i’m 24 and a proud conservative: i want to replace all highways with railways and interurban tramways, return to having small dense cities surrounded by lively rurality, dissolve large corporations and replace them with small local businesses, and bring back that thing where we went “hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let’s build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what.”
The poster would like to revert to a time of more progressive economic policies and conserve it. 😏😆 In the US, it’s a funny dichotomy that the progressives are fighting for things which were lost.
The US had everything the poster points out at one time. It’s just been dismantled over the years in the name of progress.
If conservatives actually governed the way they should they’d be easier to vote for. Small government, cutting spending, actually legislating to support rural Americans with things like good education and affordable health care…etc.
That’s the point. The Republican party isn’t conservative at all, but radical. They’ve abandoned most conservative political positions, including orthodox fiscal management, and exchanged conservative values for a constructed collection of ‘traditional values’, which are derived less from tradition than from the endless grievances that have replaced policy as their political program
Is there evidence that conservatism was ever that anywhere though? Because those are the things that current conservatives SAY but never what they DO. Is there any evidence of conservatives actually doing those things because as far as I have seen it has always been lip service, sleight of hand. I’m open to examples to change my mind.
You’re correct. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most progressive Presidents in history, was on the Republican ticket against Taft in 1912. I cannot fathom having had the ability to vote for Teddy, and voting for either Taft or Wilson.
Conservatism protects power where it exists now. You fundamentally can’t do that and be honest about it and maintain some form legitimacy in an ostensibly democratic system.
If you say “we love billionaires because they give us fat cheques, also we’re cutting your services because the billionaires don’t like taxes” you don’t get votes. So you have to drop one of those three things, and of course “be honest about it” is the easiest one to go without.
Lmao my mans rode the political merry-go-round and came out the opposite side full on Marxist. Welcome to the club brother, we got dope ass flags and mad pamphlets.
i’d call myself anarchist syndicalist :P, this was a joke about how conservatives aren’t actually conservative, just filled with hatred and xenophobia.
what you just said means you are not a conservative…
a conservative would want to keep the highway system the way it is, take more money away from its maintenance bugdet if anything.
a conservative would never want to dissolve large businesses.
a conservative would not give a crap about what you’re using as shelter, and certainly wouldn’t believe that access to housing is a basic human right.
You’re a lot more left than you realize. you might even be socialist. do you believe that the workers of a company should be given the profit that company enjoys, or should it all go to the shirts at the top? Do you believe that the working class should never be disarmed, and any attempt to disarm the working class should be disrupted?
yes, very aware of that, as i am in fact an anarchist syndicalist.
the point is to make fun of how modern conservatives have nothing they want to conserve other than their racial purity and personal wealth.
i would very much like to reclaim the term conservative for opinions that are ACTUALLY conservative, such as ending the suburban experiment and the neoliberal pursuit of wealth above actual happiness and social stability.
You just described all the things that conservatives have worked hard to stop from happening every time they’ve been in power. The only political ideology that actively wants to house the homeless, build robust public transport, moves to small towns and boycotts large corporations to support small business are deep to far left.
The Japanese conservatives built one of the world’s best public transport systems, constructed entire towns for workers and are now pushing people to move to small towns. (They’re still owned by the corporations, though.)
Your motivation in thinking these changes are the right ones is not conservative, I imagine. You probably think about the future, how things could be better, not based on some traditional values or because you remember how things were vaguely “better” in the past.
it’s almost amazing how many people had the point sail over their heads, i’m very much progressive :)
i look at the past, see it was in many ways pretty good, look at the present, see it’s pretty fucking miserable in those same ways, and then the obvious conclusion is that maybe people in the past did some stuff right, such as enjoying the sociopolitical benefits of public transport and workers’ rights.
then i see people call themselves conservative and just advocate making things WORSE, and i’m filled with an intense desire to wallop them with wet day-old fish.
You said you are a proud conservative and then proceeded to list off things that are completely antithetical to it. I am so confused. Everything you said is progressive, socialist, leftist, not at all conservative. Conservatives want things to stay as they are, to not progress, to not change. I.E. This system is working (for me) so let’s keep it. Progressives say things aren’t working (for everyone) so we should attempt to make it better for us all instead of a few people having everything and most people having little.
