraint it was arguably "justified" and "moral" theoretically. However Thatcher came into power after decades of liberalism, social reform and the "sexual revolution" in the 1960's and Thatcher did nothing to change any of that showing her true moral nature. In my opinion, in terms of "justice" I consider "moralist" Conservatism, which is old fashioned and advocates conservative values combined with a belief in hierarchy and/or the market to be "justified" theoretically. I may not agree with it. But they do genuinely want the best for society, even though they are arguably wrong. Since the 1980's the political establishment have accepted the left have won the cultural war and the right has won the economic war and advocate both. If you take the social liberalism from the left and combine it with the economics of the right you are taking the two most selfish aspects and combining them. Its almost like Adam Smith economics meets John Stuart Mills harm theory and could be described as radical Libertarianism. The only way this can be "justified" is if you subscribe to a Friedrich Nietzsche world view or some sort of nihilist hyper individualist Ayn Rand philosophy. Since the 1980's voting turnout has been declining to the point that since 2001 there has been a serious democratic deficit. Its unjustified, undemocratic and turning away people from politics yet the so called "Left" cheer a long when the Libertarian establishment passes social liberal reforms, taking part in ganging up on Conservatives with Conservative Christian moral opinions when actually all so called "social democrats" and "liberals" are doing is cheering a long the death of ideology, and an even more unrestrained, undemocratic and totally unjustified form of capitalism and hegemony.

[tuwix]

My question is when reactionary free market liberals are pushing through liberals reforms to what extent does Communism have to incorporate liberalism?

Communism in its pure form is completely liberal ideology. But free market that cannot exist due to its own definitions is opposing to any other freedom than economic freedom. And that capitalist economic freedom is just paid slavery. And slavery isn't freedom at all. And this implies that right-wingers aren't liberals because they are against liberty.

[#FF0000]

My question is when reactionary free market liberals are pushing through liberals reforms to what extent does Communism have to incorporate liberalism?

It couldn't be that, possibly, Communists have a different take on sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. than liberals and conservatives, even though they support gay rights, anti-racism, etc, could it?

Plus, being a communist or a marxist doesn't mean that we have to put a minus wherever liberals or conservatives put a plus.

And if communists were to oppose gay marriage just because "welp liberals believe this so..." then one could just as easily ask "when reactionary moralist conservatives are pushing through reactionary, traditionalist laws, to what extent does communism have to incorporate conservatism?"

So dumb, dude.

EDIT: sup graffic

[Alexander99]

Communism in its pure form is completely liberal ideology.

But what about Arab socialism? Or Irish nationalism and Catholic socialist priests in South America? At what point do Christian/Muslim Democrats stop being socialists and "liberals" start being socialists regardless if "liberals" support the free market? Isn't Christian democracy that isn't liberal more radical and democratic than say liberalism that doesn't advocate equality?

Is it not liberalism and atheism that gave rise to the far right because Hitler was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and Darwin? And actually liberalism has more in common with fascism than religion/tradition because it is immoral.

[Rafiq]

Communism in its pure form is completely liberal ideology. But free market that cannot exist due to its own definitions is opposing to any other freedom than economic freedom. And that capitalist economic freedom is just paid slavery. And slavery isn't freedom at all. And this implies that right-wingers aren't liberals because they are against liberty.

No, Liberal ideology is by nature bourgeois. I can't believe someone would spout this bullshit.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[#FF0000]

Isn't Christian democracy that isn't liberal more radical and democratic than say liberalism that doesn't advocate equality?

Nope. They're both equally wrong.

Is it not liberalism and atheism that gave rise to the far right because Hitler was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and Darwin? And actually liberalism has more in common with fascism than religion/tradition because it is immoral.

Meanwhile radical traditionalists and conservatives have had no problem working with Nazis and Fascists, historically. Weird, huh?

[Alexander99]

Meanwhile radical traditionalists and conservatives have had no problem working with Nazis and Fascists, historically. Weird, huh?

Perhaps with Mussolini's style of fascism but not with Hitler.

I think that would be the Libertarian wing of Conservatives who happily side with fascists. Real Christian Conservatives are diametrically opposed to fascism because fascism is pagan.

[subcp]

Communists should strive to be part of the process and play a particular role in the movement for communism; not be conciliatory to bourgeois ideologies.

