In a functioning post-capitslist society, people should be expected to work if they are reasonably able. (I’m not sure if this is really even right wing but I know a lot of people who would say that it is).
You’re right, this isn’t right-wing, guaranteed employment is in socialist constitutions. The more of us working, the less we’ll individually have to. Contrast with, say, nazi Germany where they had relatively few people working many hours.
Lenin said that he who doesn’t not work shall also not eat
as far as the western political spectrum is concerned, I would say a strong belief that you should maintain a close relationships with family even if they hold beliefs that are reactionary or culturally conservative as long as they aren’t overtly hurting you. it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on. isolation is one of the main things that leads to the type of derangement you see in the modern western fascist movements. obviously there is lots of nuance to this but generally speaking
This is essentially saying that the western patriarchal family unit is a force against fascism. If that were the case, then fascists would be against “the family”, but exactly the opposite is true. You also more or less directly say that compromising with reactionaries will somehow make people less fascist, which is ridiculous. Someone who’s estranged from their family specifically because they’re reactionary isn’t going to somehow become more fascist as a result of that, that doesn’t make any sense. A deranged ultra or something, perhaps, but that’s not the same thing.
I get that this is a thread about your most right-wing opinion, but yeah, this idea is reactionary as hell and trying to clumsily graft on an argument about isolation doesn’t make it any better. Isolation is deranging and that is a societal problem, but this idea is absolutely not a solution to that. If anything it’s a description of the problem - yes, a society where community and public spaces have been destroyed makes for a situation where this “family or isolation” dichotomy exists, and that can lead to derangement and ultimately fascism. The solution to this problem is to fix that situation, not decide that it’s a good thing.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. I’m not making a “thing good” or “thing bad” argument. Like I’m not saying “the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs”
it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on
what I’m specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren’t materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.
(sorry if I didn’t use the quote function right, I’m very new to lemmy)
instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
It sounds like you’re just doing “tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs” but obscured with lots of fancy words.
Propaganda has a very real effect on material circumstances anyway. To suggest otherwise in 2025 is wild.
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
sure, I’ll use a personal example. I was talking with a relative of mine who hates rich people but loves elon musk because he owns the libs or whatever. instead of beginning the interaction by disagreeing about elon musk being a super cool guy who’s smart and awesome, I started the conversation from the perspective of agreeing with her about how much the rich suck and libs suck and yada-yada-yada but the place it ended at was that elon also sucks and that they should value less the performative aspect of our modern political climate more the substantive. so not an aesthetic compromise in the scene of a middle ground between aesthetics but the aesthetic of compromise itself. basically what I’m saying is just chill the fuck out and talk to people who you have a long relationship with instead of cutting them out in some sort of purity testing way.
tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs
that’s not at ALL what I’m saying. I’m saying challenge those beliefs in a way the is effective. thinking about social interactions in a punishment/reward way isn’t very effective in my experience. Also some family systems are much worse then others and some ARE in fact good and something to be protected, specifically indigenous family systems should be protected as they are to a large extent inherently anti-colonial/anti-imperialist.
sorry if this still doesn’t make scene I’m not really used to having a conversation in this format so I might not be representing my point of view in the best way. please try to be charitable when interpreting what I’m saying.
Idk if it’s most but “Richmond is a hard road to travel” is a good tune.
That if you move to another country you should be learning that language to the best of your capabilities. I work with a lot of foreigners and the amount of them that are incapable or simply unwilling to speak, in my case, Dutch is insanely high. I do think we as a society should invest more in schooling and developing both the native and the new language of course. But learn the fucking language. At least try.
a) languages are hard. but immersion helps
b) I think the vast majority if expats won’t even consider learning the local language.
Languages is hard that’s true. An initiative our party took is the ‘festival of the mother tongue’ in which many different nationalities can showcase their language and local cuisine and whatnot. Really helps people think about language.
Also, it turns out that further developing your native language can also help with learning a new language. Hence why I think it’s important to stimulate that as well though reading and stuff.
also the question is if there are programs to help people learn the local language, rather then demonising them for struggling
Ok but it’s Dutch, I understand the hesitation
In my top 3 most ridiculous languages for sure, can’t keep a straight face listening to those people, lol.
