Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The concept of "right-wing" goes back to the French Revolution, and to the group that, in the modern sense, would be called "conservatives". Conservative means a desire to conserve. Conserve can mean the conservation of things as they are, or as they had been in the past(usually conservatism goes hand-in-hand with nationalism, traditionalism, etc).
Yes, more or less, (not getting into details here.)
Quote:
Most people place libertarians on the right-wing, but libertarians(IE classical-liberals) would actually be radicals, and during the French Revolution they would have been on the left, alongside the socialists.
Since I am not all that familiar with "Libertanianism," so I had to look it up.
When I saw something like ;
So definitely there is a connection. However, let’s read on;
"The term "Libertarianism" was first used in the United States as a synonym for classical liberalism in May 1955 by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read and a classical liberal himself.
He justified the choice of the word as follows: "Many of us call ourselves 'liberals.' And it is true that the word 'liberal' once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian'".[26] Subsequently, a growing number of Americans with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as "libertarian".
And we know, that “classical liberalism” is a right wing thing, hence is Libertarianism. Of course it’s not as far right as more conservative beliefs of the monarchies, but it’s right-wing never the less.
Quote:
Libertarians and socialists are in principle opposed to the existence of national borders. And both basically support or would agree to, some kind of one-world government. Although the libertarians merely want government to be about property-rights, while socialists want a common government of all, who can distribute production/resources in a fair and equitable manner.
Agree, both seem to want the "absence of borders," but for different reasons.
Quote:
Most people in America are conservatives insofar as they are not radicals, and do not want sweeping changes.
The sixties would disagree with you I suspect.
Quote:
Those who want to conserve things as they are now are "centrists"(who vote for both Republicans and Democrats), and those who want to conserve or bring-back the past are "nationalists", "values-voters", or "religious-conservatives"(IE the far-right).
From what I see you describe here, this is not exactly "centrism" - this is more far right and center right, as much as further left and center-left.
Quote:
On the far-left, you have communists/socialists and liberals.
Since when and why the *liberals* ( I assume you are talking about certain part of American democrats?) landed as "far left?"
Quote:
The far-left wants open borders,
What "far left" exactly, and why exactly they do they want open borders?
Quote:
and the far-right wants a wall.
Did they always want a wall, or is it a recent occurrence?
Quote:
But most democrats and republicans, being centrists, just want to keep things as they already are(IE to protect their job, standard-of-living, American way-of-life, etc). As globalism began to threaten the centrists, they began to reject it as a matter of self-preservation. But only to the degree that they felt threatened by it.
Centrists would gladly accept any form of government so long as it meant job-security and more stuff. They have no values or ideology. They are the scum of the planet.
If you scratch any "centrist," they still belong to the "right" or "left wing" of thought at the end.
52% have said that globalism is a left wing idea.
Yet:
1. Ross Perot was destroyed for campaigning on the idea. During his campaign some sort of a threat mysteriously caused him to suspend his candidacy.
2. Howard Dean was destroyed for opposing globalization. He threw his arm over his head and let out a yell. The media played it over and over and over until he was done.
3. Jim Webb wanted to curb the number of H-1b visas - he announced that he was running for president and you never heard from him again. The liberal media threw away a Democrat from the South. Doesn't that sound suspicious.
4. Pat Buchanan called globalization "economic treason" in one of his books. He was branded an extremist.
5. Lou Dobbs was at war with H-1b abuse and lost his show on CNN.
An equal number of left wing and right wing people have been destroyed by the American media because of their stand on globalization and the importation of foreign labor to drive down salaries. The media can be held responsible for the defense of globalization not because it is on the liberal agenda, but because it is on the corporate agenda.
Since I didn't find this exact topic and opinions seem to vary, please feel free to chime in and tell us what do you think and why, whence Globalism came and what values ( right or left) it reflects.
Another important question probably is whom it ultimately benefits?
Globalism "came" as a natural evolution over time as transportation and communication created a very small world.
Globalism was and is INEVITABLE.
Sophisticated, monied people have always known this.
Who it ultimately benefits? - short-term second and third world countries as their people find work to help their upward mobility. Medium term - US consumer who is now able to buy a lot of cheap stuff they could never before afford. I certainly see the difference in my ability to spend with virtually no change in income. Long-term - all the lower classes around the world who begin a rise into the middle class.
