The Intellectual Poverty of the Right

WTF TRUU that's why I'm a proud communist

>Anarchism is diet libertarianism
The word libertarian came about as another word for anarchism.
What do you even mean by libertarianism?

From my point of view leftism is on the losing side culturally.

I guess when you think of it winning, you're thinking of gay marriage, gender equality, antiracism...
But I think of stagnating wages, Hillary Clinton (and more precisely her successes), the response to the 2008 crisis, Greece, the career centered way of life and the increasing insecurity of employment, the attacks against social security systems in Europe, the slow death of unions, the billionaires-owned press, the rise of far right parties...

>gay marriage, gender equality
Even that is losing in the long-term as strongly religious culturally conservative immigrants gradually replace the white populations of the west

this but unironically

this but ironically

Daily reminder: STANLEY HIGH:
"I'm inclined to think that we will. The recent Nazi-Soviet pact is likely to he a big help in that direction. That pact brought about one of the greatest unscramblings in history. It made it clear, beyond all doubt, that—red or brown—the Nazis and Communists are brothers under the skin. I'll admit that Stalin left some of the red brothers—full or foster —out on an awfully long limb. But the eventual results are bound to be salutary. You see the termites had done a pretty thorough job of it. They'd at least half persuaded a lot of Americans that we could improve our democracy by mongrelizing it. They wouldn't want a Nazi regime in the United States—but there were some Nazi modifications to the American system that we might profitably install. They weren't for an American Soviet—but, after all, the great Russian experiment offered a good many things that we might profitably take over. In other words, they weren't sure but that a mongrel democracy was better than the real thing."

Absolute bullshit. If this premise was true we'd all still be living under decentralized feudal monarchies.

I appreciate this post, but the distinguishing feature of the /pol/yp is a complete lack of self-insight. Getting these people to engage in self-criticism is virtually impossible.

You said America, so I'm guessing he was talking about American right-wing libertarians.

Liberals and socialists may seem overrepresented because they are more likely to be trend setters and produce eye-catching new content. Conservatism, oversimplified, is about keeping things as they are.

>Have you ever wondered why Progressives and Leftists (for the sake of argument, I'll include everyone from Anarchists to authoritarian Communists) keep winning the culture wars?
No, it's very easy to see how appealing to the poor by promising them the earth is an effective recruitment tactic.

Because a war was never raged against the left the same way it was against the right. The left allied itself with the establishment to combat the threat posed from the right to both of them. That's the simplest answer I can give you.
>implying we're not

>keep winning the culture wars?
they dominate media in the west and push their bullshit into everything. Thats literally it.

Leftist people, progressives and moderates in general are more usually very well read and sometimes very petulant. I've yet to know some right winger who is actually cultured.

Because we underwent denazification, the current ruling order favors the left.

>Conservatives/Libertarians seem perpetually locked in a game of playing catch up while the Left always seems 20 steps ahead
This is LITERATELY the point of the right you dimwitted clown, to delay progress that might be harmful until seeing that it is not, not to simply embrace any new idea and dive right in like a progressive. The right isn't about stopping actual human progress, it is about testing out new ideas before adopting them. What you see as them playing catch-up is them taking the time necessary to assess an new idea. What you DON'T see is the countless leftist ideas that were enthusiastically adopted by leftists, but that proved ineffective or counter-productive, and so were dropped, ideas that cost leftists time, money, and prestige but that didn't harm rightists at all because they waited to see the idea fail before they jumped on board.

>Because a war was never raged against the left the same way it was against the right.
These are the types of people you converse with here, everyone. This is what they actually believe.

>It's a leftypol """""agitprop""""" episode

>we are more complex than you therefore we are smarter than you
This is you main argument yes?
What is denazification? Can you argue besides projecting onto other?

Only the most bitter of cynics would refuse to recognize the long way we have come since the French Revolution

>you're just cynical
I'm not foolhardy enough to believe that monarchies went down without something equally powerful taking their place yes.

...

Right wing libertarians are not liberterian.
Conservatives are liberals. Anarchism is a socialist ideaology.
This is what I am talking about when I said that you would be lucky to find an American that understands what these words mean.

mfw China:
>84% poverty in 1980
(right-wing shift)

>Venezuela
>USSR
>China
>Cuba
>North Korea
"The Intellectual Poverty of the Right "

Socialists are usually used to listening to socialist monologues, instead of debates, but it's very easy to sound good in a monologue.

Some right vs left debates:
(surprise surprise, it's left-wing theory vs right-wing data):
youtu.be/lDiz0NEUNyc

a right-wing monologue:
youtu.be/Dt8pz0HRPcA

another debate:
youtu.be/SBz2EGnt7F0

>implying the best countries in the world are not the most right-wing

Friendly reminder that "right wing" and "left wing" are mostly meaningless terms when it comes to actual discussion about policies and their effects.