I mean this in the kindest most supportive way possible. You may want to do some introspection and comparisons with what you want to happen and what the political parties are pushing for. You may find you are anything but conservative or you may find you actually are conservative and you really don’t want those things you said.
and bring back that thing where we went “hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let’s build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what.”
This never existed. Not since capitalism at least.
that was specifically a modified example from nearby me, where the local parish decided to build a new house for a person who was struggling to get by.
Liberals would be against “government interventionism” such as getting rid of large corporations or taxing to then spend that money on public transportion.
Modern liberalism is not at all aligned with the Left on the Economic space, only on the non-Economic, personal freedoms, one.
Granted, big picture thinking would eventually end up concluding that differentiated treatment depending on wealth together with wealth inequality in overall reduces individual freedom (a few are freer to do what they want but the many are less free) which would end up aligning at least some liberals with leftwing thinking, but sadly that’s not what liberalism is nowadays.
Sorry I’m from Canada and we have an actual political system still and not a charade. Trust me everywhere outside of the U.S liberal still means progressive. Your ‘liberal’ centrism is unique. We call that conservative.
I’m in Europe and I’m making my comment mainly based on my experience with the British Liberals (both the overt ones - the Liberal Party - and the less overt ones - New Labour) as I lived in Britain for over a decade and was even involved in politics there.
Next to the traditional Left in most of Europe, Liberalism isn’t at all Left: it’s just Neoliberalism with an Pro-Equality But Not The Economic Kind coat of paint to make it seem left of center.
You do get elements of liberalism within leftwing parties in Europe, but they’re not liberal in the full sense, probably because of the contradiction I pointed out in my first post (that on the economic side, complete freedom for money results in quality of life going down for most people, which goes directly against the leftwing principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number”).
It’s not by chance that Liberals constantly talk about what’s good for businesses or for the Economy in absolute terms (if it’s good for those, then it’s overall good) whilst not everything that’s “good for businesses or the Economy” is actually good for people: businesses and the Economy are at most a means to an end for democratic lefties (in that they can make life better for most people and must be regulated to stop them from doing the opposite), not an end in itself.
If the definition of the word was that clear we would both know and agree on exactly were “liberalism” starts and were it ends, and wouldn’t be having this discussion, plus you wouldn’t have made the distinction in your previous post between the meaning of liberal in the US and “everywhere outside the US”.
In the absence of such perfect and worldwide agreed definition for “liberalism”, the best we can use is real-world examples of those who proclaim themselves as “liberals” (and in the case of New Labour, it’s not even in the party name) to show the common understanding of the word in various countries and the ones I listed on my last post are my real world examples which directly contradict your statement that “everywhere outside the US liberal still means progressive”.
My notion of “liberalism” is one anchored on my experience of living and voting in 4 different countries of Europe so while I can’t prove to you that “that’s what’s understood as liberalism all over the World” (and, frankly, I doubt it is), it certainly provides a Western and Southern Europe-centric first person observation of what is said to be “liberalism” over here, a reasonably large area of the world which most definitelly counts as “outside the US”.
What are you expecting to have them send you? A link to a paper proving that having empathy for fellow humans means you are not conservative?
Bro. Just like, think about it.
OPs talking points align nearly perfectly with normal progressive talking points.
Increase high density housing.
Increase public transport.
Public safety net (housing for the homeless).
Redistribution of wealth.
What it likely boils down to are the two conservative talking points they have left, guns and reproductive rights.
If OP truly feels that abortion is murder and believes in his heart that he has the right to dictate his own personal beliefs on others, and / or has fallen for the lie that the left is going to take their guns away (they won’t), they will vote Republican despite everything else pointing to the logical choice being a progressive Democrat.
Edit:
I feel I need to mention that just because I (a man) personally cannot imagine a scenario in which I would need to get an abortion (because I lack ovaries), and my current life situation is such that I don’t forsee my partner requiring one, I still will vote to protect women’s right to bodily autonomy. I strongly believe that I have no right to even participate in the discussion. My opinion is literally worthless, and I don’t have to live with the consequences of my vote.
