:mod:
Easy to slip up, but if you have a problem with a political position, please try to remember to criticise the position or ideology or public figures, rather than its adherents in general. For example, in this case, it would be fairer to attack "rightism" or "conservativism" or "Trump" or whatever ideology is applicable, rather than "right-wingers".
/mod
thinkinginpictures wrote:
They are anti-vaccines. Anti-science. Pro-religion - even compulsory religious teachings.
They claim that you cannot be a good person, if you're not religious.
They claim that nazism wasn't as bad as communism, and refer only to the fact that Stalin ensured the death of more innocents, than the nazis - hence their logic is as follows: "Nazism isn't as bad as its reputation goes".
As if killing 6 million+innocents in gas chambers is "less evil" than causing the starvation of say 10 or 20 million people.
I'm saying that if you deliberately make mass-murder your main politics, you're bad, but right wingers won't accept that.
Right wingers always attacks left wingers, saying all left wingers are commies.
They accuse Bernie Sanders for being a... Stalinist.
Right wingers also support censorship, yet claim that they want free speech to make their hate-speeches (racist, ad-hominem attacks and attack on established media/newspapers). Yet, this freedom of speech extends not to those who dare to challenge the right-wing politics, as is clearly evident in Right Wing Hungary, Poland, Turkey etc.
I'm really, Really, REALLY sick and tired of Right-wingers.
I have certainly seen some on the right make claims like those you outline. However, I think "Hitler wasn't that bad really" is a fringe position in right-wing circles in every country, even Hungary. The other positions you outline may be common in some right-wing ideologies, but not all of them. For example, there are major conflicts between right-wing theology and libertarianism; those right-wing Christian sects who oppose abortion and want society to be more religious are often very pro-welfare, while libertarians won't stand for active prohibition of abortion but will usually oppose welfare safety nets.
I think it's also important to acknowledge that many prominent right-wing figures have spoken against many of the positions you attribute to the right at large. For example, Milton Friedman, a very influential capitalist thinker, was in favour of Universal Basic Income, which shares many features with a large welfare state. I see you think that this makes Milton Friedman a centrist, and, well, fair enough in a way. But many right-wingers consider him to be a right-winger. It might be worth having that sort of thing in your back pocket the next time someone who is opposed to welfare cites Friedman in support of their position.
Economically I certainly prefer people like Friedman (or, say, Jeff Flake or Mitt Romney, or in a British context people like Amber Rudd or Greg Clark) to people like Sanders or Corbyn. On issues like privatisation, trade unions, international trade, and financial transaction taxes, mainstream rightism is generally better than mainstream leftism.
I also think liberal conservativism are increasingly just as good as the mainstream left on many social issues - indeed, sometimes the right has an advantage over the left because some regressive ideologies, such as second-wave feminism or nationalistic Marxism, are tied to the left and are much better at hijacking mainstream discourse than regressive right-wing ideologies, at least in the UK. Call yourself a Nazi and everyone will ignore you. Call yourself a "radical feminist" and you'll be invited on every TV show to talk about how you think trans people are mentally ill, and will probably be supported by the presenter. (Don't think this quite applies in the US, where there is much more sympathy towards religious and cultural extremism and less sympathy for radical progressive or pseudo-progressive movements).
Some other cases where I think the right can often be correct:
- They're generally better on a few scientific issues, like nuclear power, fracking, and genetic modification.
- They're generally much more willing to work with the left than the other way around, while also better opposing extremism. This probably doesn't work in every country, but in European countries where coalitions are routine, the centre-right are much less likely to howl ideologically when they end up in coalition with a liberal or left-wing group, whereas the left-wingers will usually be outraged at association with liberals, let alone the centre-right. On the other hand, left-wing groups are usually happy to tolerate or even embrace extremist groups, whereas the centre-right stand opposed to the far right. See e.g. Jeremy Corbyn's lifelong embrace of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, but refusal to work with
moderate members of his own party.
As a liberal, I don't have much patience for either leftism or rightism but I will happily work with the centre-left and centre-right, and can even occasionally find common cause with some of the more harmless "fringe" elements of the left and right (such as eco-Marxists and libertarians).
24 Mar 2019, 7:20 pm
Just can't seem to make it in a capitalist society