Everybody ganster until they have to pronounce arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering
I agree, especially for those American expats
Definitely not my most rightwing view, but my most rightwing conscious position is that comrades should join and build up whatever organisations they can, even if they are right-deviationists or contain reactionary elements, and fight over those inside the organisations. This includes parties with settler, LGBT-phobic, misogynous among other deviations.
I also have another view that may be seen as rightwing here (and is definitely controversial) that settler-colonialism is not the principal contradiction in current day USA, North America, or most of the rest of the Americas. It’s first between the international bourgeoisie (with home base in the US) and the international proletariat, then between peripheral nations and the imperial core finance, military and cultural sectors, and only after that it’s between oppressed minorities (be they native or “imported”) and the national state repression force. Some day I’ll take the time for this struggle session.
Compulsory military service is extremely important for actual democracy.
Depends, if its compulsory military service but its for a neo-liberal country id rather just shoot my commanding officer at that point lmao
I call it voting by bullet box.
This isn’t right wing, it just doesn’t make sense in many contexts. Time in the military is time that could be spent in education or other socially beneficial activities
The professional army is a cancer and the power to inflict organized violence should be spread out as evenly as possible. Also the military should allocate some of its time for infrastructure work and maybe other community services like DPRK does.
That still doesn’t make sense. A professional military is specifically trained for the purposes they are needed for and time spent in the military is time (for most people) that would otherwise be spent in training to become other needed jobs like doctors, engineers, teachers etc etc
The hierarchical structure of professional military encourages right-wing ideology and caste thinking. You can only somewhat counteract it with political education, so you need to limit the number of full-time military professionals to limit the spread of right-wing ideology. And you can’t get rid of military without full worldwide victory for the socialism first.
That still takes away time that would be spent in training for socially useful and productive purposes. Maybe for those not going to college, mandatory military time could work but otherwise it would harm those other professions.
Making sure your military is not full of wannabe caudillos is a socially useful purpose. And those who are going to college should serve too in positions requiring technical knowledge or as officers.
That’s nonsensical. The top in the military are still going to be career soldiers either way. The officers aren’t going to be those forced to serve a single term. Your idea would just lead to a huge deficit of education and would only serve to empower reactionaries
That is, if the military isn’t a shit show for anything but arms training and physical conditioning
maybe that being a communist doesn’t require to be a militant atheist. Atheism is a method for some people to avoid reactionary traps that usually come with religion
To be a communist is to be a materialist. You cannot separate the two of them
I agree, I think a materialist perspective in the realm of political thought is key, but as for people’s personal lives they can believe what they wish about the nature of the universe outside of that. So long as the org is secular and people are applying a materialist philosophy in their analysis of the natural world here then it’s completely compatible
Out party consists of many religions and (so far) no problem has occurred. Not between the Muslims and the Christians, or even Muslims and LGBTQ+ community like so many libs like to go on about. Nothing. It can absolutely work when working towards socialism.
Rothbard has awesome smile
Honestly, many of these posts aren’t even “right-wing” views, they’re just shared positions like “guns are empowering to civilians”, “have some respect for cultures you’re entering and learn to communicate”, “people raising a child should be supported”, “child abusers should be removed from society”.
The framing of some of these as “right-wing” or “anti-left” due to progressivist liberals is harmful and something we have to punch through. In my union, I had to put on a nice face and discuss with a member who only knew how to frame their legitimate proletarian objections to outsourcing and porky’s cost-cutting through terms like “woke trash”, “diversity” and the like. And it sucks for them too, because their unfortunate, inaccurate choice of words lumps them in with absolute scum, and so they have to justify every other sentence with a good ol’ “I’m not a racist” to try and clarify their objection (which, in this case, based on their other views and talking to them further, I really think was true and not just the classic shield tactic that Nazi scum abuse to feign humanity). When progressive liberals have garbage analysis and advocate idealist misguided solutions, that alienates reasonable people who might end up believing themselves to be “anti-left”, given the Overton window puts proglibs in the “left” here.