That being said, I take the position of provide access to abortion but also provide services to women to try and decrease the need for abortion. I also am in favor of providing free healthcare to pregnant women and children of families in need of it, and I believe childcare should be subsidized.
It’s funny because technically abortion shouldn’t even be a right vs left issue (has nothing to do with economic policy). It’s just like that in the U.S because of the ridiculousness of their binary political system.
Both “sides” are so incredibly close in Economic terms that all that’s left for them to differentiate themselves is the Moral plan, hence you end up with ridiculous shit like criminalizing abortion or the whole trans rights fight.
It’s all cover to how both “sides” don’t really care about managing the country for the good of the many: they’re two cheeks of the same arse hence when it comes to overall quality of life you get the same shit.
Ah yes, the same shit. That’s why Republican-majority states are roughly the same as Democrat majorities on education, social services, household income, life expectancy, infant mortality… oh they aren’t? Yes because “both sides” enlightened centrism is a bullshit position.
Only somebody ignorant of the political culture outside the US would call the middle-point between Democrats and Republicans “centrism”.
By global standards, that shit would be “Full-on Right”, specifically on Economics were it’s Hard Neoliberalism (privatise everything including natural monopolies and refrain from regulating anything, to the point that, to pick quite a poignant example, the way in which the US regulates the safety of new chemicals for environments with direct human exposure - such as home use - is “allow by default until proven dangerous”, which is the exact opposite of what’s done in Europe were that stuff has to be proven safe first and only after that it’s allowed).
Just because your further to the Right party could be best described as “Ultra-nationalist, ultra-religious, full-on racist, ultra-neoliberal, complete total nutcase Far-Right” doesn’t mean that the party not quite as much to the Right is left-of-center, especial on economic (and hence, quality of life) matters.
The number of elected Democrats that are left-of-center can probably be counted using the fingers of a hand.
also, we should take gun rights back from them. their lord and savior Ronald Reagan was the one who introduced gun control when the black panthers started open carrying.
to be abundantly clear, i’m probably more of a radical socialist than most of y’all, and that post was mostly made in jest but also i wish we’d see some sensible people reclaim the term “conservative” for opinions that are actually conservative and not just hateful.
used to be that conservatives wanted to actually conserve stuff, like nature and the welfare of their society.
I don’t think conservative has ever meant the environment. It’s about conserving the status quo. At this point the party should be renamed to regressives.
I’m not sure how to explain that social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies lol. I knew this even before high school. Not decrying you because I agree with everything guy above you said, but you guys are certainly hanging with the wrong crowd.
social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies
They are not. They are common sense policies supported, at least on paper, by both left and right in most parts of the world. The first modern welfare state was created by Otto von Bismarck, not exactly a socialist.
Also, socialism in the traditional sense implies some form of public ownership at least of key industries and large companies, which would render corporate regulation a moot point.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents (so people wouildn’t have a reason to support them)
In regards to your second point, lol no. That would be communism. I’m glad that you think left wing policies are common sense though? Most of us heavily agree which is why seeing the proliferation of conservatism is disheartening.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents
I know, which is why I said ‘at least ln paper’. But a welfare state improves the productivity of workers and soldiers, and Prussia (and Bismarck in particular) did enact many other reforms with this objective.
I understand communism to be worker control of (all) the means of production. Socialism is of course much more broad, but in general it would involve public / state ownership of at least key industries and any companies that are ‘too big to fail’.
Bruh. That statement by Marx is an ideal, a metaphor for revolution. No country’s populace has ever controlled the means of production. In fact if you want to take that literally, capitalist societies have for more control over industry than socialist ones do. Modern communism is generally seen as where the government controls the distribution of property. In this sense not even Russia is communist anymore.
And I wouldn’t conflate them because most socialists would be pretty offended to be identified as communist. The average socialist likes Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or something.
That statement by Marx is an ideal. No country’s populace has ever controlled the means of production.