All of this, of course, is done at the expense of our once highly paid - some would say overpaid - middle class blue collar worker.
Aka as global labor arbitrage (in the words of a former CD poster).
And we know, that “classical liberalism” is a right wing thing, hence is Libertarianism. Of course it’s not as far right as more conservative beliefs of the monarchies, but it’s right-wing never the less.
It is only right-wing if we define the left and right as being about property-rights. By that definition, classical-liberals would be as far-right as you can go(complete private-ownership), and communists would be as far-left as you can go(complete government-ownership).
But by that definition, Obama would be much further to the right than Adolf Hitler.
Obviously "right-wing"(as we use it) refers to more than just property rights.
Things like conservatism, traditionalism, nationalism, authoritarianism, religiosity, etc, are all considered "right-wing". And the reason I brought up the French Revolution, is because without the French Revolution, the placing of these on the "right" would make no sense.
But Classical-liberals during the French Revolution were considered far-left because they are anti-conservative, anti-traditionalism, anti-nationalism, anti-authority, and anti-church. So calling them "right-wing" or "far-right", alongside Nazis, seems a bit moronic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
From what I see you describe here, this is not exactly "centrism" - this is more far right and center right, as much as further left and center-left.
The center-left and the center-right are considered "centrists" because they want to keep the system mostly as it is, with minor changes. The far-left and far-left are "radicals" or "revolutionaries" because they want drastic changes.
The problem with the word "conservatives" is that while it means, "to conserve", it isn't always clear what they are trying to conserve. If you are a millennial then being a conservative means keeping America as it is now, or maybe as it was a few years ago(before Obama?). But to a baby-boomer, being a conservative might mean more-or-less bringing back the 1950's.
A millennial Conservative might be atheist, and think American values are secular and rational. A baby-boomer Conservative might be evangelical, and thinks that American values are bound-up in our traditional Christian heritage and beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Since when and why the *liberals* ( I assume you are talking about certain part of American democrats?) landed as "far left?"
What "far left" exactly, and why exactly they do they want open borders?
The term "liberal" was hijacked by "progressives" in the early 1900's. And it was hijacked again by socialists in the late 60's. It now has such a broad definition that it doesn't really have a meaning. It is a word used vaguely to describe pretty much everyone to the left of the center-left.
As for open-borders. I think there are many different reasons someone might be opposed to borders.
1) Hatred of authority. Borders presuppose authority, and thus limit freedom.
2) Hatred of discrimination. This is mostly by people who fall outside the "norm" and feel themselves discriminated against because of their behavior/beliefs/values. And they internalize discrimination towards others the same way as discrimination towards themselves. They feel like they need to destroy all forms of discrimination to make sure they will never again feel persecuted for their own degeneracy/undesirability.
3) Hatred of Capitalism. Many believe most of the ills of the world are the fault of capitalism. And there is no way to destroy capitalism until the entire world comes under a single government. Which won't occur until mass-immigration makes borders seem ridiculous, because all nations will cease to have a majority ethnic-group.
4) Love of Capitalism. And if you think Capitalism is great(especially if you are a multinational corporation), you think capitalism should spread around the world, which will allow the free-flow of goods, natural resources, people, and labor. If you're a multinational corporation, you mainly just want to expand your customer-base from 320 million, to 7.5 billion, and you want to put a McDonald's in every country and every city on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure
Did they always want a wall, or is it a recent occurrence?
Depends on what we call the "far-right". Nationalists have always been opposed to basically all immigration practically since 1776. The "far-right" in the early 1900's effectively stopped all immigration to this country from WWI till the 1965 Immigration Act.
Ronald Reagan, for geopolitical-reasons, pushed for better relations with Mexico and Latin-America, trying to hold them in our sphere of influence, by increasing more economic and social integration(which also meant access to cheap labor for American business). But the "far-right"(IE nationalists, traditionalists, etc, think Pat Buchanan) were NEVER happy about it. But the center-right along with the left had enough power to push it through, so it was done.
But my point is. Depending on how we define the terms, globalism is either supported by both the left and the right, or it is a purely left-wing idea.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-10-2018 at 02:17 PM..
Globalism "came" as a natural evolution over time as transportation and communication created a very small world.
Globalism is not the result of transportation and communication. It is the result of trade. And the only reason globalism is occurring, is because of the money that comes from trade. And in this world, money is power.
