Let's settle this

I would agree with a big part of your post, that Alt-right could probably be defined by its intense nationalism. However, nationaism isn't a traditionalist concept to me. It stems from the enlightenment, which sought to break away from the traditional European culture. Nationalism is as traditionalist as capitalism and democracy, that is to say, very little.

Basically it is the difference is between the American Republican and Democratic parties. Both are moderate groups (from the starting point of liberal democracy).

However, the Neoconservatives are typically globalist capitalists who want capitalism with big winners and big losers. The Neoliberals want laws that provide equity for the losers of capitalism through welfare programs and higher taxes.

There are also social issues, which neoconservatives typically side with the traditional religion on. Typically Neoliberals are much more traditionally liberal in social concerns, opting for government tolerance of taboo.

Ok, thank you.

Well to be fair the the idea of nationalism among the alt right is incredibly based on taking away the common vote in favor of an oligarchy and re-establishment of an aristocracy where voting rights are contingent upon a person being of a certain racial an class category ( land owning white male nationalism). A lot of which at, least in the states, is based around traditional English Common Law dating back to traditions from the magna carta (which predates the Enlightenment)

So its quite as traditionalist as fascism or literal monarchism, but nationalism based around tribal oligarchy is pretty traditionalist

>Withering away of the state is a concept of Marxism, coined by Friedrich Engels, and referring to the idea that, with realization of the ideals of socialism, the social institution of a state will eventually become obsolete and disappear, as the society will be able to govern itself without the state and its coercive enforcement of the law.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withering_away_of_the_state

>Marxism and Social Democrat is the same
this list is so American it hurts

>The Neoliberals want laws that provide equity for the losers of capitalism through welfare programs and higher taxes.
That's the opposite of what Neoliberalism means.

Neoliberalism entails abolishment of all social welfare programs and total austerity, relaxing of all corporate restrictions, shrinking the government, encouraging free trade by removing all trade barriers, and basically aiming for economic overdrive. (Which, in the end, means opening the nation in question to foreign corporate exploitation.)

Neoliberalist policies are of the sort that developed nations try to enforce on developing nations, to place them in perpetual debt. Such as those policies the US tries to encourage in most of Latin America. ...or, more recently, the policies the EU is trying to institute in Greece.

It's actually, generally, very much in line with Neoconservatism. ...and the exact opposite of what most people in the US think of when they say "liberal".

I know it isn't exactly intuitive, but we do live in Orwell's world these days.

Yeah, that's generally true. It depends on the frame of reference for the nationalism I think. I was reluctant to even put alt-right as a category because as we have discussed there can be so many definitions for the word. Ultimately it stems from what those who self identify with the movement believe, which I don't know completely. Hopefully those who are Alt-right know that who are, by whatever metric they use to define the word.

Daily Reminder:

CRAAAAAWLLIIIING IIIIN MY SKIIIIIIIN

THESE WOUUUNDDS THEY WILLLLLL NOT

HEEEEEAAAALLL

Soviet communism and SocDem aren't too far apart in my eyes to consider them as one class, even if they're not the same.

>Anarcho- (if communist leaning plz click Marxist)

I know that in theory Marxism is anarchist. I now regret not separating theoretical and practical Marxism.

>In short, a co-op can be defined as "a jointly owned enterprise engaging in the production or distribution of goods or the supplying of services, operated by its members for their mutual benefit, typically organized by consumers or farmers."[4] Cooperative businesses are typically more economically resilient than many other forms of enterprise, with twice the number of co-operatives (80%) surviving their first five years compared with other business ownership models (41%).[5] Cooperatives frequently have social goals which they aim to accomplish by investing a proportion of trading profits back into their communities. As an example of this, in 2013, retail co-operatives in the UK invested 6.9% of their pre-tax profits in the communities in which they trade as compared with 2.4% for other rival supermarkets.[6]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative

So the Soviet Union and most of the Nordic nations and Switzerland are the same then?

Because, what, they're all cold?