Yes to both. Countries calling themselves communist aspire to communism. Not even they claim to be fully communist; if I remember correctly, they call it ‘actually existing socialism’, which acknowledges that most industry is controlled by the state, rather than workers. They say they will return control to the workers once the conditions are ripe, but so far this has happened only in a handful of sectors. Very few people willingly give up power.
And I wouldn’t conflate them because most socialists would be pretty offended to be identified as communist. The average socialist likes Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or something.
Communists are a subset of socialists. Technically you might be wrong, because the Chinese communist party probably has more members than all other socialist parties in the world put together, but I get what you are saying.
seems so, though to be fair it’s only a half-joke as i do feel people could totally reclaim the conservative moniker for something actually good and actually conservative.
i’m 24 and a proud conservative: i want to replace all highways with railways and interurban tramways, return to having small dense cities surrounded by lively rurality, dissolve large corporations and replace them with small local businesses, and bring back that thing where we went “hey the slightly insane guy who never works is living in a shack that barely qualifies as shelter, let’s build him a new cottage so he has a proper place to live, because everyone has a fundamental right to housing no matter what.”
Conservative literally means to conserve. To not change the way things are.
You wanting change means you are progressive.
The poster would like to revert to a time of more progressive economic policies and conserve it. 😏😆 In the US, it’s a funny dichotomy that the progressives are fighting for things which were lost.
The US had everything the poster points out at one time. It’s just been dismantled over the years in the name of progress.
Ah. Thanks. The comment makes much more sense now.
Consecutive may also mean change such that you can just carry on with your life as normal. But that’s not what conservatives do nowadays.
You know there are opinions on a thousand topics which you are trying to sum up into a binary system like that is sufficient.
I don’t understand how those world views can identify and (you didn’t say this, so hopefully not) vote conservative in US these days
He’s making light of how twisted the US understanding of the word “conservative” has become.
If conservatives actually governed the way they should they’d be easier to vote for. Small government, cutting spending, actually legislating to support rural Americans with things like good education and affordable health care…etc.
But they’re pretty much the opposite of all that.
That’s the point. The Republican party isn’t conservative at all, but radical. They’ve abandoned most conservative political positions, including orthodox fiscal management, and exchanged conservative values for a constructed collection of ‘traditional values’, which are derived less from tradition than from the endless grievances that have replaced policy as their political program
Is there evidence that conservatism was ever that anywhere though? Because those are the things that current conservatives SAY but never what they DO. Is there any evidence of conservatives actually doing those things because as far as I have seen it has always been lip service, sleight of hand. I’m open to examples to change my mind.
Afaik someone can correct me if I’m wrong but the Democratic party used to be the fiscal conservative party in the 1800s
You’re correct. Teddy Roosevelt, one of the most progressive Presidents in history, was on the Republican ticket against Taft in 1912. I cannot fathom having had the ability to vote for Teddy, and voting for either Taft or Wilson.
Conservatism protects power where it exists now. You fundamentally can’t do that and be honest about it and maintain some form legitimacy in an ostensibly democratic system.
If you say “we love billionaires because they give us fat cheques, also we’re cutting your services because the billionaires don’t like taxes” you don’t get votes. So you have to drop one of those three things, and of course “be honest about it” is the easiest one to go without.
Maybe they hate women and women’s rights, loves Jesus and thinks priests raping little boys is OK
Also cowboy boots and Stetson yeehaw
Lmao my mans rode the political merry-go-round and came out the opposite side full on Marxist. Welcome to the club brother, we got dope ass flags and mad pamphlets.
i’d call myself anarchist syndicalist :P, this was a joke about how conservatives aren’t actually conservative, just filled with hatred and xenophobia.
There are dozens of us out there. :P
Ahhh to right like “literally to conserve a past time” haha you got me, nice one.
what you just said means you are not a conservative…
a conservative would want to keep the highway system the way it is, take more money away from its maintenance bugdet if anything. a conservative would never want to dissolve large businesses. a conservative would not give a crap about what you’re using as shelter, and certainly wouldn’t believe that access to housing is a basic human right.