>best countries
Meaningless phrase, and you're totally ignoring historical, geographical and sociological aspects.
Liberal economic policies work in some conditions, in some they don't. See 90s Russia as an extreme example.
There is no absolute truth here, a set of policies that will produce great results everywhere.
There is also pressure towards countries to liberalize their economy, incentives to do so, and demands for liberalization of economy often comes in package with other non-economic demands.
Obviously, countries that are rich (Western countries) support liberalization, because they (or rather, their elites) profit the most from it.

not the guy you're responding to by the way

Of course this is ignored. I’m loving the cries against populism from the leftists when it is the foundation of their ideology.

read moldbug

>still getting a bit but-fucked by data, tho

(here is some more)
politicsofpoverty.oxfamamerica.org/2016/09/5-myths-about-the-working-poor-in-america/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_economic_reform

I actually prefer when people use these terms, because it means I can disregard everything they have to say from that points onwards.

Other such buzzwords that let you know your opponent's opinion is worthless include:

>far-right
>communist (in most cases)
>fascist (in 90% of cases)
>antifa (aut-right boogieman)
>alt-left (stupid)
>socialism (essentially meaningless regardless of who uses it now)
>populist
>strongman
>racist
>globalism/globalist
>capitalism (in a lot of cases, but CERTAINLY not all)

I'm sure I've missed some but these are the big ones.

"support liberalization, because they (or rather, their elites) profit the most from it."

Yeah, poor people didn't ever suffer because of socialism, ever, and they never won anything with free markets
and

It's like it only works in countries with an IQ over 85.

>If this premise was true we'd all still be living under decentralized feudal monarchies
dude what do you think the constitutional monarchies of the U.K., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, and Sweden are?

>people who use these terms are absolutely wrong about everything else they say, I don't even need to read the data or arguments they provide.

Very smart, user

>t. racist socialist alt-left antifa fascist globalist capitalist far-right communist populist soyboy

>“In theory, there is no difference between practice and theory. In practice, there is.”

The left dominate the realm of beautiful theories, I'll give you that.

They do good at art and pop culture because most people are idiots and they relate to that better. Very edgy but also the truth.

>Leftist people, progressives and moderates in general are more usually very well read and sometimes very petulant. I've yet to know some right winger who is actually cultured.

The Left is intellectually bankrupt.

I imagine seeing this picture in a textbook in future the same we do with Vietnam protests.

I never implied that. But you're pretending only command economy and liberal economy exist, and nothing in-between.
Yeah, Russian IQ is around 100 apparently.

I'm clearly exaggerating, but I guarantee that most people who use these words have no idea what they mean.

I have a soft spot for 'soyboy', I just wish it wasn't used exclusively by /pol/tards and alt-right retards.

You reminded me of 'liberal' and 'neoliberal' actually two of the biggest ones.

heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/how-poor-are-americas-poor-examining-the-plague-poverty-america

>In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week

^ There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

Because explaining reality with data is more difficult and taxing than just saying:

>ITS RIGHT'S FAULT! THEY'RE EVIL! We must follow to overcome them.

Plus, most people won't understand it even if explained properly, commiefags are an example for this. On that regard, the "right" can't do anything if people is not willing to learn.

>doesn't include the alt-right, the biggest political boogieman of all
My suspicions are confirmed.

>>>/leftbook/

The purpose of the left is to go on making mistakes, the purpose of the right is to go on preventing those mistakes from being fixed

Yeah fair enough, I knew I was about to be called out on this.
Personally I fucking hate the term, but the alternatives (white supremacists, neo-nazis, racists) have lost much of their meaning also.

You. I like you.

>Because a war was never raged against the left the same way it was against the right.
Imagine being this unironically retarded

A depressing number of people actually believe this. In the USA especially you have entire generation that's politically illiterate. It's alarming to say the least.

Yes, the world's stupidest people who do not know that Fascism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and National Socialism are all of the LEFT.

Prime example of what I'm referring to.

You have no self-awareness whatsoever.

People who use the terms "alt-right" and "alt-left" unironically is who I'd exclude personally.
What is denazification? Do I need to keep repeating myself?

Why is self-awareness a good thing exactly?

>What right-wing political theory stood the test of time?

Oh, I don't know, despotism, dictatorships, monarchies, that sort of thing. They seem to continually keep cropping up whenever things get bad enough, so I'd say they're more a default state that people revert to over time. There's also religious institutions that continue to grow even in an era hostile to them.

An oversimplification, but a primary concern of the right is simply not to be involved in political thought more than necessary, which by default will make them less politically developed. There is both covert and overt hostility to any system that grows too large and too alienating among anyone who leans towards the right, and that if you have to think too deep on the subject, it's not worth pursuing. If you'll notice, all political machines the right support are very much simple, ad hoc, undefined or loosely defined systems in which rulers are less constrained and a group majority enforces simple cultural norms through ostracization or hostility, despite these norms not having any strict definition. This is in contrast to leftist thought where almost everything is codified and established in writing.

In the same respect, the right sees much fewer authors and writers because of its simplistic nature and the ones that are seen are usually inducted into religious studies.

>In the same respect, the right sees much fewer authors and writers because of its simplistic nature and the ones that are seen are usually inducted into religious studies.