After WW2 a bourgeoise labour government nationalised 25% of the economy which was unchanged when the Conservatives got back in power. Social democratic/democratic socialist reforms had arguably been successful at reducing in-equality up until the 1980's when Margaret Thatcher was elected and undid all the work of previous Labour and Conservative governments by privatizing industries. One of the problems with Thatchers reforms was that when capitalism had Protestant self restraint it was arguably "justified" and "moral" theoretically. However Thatcher came into power after decades of liberalism, social reform and the "sexual revolution" in the 1960's and Thatcher did nothing to change any of that showing her true moral nature. In my opinion, in terms of "justice" I consider "moralist" Conservatism, which is old fashioned and advocates conservative values combined with a belief in hierarchy and/or the market to be "justified" theoretically. I may not agree with it. But they do genuinely want the best for society, even though they are arguably wrong.

Those were global tendencies of capitalism; not the particular choices, made according to ideologies, of individual politicians.

Communism isn't a moral ideal; what various ideologies think is moral or immoral is irrelevant to the phenomenon of capitalism, and the necessity of communism (a material necessity, not an ideal to be realized, because capitalism has no future to offer but war and crisis and in its development prefigures its supplanting by communism).

Right-wing and Left-wing ideologies of capital have consistently acted in the interests of the needs of continued capital accumulation; they are all a part of capitalism. Like you noted, right-wing conservatives went along with an expanding public sector (nationalizations, etc.) in the immediate post-war period; and today, numerous so-called 'socialist', 'communist' and 'workers' parties are at the helm of various states or have been for a time since 2008 (PASOK in Greece, SP in France, etc.) that go along with or even propose austerity, cuts, privatizations, etc. It's not important whether they're left, right, center, religious, secular, etc. They're all the political expression of capitalism, a society divided by classes- and they are forced to serve the interests of the economy (even if it counter to the principles of their chosen ideology).

actually all so called "social democrats" and "liberals" are doing is cheering a long the death of ideology, and an even more unrestrained, undemocratic and totally unjustified form of capitalism and hegemony.

That's exactly what they all do all of the time, it can't be any other way. The left* and right wing groups and ideologies, aside from communists, act in the service of the continued existence of capitalism.

* which includes a lot of groups that call themselves communists.

[#FF0000]

Real Christian Conservatives are diametrically opposed to fascism because fascism is pagan.

If that is their major gripe with it, then...

[Alexander99]

Communists should strive to be part of the process
Communism isn't a moral ideal; what various ideologies think is moral or immoral is irrelevant to the phenomenon of capitalism, and the necessity of communism (a material necessity, not an ideal to be realized, because capitalism has no future to offer but war and crisis and in its development prefigures its supplanting by communism).

I would argue that Communism is to an extent a moral idea. The idea that workers being exploited is "unjust" presupposes some form of morality. Morality is about feelings and it was not the "liberalism" within the Communist movement that aroused mass workers to rise up and overthrow the bourgeois, it was the strong sense of injustice and moral feeling.

With equal marriage and other reforms pushed through by reactionary free marketers there is perhaps a trend of sneering at the "old morality" and encouraging some type of "new" morality where exploitation is fine as long as its politically correct. In Western liberal democracies our conception of a commanding civil ethic is a kind of utilitarianism. We are encouraged so that our sense of civic morality is an almost cost-benefit analysis collectively, and say "equal marriage" does not cost the tax payer or affect the free market. Its not about what we think is right or what do I think is wrong. Its about mass consumer, collective utilitarian decisions and if someone looked at it from the outside it seems quite a thin, impoverished and uninteresting idea of social good. Its not arousing, its not like Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Its like a medical totalitarianism.

I consider for an example a Catholic priest who puts effort into helping the poor or even class struggle but is socially conservative more arousing and embracing than some free-market spiv who claims to support the idea of equal marriage.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

But what about Arab socialism? Or Irish nationalism and Catholic socialist priests in South America? At what point do Christian/Muslim Democrats stop being socialists and "liberals" start being socialists regardless if "liberals" support the free market? Isn't Christian democracy that isn't liberal more radical and democratic than say liberalism that doesn't advocate equality?

No because there are gay workers and women workers whose rights might not be fully realized by Christian democracy.

Also most Christian democrats are hardcore economic liberals.

Is it not liberalism and atheism that gave rise to the far right because Hitler was an admirer of Friedrich Nietzsche and Darwin? And actually liberalism has more in common with fascism than religion/tradition because it is immoral.

Liberalism is immoral??? Err, there is a strong sense of moral progress in liberalism, and a "natural" morality based around "inherent" human rights, liberties etc.

How was Nietzsche a liberal? Anyways Hitler and the Nazis didn't actually understand Nietzsche or Darwin at all.

I think that would be the Libertarian wing of Conservatives who happily side with fascists. Real Christian Conservatives are diametrically opposed to fascism because fascism is pagan.