You’re a lot more left than you realize. you might even be socialist. do you believe that the workers of a company should be given the profit that company enjoys, or should it all go to the shirts at the top? Do you believe that the working class should never be disarmed, and any attempt to disarm the working class should be disrupted?
yes, very aware of that, as i am in fact an anarchist syndicalist.
the point is to make fun of how modern conservatives have nothing they want to conserve other than their racial purity and personal wealth.
i would very much like to reclaim the term conservative for opinions that are ACTUALLY conservative, such as ending the suburban experiment and the neoliberal pursuit of wealth above actual happiness and social stability.
You just described all the things that conservatives have worked hard to stop from happening every time they’ve been in power. The only political ideology that actively wants to house the homeless, build robust public transport, moves to small towns and boycotts large corporations to support small business are deep to far left.
The Japanese conservatives built one of the world’s best public transport systems, constructed entire towns for workers and are now pushing people to move to small towns. (They’re still owned by the corporations, though.)
Your motivation in thinking these changes are the right ones is not conservative, I imagine. You probably think about the future, how things could be better, not based on some traditional values or because you remember how things were vaguely “better” in the past.
Sorry to break it to you, you are progressive.
it’s almost amazing how many people had the point sail over their heads, i’m very much progressive :)
i look at the past, see it was in many ways pretty good, look at the present, see it’s pretty fucking miserable in those same ways, and then the obvious conclusion is that maybe people in the past did some stuff right, such as enjoying the sociopolitical benefits of public transport and workers’ rights.
then i see people call themselves conservative and just advocate making things WORSE, and i’m filled with an intense desire to wallop them with wet day-old fish.
Sir or madam, you are absolutely nailing a closeted progressive affection.
Nothing about that is conservative.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/thats-the-joke
You said you are a proud conservative and then proceeded to list off things that are completely antithetical to it. I am so confused. Everything you said is progressive, socialist, leftist, not at all conservative. Conservatives want things to stay as they are, to not progress, to not change. I.E. This system is working (for me) so let’s keep it. Progressives say things aren’t working (for everyone) so we should attempt to make it better for us all instead of a few people having everything and most people having little.
I mean this in the kindest most supportive way possible. You may want to do some introspection and comparisons with what you want to happen and what the political parties are pushing for. You may find you are anything but conservative or you may find you actually are conservative and you really don’t want those things you said.
it’s a half-joke on how conservatism has become a parody of itself these days, and isn’t actually really conservative in any real way.
It was originally about maintaining an aristocracy and it is still is to this day.
But were the point you listed originally conservative values?
Maybe they hate the gays and don’t want women to vote 🤷♂️
This never existed. Not since capitalism at least.
that was specifically a modified example from nearby me, where the local parish decided to build a new house for a person who was struggling to get by.
That’s liberal. Far left liberal in fact.
Liberals would be against “government interventionism” such as getting rid of large corporations or taxing to then spend that money on public transportion.
Modern liberalism is not at all aligned with the Left on the Economic space, only on the non-Economic, personal freedoms, one.
Granted, big picture thinking would eventually end up concluding that differentiated treatment depending on wealth together with wealth inequality in overall reduces individual freedom (a few are freer to do what they want but the many are less free) which would end up aligning at least some liberals with leftwing thinking, but sadly that’s not what liberalism is nowadays.
Sorry I’m from Canada and we have an actual political system still and not a charade. Trust me everywhere outside of the U.S liberal still means progressive. Your ‘liberal’ centrism is unique. We call that conservative.
I’m in Europe and I’m making my comment mainly based on my experience with the British Liberals (both the overt ones - the Liberal Party - and the less overt ones - New Labour) as I lived in Britain for over a decade and was even involved in politics there.
Next to the traditional Left in most of Europe, Liberalism isn’t at all Left: it’s just Neoliberalism with an Pro-Equality But Not The Economic Kind coat of paint to make it seem left of center.
You do get elements of liberalism within leftwing parties in Europe, but they’re not liberal in the full sense, probably because of the contradiction I pointed out in my first post (that on the economic side, complete freedom for money results in quality of life going down for most people, which goes directly against the leftwing principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number”).