No, the reason for this is those who can't do, teach. It's very simple and it's always been like this. The actually interesting stuff in life is out there: doing, experiencing and making meaningful decisions. Not writing bullshit theories.

>we're fuckin' better than you!
So full of yourselves.

Or maybe the right is actually busy starting companies and making money instead of writing and complaining about shit, ever think of that?

Try to start a company, compare your efforts to the average worker, and then come talk about the working class.

Also, you completely glance over institutions that map and gather data that proves free market efficiency:

Free markets, individual liberty from state control, free speech

>Baudrillard
>Foucault
>leftists

Debord, Adorno, Camus and the Situationists are all interesting IN SPITE of their political beliefs.

This list is loaded with continentals, I suggest you read some actual philosophy, social science and history to understand that most reputable scholars are centrists who don't blindly subscribe to hollow ideological projects of the 20th century. Any academic that wears their politics on their sleeve, left or right, isn't usually worth listening to.

You are also touching on two completely different threads, the right/wing dichotomy present in the "Culture War" is completely different from that which exists in political theory, and I think anybody worth their salt in that field would acknowledge the dichotomy to be bogus anyway.

Also,
>queer theory

Finish your undergrad and actually try to expose yourself to ideas critical of your own instead of reading self-affirming trash like that article you linked.

>reputable is the same as being good

Excellent post.

>Implying there isn't such a field as capitalist economics, that has always had really smart people working very hard to develop it.

>Literally ignoring an entire field of knowledge
>claims that the right "is simply not to be involved in political thought more than necessary"

I am fuckin baffled by your retarded statement, good job.

>you can't have any deep rooted convictions and be worth listening to
peak centrism

Don't bother, user, leftists only look at books, not the real world.

I don't understand that cartoon.

And what, exactly, does economics have to do with political thought beyond gathering data to be used? My description of why left and right behave the way they do intentionally left out such things because that's beyond the scope of political thought and moves towards practical pursuits, which is generally where more right leaning men will wind up at.

Divorce yourselves from combining economic theory and political thought together. Not all command economies are leftist designs, just like not all free markets are right leaning. Instead, look at the underlying traits of the left and the right and how economics are simply a tool to both sides to develop the world they want.

>politics and economics
>mutually exclusive
wew lad

It's making fun of his (and really all modern political cartoonists') tendency to put a label on literally everything, as though their audiences don't have the IQ to recognize symbolism without them.

so are ancaps leftist or rightist?
bc American Libertarians are really just closet ancaps

what this guy said talking about a "left" and "right" before 18th c. France is laughable

There's more depth to Rothbard than all leftists combined

>Economic Freedom Scores by the Heritage Foundation means right-wing countries

You mean besides human nature?

>Be poor in Columbia
>Try to support yourself off the land your people have always lived on
>Get hacked to death by AUC death squad financed by the chinquita bananna corporation.
>"It's just economic freedom bro"

you know what I mean, fucktard

Countries with small government, lower taxes, low tariffs, property rights and investment freedom score the highest

>Be in the USSR, China, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea
>Have shit life
>"It's just the liberation of the working class, bro"

>Tax financed military action used by a large state is capitalism.

>Have you ever wondered why Progressives and Leftists keep winning the culture wars?
>Well, ever since the increase of nepotism among Jews in academia-
>DA JOOZ, FUCK OFF BACK TO /POL/, KEVIN MACDONALD ISN'T A REAL INTELLECTUAL, SPENGLER IS A MORON,

>you know what I mean, fucktard

Yes, I know what you meant: an absolute shit argument that doesn't describe the ideologies of the listed countries, unless you somehow think Sweden is more right-wing than Saudi Arabia.

>Be poor in Columbia
>Try to support yourself off the land your people have always lived on
>Get hacked to death by ELN death squad financed by the Soviet Union
>"It's not real communism bro"

>left is smart
>thinks mindless altruism towards outsiders is logical for the development of a country

>Venezuela
>Worse than Columbia
No, lol. The only reason the media plays venesula up as shitty is because they have the world's largest oil and coltan reserves. The boards of directors that control the media and Western governments would prefer it to be more like saudi arabia or it's neighbors. Not to mention that the heritage foundation is a well known front group of the oil and gas industry that gets most of it's funding in dark money.
>Saudi Arabia
>Moderately free
Totalitarian monarchy that has a significant population of slaves, regular public beheadings, stonings and crucifications done with no trial or stated reason.
>Columbia
>Property rights.
Youre a fucking idiot user.

>be communist
>starve to death because it turns out you were a useful idiot for rich psychopaths who will the ruling class in the communist society.

>every leftist can be described by this pathetic strawman
What did you mean by this?

The chinquita banana corporation paid off the FARC as well.

>Be poor in Columbia
>Get dressed up guerilla uniforms
>Get executed by the military
>State uses your death to ask the US for more money and weapons to fight "narco terrorism"

>cherry picks two countries
Guess I'll have to switch to the left now, oh dear me.

Also, property rights are not the only criteria, dipshit.