Uhm, fascism can with any religious framework. Franco was no pagan, nor was Hitler. Just because some weird worshippers of German gods like Naziism, doesn't mean Naziism is a "pagan" ideology. Many neo-pagans today are disgusted by fascists anyways.

Franco, Pinochet and the Ustase in Croatia were Catholic fascists.

I would argue that Communism is to an extent a moral idea. The idea that workers being exploited is "unjust" presupposes some form of morality. Morality is about feelings and it was not the "liberalism" within the Communist movement that aroused mass workers to rise up and overthrow the bourgeois, it was the strong sense of injustice and moral feeling.

Many Communists are motivated by moral reasons in becoming Communists but Marx was clear that his economic analysis was not a moral one but a scientific one. Marx may have well thought that the exploitation of workers was unjust (the tone of his early writings indicates such) but most of his theory and analysis especially later in his life was based on an analysis of what is in the economic interests of the greater majority of working people, the conditions under which those people realize those interests, and why. Most later Communist theorists shared this analytic perspective, regardless of their personal moral views.

With equal marriage and other reforms pushed through by reactionary free marketers there is perhaps a trend of sneering at the "old morality" and encouraging some type of "new" morality where exploitation is fine as long as its politically correct. In Western liberal democracies our conception of a commanding civil ethic is a kind of utilitarianism. We are encouraged so that our sense of civic morality is an almost cost-benefit analysis collectively, and say "equal marriage" does not cost the tax payer or affect the free market. Its not about what we think is right or what do I think is wrong. Its about mass consumer, collective utilitarian decisions and if someone looked at it from the outside it seems quite a thin, impoverished and uninteresting idea of social good. Its not arousing, its not like Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness or the ownership of the means of production by the workers. Its like a medical totalitarianism.

Yeah the reasons why right wing liberals support gay marriage is cynical and their vision for society is uninteresting. It doesn't mean that socialists should throw homosexuals under the bus, however. People attempting to maintain a 2000 year old moral order in a modern society against the wishes of large segments of it are not offering a "social good" any more appealing. Whatever legitimate complaints one may have about the social mores being pushed by the State of these days, homosexuals, women, men who don't want to live in some protestant atomic household etc clearly have an interest in not going back to what existed prior. The point is to create something NEW.

[Alexander99]

People attempting to maintain a 2000 year old moral order in a modern society against the wishes of large segments of it are not offering a "social good" any more appealing. Whatever legitimate complaints one may have about the social mores being pushed by the State of these days, homosexuals, women, men who don't want to live in some protestant atomic household etc clearly have an interest in not going back to what existed prior.

The ideas of Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and workers owning the means of production were thought up in a time when the commanding sense of civil ethic was religious. Today, political participation is declining in western liberal democracies and there is a democratic deficit partly because our conception of a commanding civil ethic is a kind of utilitarianism and we are encouraged to collectively sneer at those with passion, ideology and a strong sense of morality.

Our sense of civic morality is a cost-benefit analysis collectively. Take for example the recent crime of the banking collapse and bailout which was basically legalised robbery, the capitalists defended it on the basis that bankers create economic growth implying that its not about what we think is right or wrong but about what is cost-effective which is actually quite a thin and impoverished idea of social good and its part of the reason for the mass withdrawal of the working class from the political process.

The Church and the religious cannot defend themselves from a cost-benefit analysis perspective because the Church does not give anything back materially or do anything to benefit the free-market so free market Libertarians are inclined to push them out of the way.

A Catholic priest who actually puts energy into helping the poor and class struggle but is socially conservative is more arousing, embracing and radical than some free-market conservative who happens to incorporate liberal ideas.

I personally have no problem with religion and the last thing I want to do is drive it out of the world. I wish to drive capitalism and other injustices out of the world however I think its a reflection of a moral and intellectual collapse in Western liberal democracies that free-marketers are able to appear "modern" simply because they attack the weak and defenseless religious and traditonalists when they are in fact reactionaries.

[subcp]

The ideas of Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and workers owning the means of production were thought up in a time when the commanding sense of civil ethic was religious. Today, political participation is declining in western liberal democracies and there is a democratic deficit partly because our conception of a commanding civil ethic is a kind of utilitarianism and we are encouraged to collectively sneer at those with passion, ideology and a strong sense of morality.

You're confusing two different ideologies; 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness' (liberty, equality, fraternity) were the slogans of the bourgeois revolutions. Democracy, as the dominant ideology of society, is bound to the needs of capital for freedom of movement. All of the democratic 'freedoms' and 'rights' serve capital: the freedom to own property, engage in exchange, accumulate capital is bound to the demands for greater freedom (the suffocating atmosphere of Feudalism 'needed to be burst asunder; was burst asunder' for this reason). The material conditions come first (need of capital for room to develop), the politics come later (democratic ideology).