I can only imagine if they talked to someone else who took their language at face value and then (understandably) dismissed them as an anti-worker pro-bigotry bastard etc. etc., instead of realizing it’s just (for lack of a more neutral word) ignorance. Their legitimate proletarian concerns would be answered with dismissal or an attack. That’s why we need to say loudly and clearly that we have shared proletarian values, not just “leftist” values.
(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
I’m not convinced it’s nonsense as a whole, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Especially in situations like US electoral “republican-democrat” dichotomy, where people sometimes label republican as right and democrat as left, which is indeed nonsense. I think it’s kinda like “fascism” where there is historical meaning and then there is how it gets bandied about, and there’s a lot of muddied use of it.
Well said. This really gets to the heart of it. I forget where I heard this quote but “the culture war is a proxy class war” is something I feel has a lot of truth to it.
Great phrase, I’ll have to remember that one! And that’s absolutely at play here from the “progressive” liberalist side too - I suspect a significant chunk of the frustration with “DEI” and “woke” is due to the capitalist abuse the underlying progressive movements, comparable to rainbow capitalism. Offshoring (I originally miswrote that as “outsourcing” before you replied) to cheap underqualified labor is justified as “diversity”, but local workers suffer because the capitalist is hiring people who aren’t doing the job as well. The capitalist is justifying their anti-worker exploitation as being social justice! So for people who are brought up in a casually racist environment [read: most citizens here] and just not used to thinking about how they say things, they can thoughtlessly say something that’s easily misinterpreted as racist bigotry. Consider: “They keep giving our jobs to Indians who can’t do it as well” - it absolutely comes off as racist (or nationalist) to me, but could also just be someone who seriously doesn’t care about whether they’re from India or a different race, they’re objecting to the outsourcing which just happens to currently be to India. Thoughlessness, which leads them to have to justify with defenses: “I’m not a racist, the Indian coworkers over here are wonderful, I have an Asian wife”, you get the idea. Again, I know those lines are also abused by dissonant racists, but we would be foolish to just assume.
The person I was talking about before had earlier complained that they were also getting in trouble at work for being direct and blunt, rather than diplomatic and polite, like if someone was talking loudly on their phone while others are trying to work, or they didn’t put enough greetings and sugar in their email and someone got offended. And they mentioned that it wasn’t easy for them to adjust, because they’d been conditioned in certain engineering and military [fuck the troops] jobs where you don’t have time to formulate and beat about the bush or worry about politics, direct and timely communication matters, and I suspect that leads them toward this thoughtless unfortunate phrasing, forcing them to backtrack with those defenses; “they can’t say anything anymore”. And, yes, again, that’s the same line we also see used by pieces of crap who want to say racist garbage. It’s all so tiresome!
yeah definitely. I think a those of us who have beliefs we’ve taken the time to think through choose our words carefully, we assume others do the same. in reality most working people haven’t, they just regurgitate things they’ve heard on TV, Facebook and other corporate platforms. the silver lining is that our ideas are not as unpopular as they might appear. you really don’t know until you find a common language with someone what you really disagree on.
We should attempt to get rid of alcohol and drugs in society. That’s not say immediate criminalization but we should go after producers of these ills and work to eliminate them through gradual, supportive-of-addicts means entirely.
I partially agree, I think drugs should be outlawed and/or limited. I’m not against people in certain mental health situations being given ayahuasca or similar drugs with potential therapeutic effects but I don’t think people should be able to buy heroin at the corner store for regular recreational use and that there should be allowed this drug culture (420, etc) around it.
I think ceremonially people should be allowed reasonable limited amounts of certain substances like alcohol (and weed) in state regulated amounts (like tied to a state ID card) like a bottle of wine for new years and a few other holidays and a bottle of whiskey a year but not like 2 bottles of whiskey and a case of beer a week type consumption. Not you know spending every other day high out of your mind on weed for hours at a time. I think what weed that is available recreationally should be weakened back to mid 20th century levels of THC and no one under 24 should be allowed access to it given the potential dangers to developing brains. As smoke is a carcinogen by itself consumption in that form should be discouraged for those who wish to use it, those who require it be done that way for traditional ceremonial/cultural reasons can still do so but most should be encouraged to bake it into foods or imbibe in some other manner that reduces the harm.
