It's not odd. I think you have good intentions but I generally believe the left thing responsible for tremendous monstrosity, concrete brutalism, awful poetry, welfare dependence.(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
Oddly primitivism is generally a left wing ideology
I'm talking more about the new left though, the old ones are alright
What is Conservatism taken to its most extreme? Watch
- 22-05-2016 19:24
(Original post by DanteTheDoorWot)
- 22-05-2016 19:43
Reactionaries look to the past and try to revert society to its previous state, despite popular belief fascism rejects this, which is why fascism often rejects religion and monarchy.
Doesn't that also make old labour types who want to go back to the more statist nationalization and government involvement in the economy conservatives?Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 22-05-2016 at 19:45.
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
- 22-05-2016 19:46
Isn't that what the current neocons are doing though? Neoliberalism is all about going back to the pre post world war 2 that was dominated by the Keynesian mixed economy.
Doesn't that also make old labour types who want to go back to the more statist nationalization and government involvement in the economy conservatives?
I have a lot of respect for Attlee and Bevan, as well as figures like Henderson and many others, they understood the distinctly British constitution, its traditions and combined it with a real desire to change rather than just the spoilt egotism of the current left.
(Original post by DanteTheDoorWot)
- 22-05-2016 19:55
You couldn't be more confused about ideology,
Libertarianism is liberalism taken to its most extreme (which is why classical liberals identify as libertarians)
Fascism is revolutionary and rejects conservatism (which is why most conservatives were anti fascists)
Communism is socialism taken to its most extreme (which is why moderates are called social democrats and reformers, or social-ists, e.g Clement Attlee, a socialist but not a communist)
There is no anarchism taken to its extreme, anarchism is a naturally extreme position.
Conservatism taken to its extreme would be absolutely no change whatsoever. Reactionary conservatism would depend on the country, in this country most conservatives would be liberal imperialists supporting a mixed constitution, rule of law and empire, possibly with imperial preference instead of free trade.
In the 20th century, especially after world war two, Social Democracy came to mean a none socialist form of left with politics. Basically use the state to trim away the extreme of capitalism by taxing and creating welfare programs and reducing inequality by providing education and services to the working class. They may well be keeping it a good secret but I don't think most self described social democrats are trying to slowly steer society to communism any more.Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 22-05-2016 at 19:56.
- 23-05-2016 13:38
Meh I'm not so sure.
I think you could theoretically have a non hierarchical yet right wing society- for instance if it's people had extreme religious views and had unpleasant foreign relation. Some if Thomas More's utopia was quite right wing I'd say despite by your measure being very left wing, so I'm not convinced it works unless applied on a global level.Left/right wing is only really relevant economically speaking. I think that time is important to consider.
For the most part gradualism is the best course of action. I too want a non hierarchical (world) society but I only think this would be possible far to the future when technological innovation is way beyond present and our global population is massively reduced (through liberal eugenics), this like Marx (but not as extreme) I think some hierarchy is justified at the present time.