Communism isn't about worker's owning the means of production, it's the abolition of ownership, abolition of classes including the proletariat, etc.

Our sense of civic morality is a cost-benefit analysis collectively. Take for example the recent crime of the banking collapse and bailout which was basically legalised robbery, the capitalists defended it on the basis that bankers create economic growth implying that its not about what we think is right or wrong but about what is cost-effective which is actually quite a thin and impoverished idea of social good and its part of the reason for the mass withdrawal of the working class from the political process.

It wasn't robbery. It was the necessary steps to keep the destruction of fictitious capital from spreading to the rest of the economy causing a systemic devalorization of capital (and rapid deflation a la 1929-Great Depression). Capitalism has been attempting to keep the severe systemic crisis from reaching the depths it would need to for a new cycle of accumulation to begin. It's got nothing to do with bankers or individual capitalists; it's the entire capitalist social relationship and mode of production, which is outside the control of the bankers, the capitalists, nation-states, etc.

There is no legitimate use of the bourgeois political process for the working-class. Communism can't be 'voted' in.

The Church and the religious cannot defend themselves from a cost-benefit analysis perspective because the Church does not give anything back materially or do anything to benefit the free-market so free market Libertarians are inclined to push them out of the way.

It's true that organized religion is a holdover from earlier forms of class society, but it isn't accurate to say they do not give anything to the free market. Isn't the Catholic Church the largest landowner in the world? With countless investments, funds, etc.?

I personally have no problem with religion and the last thing I want to do is drive it out of the world. I wish to drive capitalism and other injustices out of the world however I think its a reflection of a moral and intellectual collapse in Western liberal democracies that free-marketers are able to appear "modern" simply because they attack the weak and defenseless religious and traditonalists when they are in fact reactionaries.

They're all reactionaries; whether religious or secularist. Defending religious reactionaries because they are not completely dominant in the national mystifications of the Western democracies is an odd position for someone who recognizes the need for a society without classes. The origin of human religion is bound to the earliest transition to the first class based societies after primitive communism.

[Vercingetorix]

"To what extent does Communism have to incorporate liberalism?"

Only as far as individual rights are concerned. An individual can write whatever she wants, she can sell fruit if she wants, she can build whatever she wants as long as it doesn't endanger others.

It's not INDIVIDUAL economic activity that threatens workers and ruins the world. It is corporate activity. A decentralized state that provides individual rights while denying corporate economic rights will prevent liberal revolts and counter-revolutions.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

So, Alexander99, do you support LGBT citizens having equal rights as other citizens?

[Alexander99]

So, Alexander99, do you support LGBT citizens having equal rights as other citizens?

Yes as long as it does not stop freedom of worship and I'm wary of excluding the religious from the democratic debate when the religious are potential comrades and encourage a sense of a commanding civil ethic in this increasingly debased world. The Labour party in the UK actually has roots in middle class Christians who wanted to address social evils in society.

I'm also not sure redefining a word gives LGBT citizens equality. Marriage is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as an inherently conservative institution. The institutions that hold marriages, mainly churches and mosques, interpret marriage in a traditional way. I'm not sure the state enforcing what it perceives to be "equality" is justified because there is a democratic deficit and very few people voted for the current executive and it apparantley wasn't included in a manifesto. In a "democracy", if an executive wants to re-define a word it should have a mandate otherwise there is a crisis of legitimacy. How is it pluralistic to re-define marriage when there is a legitimacy crisis because a large amount of the electorate interpret marriage traditionally and the state enforcing it derives its power from an executive which was not even voted in by a majority and had to go into a coalition, and those that voted for it were a minority because there is a democratic deficit with 50% of people who don't even vote, and on top of that the executive which is passing the law which derives its legitimacy from a minority of the population in a country with a democratic deficit did not even include equal marriage on their election manifest so essentially no one voted for it. Which if you look at it from the outside it looks like a very impoverished and thin democracy and equal marriage is undemocratically excluding the religious from the democratic debate. Surely a better way to improve LGBT rights and equality is to go about persuading the traditional/religious to change their opinons in a democratic way rather than the state enforcing it with no legitimacy.

I think its totally different to black civil rights because this is a moral issue that goes much deeper than casual racism. Of course the state should protect minorities but there is debate about to what extent keeping marriage traditional infringes LGBT peoples rights, with many LGBT opposing the legislation because they don't believe that marriage is for them but still feel equal whereas with black civil rights there is no debate or question that they should have exactly the same rights as everyone else because its not a moral issue like marriage is.