It’s not by chance that Liberals constantly talk about what’s good for businesses or for the Economy in absolute terms (if it’s good for those, then it’s overall good) whilst not everything that’s “good for businesses or the Economy” is actually good for people: businesses and the Economy are at most a means to an end for democratic lefties (in that they can make life better for most people and must be regulated to stop them from doing the opposite), not an end in itself.
Just because a party calls themselves that and then does some shit, doesn’t change the definition of a word
If the definition of the word was that clear we would both know and agree on exactly were “liberalism” starts and were it ends, and wouldn’t be having this discussion, plus you wouldn’t have made the distinction in your previous post between the meaning of liberal in the US and “everywhere outside the US”.
In the absence of such perfect and worldwide agreed definition for “liberalism”, the best we can use is real-world examples of those who proclaim themselves as “liberals” (and in the case of New Labour, it’s not even in the party name) to show the common understanding of the word in various countries and the ones I listed on my last post are my real world examples which directly contradict your statement that “everywhere outside the US liberal still means progressive”.
My notion of “liberalism” is one anchored on my experience of living and voting in 4 different countries of Europe so while I can’t prove to you that “that’s what’s understood as liberalism all over the World” (and, frankly, I doubt it is), it certainly provides a Western and Southern Europe-centric first person observation of what is said to be “liberalism” over here, a reasonably large area of the world which most definitelly counts as “outside the US”.
The definition of the word liberal in the dictionary is being open to new ideas and beliefs.
Well, that’s definitelly not how the politicians that claim to be liberals in the various countries I lived in practice it.
Is it? I like some links to back up either position.
What are you expecting to have them send you? A link to a paper proving that having empathy for fellow humans means you are not conservative?
Bro. Just like, think about it.
OPs talking points align nearly perfectly with normal progressive talking points.
Increase high density housing.
Increase public transport.
Public safety net (housing for the homeless).
Redistribution of wealth.
What it likely boils down to are the two conservative talking points they have left, guns and reproductive rights.
If OP truly feels that abortion is murder and believes in his heart that he has the right to dictate his own personal beliefs on others, and / or has fallen for the lie that the left is going to take their guns away (they won’t), they will vote Republican despite everything else pointing to the logical choice being a progressive Democrat.
Edit:
I feel I need to mention that just because I (a man) personally cannot imagine a scenario in which I would need to get an abortion (because I lack ovaries), and my current life situation is such that I don’t forsee my partner requiring one, I still will vote to protect women’s right to bodily autonomy. I strongly believe that I have no right to even participate in the discussion. My opinion is literally worthless, and I don’t have to live with the consequences of my vote.
That being said, I take the position of provide access to abortion but also provide services to women to try and decrease the need for abortion. I also am in favor of providing free healthcare to pregnant women and children of families in need of it, and I believe childcare should be subsidized.
It’s funny because technically abortion shouldn’t even be a right vs left issue (has nothing to do with economic policy). It’s just like that in the U.S because of the ridiculousness of their binary political system.
Both “sides” are so incredibly close in Economic terms that all that’s left for them to differentiate themselves is the Moral plan, hence you end up with ridiculous shit like criminalizing abortion or the whole trans rights fight.
It’s all cover to how both “sides” don’t really care about managing the country for the good of the many: they’re two cheeks of the same arse hence when it comes to overall quality of life you get the same shit.
Ah yes, the same shit. That’s why Republican-majority states are roughly the same as Democrat majorities on education, social services, household income, life expectancy, infant mortality… oh they aren’t? Yes because “both sides” enlightened centrism is a bullshit position.
Only somebody ignorant of the political culture outside the US would call the middle-point between Democrats and Republicans “centrism”.
By global standards, that shit would be “Full-on Right”, specifically on Economics were it’s Hard Neoliberalism (privatise everything including natural monopolies and refrain from regulating anything, to the point that, to pick quite a poignant example, the way in which the US regulates the safety of new chemicals for environments with direct human exposure - such as home use - is “allow by default until proven dangerous”, which is the exact opposite of what’s done in Europe were that stuff has to be proven safe first and only after that it’s allowed).