"And if this man has not yet discovered that while the material mode of existence is the primum agens [primary agent, prime cause] this does not preclude the ideological spheres from reacting upon it in their turn, though with a secondary effect, he cannot possibly have understood the subject he is writing about. However, as I said, all this is secondhand and little Moritz is a dangerous friend. The materialist conception of history has a lot of them nowadays, to whom it serves as an excuse for not studying history. Just as Marx used to say, commenting on the French "Marxists" of the late [18]70s: "All I know is that I am not a Marxist.""
-Letter to Schmidt, 1890.

It's filled with both who are tainting our glorious board with their bullshit.
I urge them to leave to their respective places of origin to make this a place of intellectual discussion. Please.

Refer to this one, he's right. I fugged up
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

>i dont know what neoliberal means

>marxist and soc dem same category
that would bump up the communist category so you can then claim Veeky Forums is crawling with communists

>Soviet communism and SocDem same
You are special, aren't you?

Heavily regulated industry and economy with reaching social and economic programs.

>implying the difference matters

There's a rather huge difference between heavily regulated industry - and state-owned industry.

Specifically, the difference between the USA and the USSR.

>Soviet communism and SocDem aren't too far apart in my eyes
holy shit are you that retarded?

There is no need to be upset

Frogposters confirmed retards.

>The more recent phenomena of microcredit and microfinance are often based on a cooperative model. These focus on small business lending. In 2006, Muhammad Yunus, founder of the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, won the Nobel Peace Prize for his ideas regarding development and his pursuit of the microcredit concept. In this concept the institution provide micro loan to requires.

>The open-source model is a decentralized development model that encourages open collaboration.[1][2] A main principle of open-source software development is peer production, with products such as source code, blueprints, and documentation freely available to the public. The open-source movement in software began as a response to the limitations of proprietary code. The model is used for projects such as in open-source appropriate technologies,[3] and open-source drug discovery.[4][5]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_model

>A wiki (Listeni/ˈwJki/ wik-ee) is a website that provides collaborative modification of its content and structure directly from the web browser. In a typical wiki, text is written using a simplified markup language (known as "wiki markup") and often edited with the help of a rich-text editor.[1]
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki

...

Socialism:a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

If it'a socialist then it should be managed economy. The only difference is that the USSR was authoritarian in its management, while SocDems have democraticanagent.

I can only add so many categories before the data becomes useless. And to those ragging on some specific inclusion, the span of ideals such as Traditionalism and Anarcho- are much more drastic anyways.

it's fine. but if you're really serious about find out about the political composition of this board it's in your best interest to come up with more precise political categories than the ones you list in your poll.

Except that's not how socialist democracies work.

The soviets didn't have legal private enterprise, all the socialist democracies do.

So you're basically saying any nation that has any level of social programs and any level of industrial regulations, the same as the Soviet Union, where the only industry was the government.

Alright, which one of you is the nigger that picked neoconservative?

what is market socialism

protip, it's not even marxist it's pre-marxist

>the same
Not at all the same, just similar enough to be viewed as a macro political classification.

Yeah, if you're so macro as to think the USA and the USSR are in the same classification, and basically viewing humanity through a telescope from the edge of the galaxy.

But anyone who lives on Earth knows there's a world of difference between living in a national democracy with free enterprise, however regulated, and living under totalitarian nationalism with none at all.

Kinda makes ya wonder why we had that half-century cold war in which we killed a few million people in various proxy wars. We were the same macro political classification all along! Who knew! If only you had been alive to explain this back then!

It's filled with people who are interested in history.

History tends to reveal left and right as the complete and utter retards they are.
>M-MUH MARXIST MODEL OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
>MUH NATION-STATE IS SPESHUL AND HAS EXISTED FOREVER.

Fascism is an attempt to synthesize some enlightenment values with traditionalism.

>Neoliberalism entails abolishment of all social welfare programs and total austerity, relaxing of all corporate restrictions, shrinking the government, encouraging free trade by removing all trade barriers, and basically aiming for economic overdrive.

Neoliberals focus on trade, foreign and corporate policy, they don't have a unified view on welfare systems.

If it's making people less desperate for employment or taxing corporations, it's anti-neoliberal. Welfare does both.

There are plenty of neoliberals that are fine with the welfare state.

>no apolitical option

wew

And the same could be said of fiscal conservatives.

That just means they are moderates.

That doesn't mean welfare isn't antithetical to neoliberalism as an economic philosophy.