I support LGBT people being able to be married in secular civil registry offices but I don't think the states power to redefine a word in this case is justified. Just because its a liberal reform that has public support it doesn't give the government the carte blanche to behave like a dictatorship.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The ideas of Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness and workers owning the means of production were thought up in a time when the commanding sense of civil ethic was religious. Today, political participation is declining in western liberal democracies and there is a democratic deficit partly because our conception of a commanding civil ethic is a kind of utilitarianism and we are encouraged to collectively sneer at those with passion, ideology and a strong sense of morality.

Our sense of civic morality is a cost-benefit analysis collectively. Take for example the recent crime of the banking collapse and bailout which was basically legalised robbery, the capitalists defended it on the basis that bankers create economic growth implying that its not about what we think is right or wrong but about what is cost-effective which is actually quite a thin and impoverished idea of social good and its part of the reason for the mass withdrawal of the working class from the political process.

The Church and the religious cannot defend themselves from a cost-benefit analysis perspective because the Church does not give anything back materially or do anything to benefit the free-market so free market Libertarians are inclined to push them out of the way.

A Catholic priest who actually puts energy into helping the poor and class struggle but is socially conservative is more arousing, embracing and radical than some free-market conservative who happens to incorporate liberal ideas.

I personally have no problem with religion and the last thing I want to do is drive it out of the world. I wish to drive capitalism and other injustices out of the world however I think its a reflection of a moral and intellectual collapse in Western liberal democracies that free-marketers are able to appear "modern" simply because they attack the weak and defenseless religious and traditonalists when they are in fact reactionaries.

I have no problem with religious people, but I do have an issue with the idea that religious morality should dictate social policy. We live in a pluralistic society, and always have. Using the state to impose morality is not fair to other communities.

[soso17]

Yes as long as it does not stop freedom of worship and I'm wary of excluding the religious from the democratic debate when the religious are potential comrades and encourage a sense of a commanding civil ethic in this increasingly debased world. The Labour party in the UK actually has roots in middle class Christians who wanted to address social evils in society.

I'm also not sure redefining a word gives LGBT citizens equality. Marriage is seen by many, rightly or wrongly, as an inherently conservative institution. The institutions that hold marriages, mainly churches and mosques, interpret marriage in a traditional way. I'm not sure the state enforcing what it perceives to be "equality" is justified because there is a democratic deficit and very few people voted for the current executive and it apparantley wasn't included in a manifesto. In a "democracy", if an executive wants to re-define a word it should have a mandate otherwise there is a crisis of legitimacy. How is it pluralistic to re-define marriage when there is a legitimacy crisis because a large amount of the electorate interpret marriage traditionally and the state enforcing it derives its power from an executive which was not even voted in by a majority and had to go into a coalition, and those that voted for it were a minority because there is a democratic deficit with 50% of people who don't even vote, and on top of that the executive which is passing the law which derives its legitimacy from a minority of the population in a country with a democratic deficit did not even include equal marriage on their election manifest so essentially no one voted for it. Which if you look at it from the outside it looks like a very impoverished and thin democracy and equal marriage is undemocratically excluding the religious from the democratic debate. Surely a better way to improve LGBT rights and equality is to go about persuading the traditional/religious to change their opinons in a democratic way rather than the state enforcing it with no legitimacy.

I think its totally different to black civil rights because this is a moral issue that goes much deeper than casual racism. Of course the state should protect minorities but there is debate about to what extent keeping marriage traditional infringes LGBT peoples rights, with many LGBT opposing the legislation because they don't believe that marriage is for them but still feel equal whereas with black civil rights there is no debate or question that they should have exactly the same rights as everyone else because its not a moral issue like marriage is.

I support LGBT people being able to be married in secular civil registry offices but I don't think the states power to redefine a word in this case is justified. Just because its a liberal reform that has public support it doesn't give the government the carte blanche to behave like a dictatorship.

So do you think a socialist government should allow prejudice if the majority are in favor of it? Populism is dangerous. The "majority" may be short-sighted at best and racist/homophobic/anti-woman at worst.

[soso17]

BTW, my husband and I had our civil union conducted willingly by a priest at my (Episcopalian) church. I'm tired of all Christians being associated with extremists and fundamentalists. There is a spectrum in every religious tradition, and not all believers are on the conservative end of it.

[helot]

BTW, my husband and I had our civil union conducted willingly by a priest at my (Episcopalian) church. I'm tired of all Christians being associated with extremists and fundamentalists. There is a spectrum in every religious tradition, and not all believers are on the conservative end of it.

this^

A friend of mine's a gay christian who's also an anarchist and is well thought of by the rest of his congregation.