Just because your further to the Right party could be best described as “Ultra-nationalist, ultra-religious, full-on racist, ultra-neoliberal, complete total nutcase Far-Right” doesn’t mean that the party not quite as much to the Right is left-of-center, especial on economic (and hence, quality of life) matters.
The number of elected Democrats that are left-of-center can probably be counted using the fingers of a hand.
Centrism is a relative position, and the topic is United States politics.
also, we should take gun rights back from them. their lord and savior Ronald Reagan was the one who introduced gun control when the black panthers started open carrying.
Republicans are the party of gun control.
When they give you a shocked look, remind them of Reagan.
Should seriously compromise their base.
And their current deity Trump enacted actual gun restrictions too, while the literal devil worshipper Obama did not enact any.
“Take the guns, worry about due process later” - Trump
to be abundantly clear, i’m probably more of a radical socialist than most of y’all, and that post was mostly made in jest but also i wish we’d see some sensible people reclaim the term “conservative” for opinions that are actually conservative and not just hateful.
used to be that conservatives wanted to actually conserve stuff, like nature and the welfare of their society.
I don’t think conservative has ever meant the environment. It’s about conserving the status quo. At this point the party should be renamed to regressives.
OK that probably explains it. Thanks. I couldn’t work out how OP was claiming to be conservative.
I’m not sure how to explain that social security and public housing and public transport and corporate regulation are socialist policies lol. I knew this even before high school. Not decrying you because I agree with everything guy above you said, but you guys are certainly hanging with the wrong crowd.
Why does OP claim to be a proud conservative when listing only socialist policies?
Because brain-rot conservative media told him being on the left was bad
lmfao it’s a joke.
Quoth Ash Sarkar: I’m literally a communist you idiot.
Why do you think you’re being attacked? Getting used to it huh? Also did you forget to switch accounts?
almost like i’m actually a socialist :O
They are not. They are common sense policies supported, at least on paper, by both left and right in most parts of the world. The first modern welfare state was created by Otto von Bismarck, not exactly a socialist.
Also, socialism in the traditional sense implies some form of public ownership at least of key industries and large companies, which would render corporate regulation a moot point.
He did that with the explicit goal of undermining his socialist opponents (so people wouildn’t have a reason to support them)
In regards to your second point, lol no. That would be communism. I’m glad that you think left wing policies are common sense though? Most of us heavily agree which is why seeing the proliferation of conservatism is disheartening.
I know, which is why I said ‘at least ln paper’. But a welfare state improves the productivity of workers and soldiers, and Prussia (and Bismarck in particular) did enact many other reforms with this objective.
I understand communism to be worker control of (all) the means of production. Socialism is of course much more broad, but in general it would involve public / state ownership of at least key industries and any companies that are ‘too big to fail’.
Bruh. That statement by Marx is an ideal, a metaphor for revolution. No country’s populace has ever controlled the means of production. In fact if you want to take that literally, capitalist societies have for more control over industry than socialist ones do. Modern communism is generally seen as where the government controls the distribution of property. In this sense not even Russia is communist anymore.
And I wouldn’t conflate them because most socialists would be pretty offended to be identified as communist. The average socialist likes Denmark and Sweden. Not Cuba or something.
Yes to both. Countries calling themselves communist aspire to communism. Not even they claim to be fully communist; if I remember correctly, they call it ‘actually existing socialism’, which acknowledges that most industry is controlled by the state, rather than workers. They say they will return control to the workers once the conditions are ripe, but so far this has happened only in a handful of sectors. Very few people willingly give up power.
Communists are a subset of socialists. Technically you might be wrong, because the Chinese communist party probably has more members than all other socialist parties in the world put together, but I get what you are saying.
It isn’t? I like some links to back up either position.
We are in the same boat.
The joke really flew over a lot of people’s head huh.
seems so, though to be fair it’s only a half-joke as i do feel people could totally reclaim the conservative moniker for something actually good and actually conservative.
None of the positions you listed are conservative. Do you hate immigrants or something?
do read the rest of the replies