Colonialism was just globalism in action. Imperialism was globalism in action. Stealing the land from the natives was just globalism in action.
Globalism was always about money. And it has always been driven by capitalists with the help of "useful-idiots" on the left.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
Sophisticated, monied people have always known this.
Who it ultimately benefits? - short-term second and third world countries as their people find work to help their upward mobility. Medium term - US consumer who is now able to buy a lot of cheap stuff they could never before afford. I certainly see the difference in my ability to spend with virtually no change in income. Long-term - all the lower classes around the world who begin a rise into the middle class.
The primary beneficiaries are the capitalists. They are the ones with all the power, and they use it to benefit themselves. But I agree, capitalists have an interest in "technological-progress" and creating "economies-of-scale", as well as increasing their own profits by increasing their number of customers.
To produce all this technology we have now, as well as to support cities, industry, and the infrastructure necessary to put a man on the moon, it requires hundreds of millions of people. A few hundred people on an island would be impoverished, forever, because there simply isn't the manpower to build anything of any complexity.
To build one of those mega-yachts, not only does it take hundreds of people directly to build them, but for every person who works on the yacht, someone has to feed them, cloth them, build their houses, build their cars, provide them gas, electricity, water, cell phones, internet, etc. And in-turn each of those people also need similar things for themselves, all the way down the line. Each of them producing a small "surplus" which can then trickle up "to the top", to support the ultrarich, and allow them to fly all over the world, or sail to the Caribbean or Mediterranean in yachts which cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and which requires crews of dozens.
The main thing which is necessary for any technological-advancement is a "food surplus". Basically, the fewer people growing food, the more people who can do other things(like build cars, planes, computers, etc). The main driver of modern industrial "capitalism" was from machines, especially the tractor, as well as improved agricultural yields, from things like fertilizers(especially the Haber process), selective-breeding, plant-hybrids(monsanto), etc. The tractor could do the work of hundreds of field laborers. Who were "freed" from the land, to go to the cities to work in the factories or to provide services.
Technology requires an economy-of-scale as well as competition. So advancement can best be made by having a lot of people/customers. More people not only means more resources, but it splits the cost of research and development over a wider number, making it cheaper and easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
All of this, of course, is done at the expense of our once highly paid - some would say overpaid - middle class blue collar worker.
The cost of globalism(IE the triumph of capitalism), is the loss of localism. Which means, the loss of community, the loss of identity, and the loss of security. You are a nobody, meaningless, a cog in a machine, within a sea of billions of people like you.
Globalism(IE capitalism) has been destroying everything for a long time. But its march slowed, and even was turned back as a consequence of the Great Depression and WWII. Only to make a resurgence since the 1970's, which now feels unstoppable.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 12-10-2018 at 01:45 PM..
The cost of globalism(IE the triumph of capitalism), is the loss of localism. Which means, the loss of community, the loss of identity, and the loss of security. You are a nobody, meaningless, a cog in a machine, within a sea of billions of people like you.
Globalism(IE capitalism) has been destroying everything for a long time. But its march slowed, and even was turned back as a consequence of the Great Depression and WWII. Only to make a resurgence since the 1970's, which now feels unstoppable.
I first don't think you can equate globalism with capitalism. I consider myself a socialist but also a globalist. Communism, as espoused by lenin, was essentially a globalist philosophy as it advocated spreading communism to all the working people across the world.
To me, globalism as much of us mean it, is the rejection of nationalism. Understanding that we're all better and benefit when we uplift each other instead of concentrating (say "America First") on benefiting our countries over others.
It also doesn't mean any loss of community. I think loss of community comes from mass immigration which doesn't necessarily follow from globalism. I'm a strong proponent of globalism but for only moderate immigration and managed immigration.
I think it depends how you define it. If you look at it from a government/political perspective, it becomes a very anti-nationalist, liberal movement. Economically its more of a free-market, conservative movement.
Open Borders (e.g "there's no such thing as illegal immigration") is an example of left-wing globalism.
nafta was first talked about under Carter, by Brzezinski, who also mentored Bush1 a liberal neo-con who negotiated it, then the liberal Clinton pushed it through the democrat controlled congress to get it passed
Nafta is left wing...globalism
right wing is more isolationist
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