I understand why under capitalism people drink heavily or do lots of drugs, how miserable life can be, how hard labor conditions are so I’m not in favor of harsh restrictions on alcohol/weed under capitalism (though I’m also not in favor of legalization of more hard drugs which would be used to harm the proletariat, drug people into a sense of uncaring acceptance, exploit people to addict them to a product for profit, etc).
I think it’s a definite harm and people don’t understand that say the type of weed that Stalin smoked was like a hundred times weaker than the stuff you can buy in a shop today. Back in Stalin’s day weed was a mild relaxant really compared to what it is today.
Even if marijuana could be more mild, it still impairs driving. There is absolutely no reason for recreational marijuana to be legal and I think that attempts to take down these dealers is important since they kill people through impaired driving. I think it needs to be dealt with through long term social reform, elimination of poverty, arrests and destructing of the dealers, and education.
Not so much of a “view” as it is an action, but I unironically love buying army surplus stuff.
I don’t want no gubbermint taking my guns.
Not even right wing, Marx said this shit
reform through forced labour is good, tho there is a clear distinction when it’s on a capitalist country and private individuals profit of the prisoners labour to when the prisoner labour is used to develop the country, like gulags in the USSR.
Idk if it’s right wing, but seconding what Comprehensive49 said, death penalty for bourgeoisie, nazis, fascists and also pedos and rapists are kill on sight.
Also, I don’t know if this counts, but we really shouldn’t pressure any countries to ditch their old believes and traditions which they had for centuries, for example, Muslim countries in terms of everyone suddenly accepting LGBT etc, it will come with time, it can’t be done overnight. I’m of course not talking about Saudi Arabia and their monarchy, they have to go, but other Muslim countries
I have lived some time in North Africa(can’t say which country) and have connection with a lot of people from there, since I’m asexual I haven’t had any problems, but they really don’t care about LGBT in best case scenario from my experience and some unfortunately see it as western thing but are otherwise some of the best people I met. So unless they’re Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan in terms of it, I say let them be, with socialism, it will be better with time.
Wanting death to rapists is all well and good but I heard from a victim that, because most sexual abuse is committed by people the victims know, punishing them with death disincentivizes people from reporting their abusers. Maybe that can be alleviated by teaching people from a young age to recognize abuse and that rapists must die no matter how you personally feel about them? I don’t know, it’s a sensitive issue and I’m fearful of letting my hatred for abusers (my own and otherwise) cause me to accidentally hurt victims.
Perhaps the punishment should be set after consultation with the victim. Sexual abuse absolutely must be punished and prevented though.
I agree on allowing culture to change naturally. When you try to abrupty impose social policies that oppose aspects of people’s culture, they naturally push back. I feel that much of the hostility towards LGBT and the like seems to be due to people’s desperation so they think that doing what “God” likes will get them more stuff. Naturally, if everyone has all the stuff they need, then no one will need to care much.
There should be substantial financial and social help given to families that want to have children, and they should get more help the more children they have.
(But to balance that out with a left wing policy, i also want free contraception for everyone who doesn’t want children.)
Definitely. I hope China will be the first country to find a good solution to the birth crisis faced by all developed countries, since no capitalist country has found a solution yet. Reducing working hours, providing social support, increasing household wealth and living standards, and decreasing stress from raising kids should hopefully fix this.
Aren’t those both left?
this 100%. We had a kid during the lock downs our government was paying everyone to stay inside. me and my partner got to stay in and focus on being parents, taking our time and doing a much better job then if we had to worry about making rent and feeding us on minimum wage.
What was that time like?
it was really great for the most part. the covid lock down part kinda sucked but the rest was great and it really shifted my perspective on a lot of things. the main one being having a kid isn’t actually the hard part about having a kid, capitalism is the hard part of having a kid, we just got to focus on what’s important instead of making money to keep us alive.
