In my view, all ideologies can be compressed in these 12:. . radical left:. anarchism. communism. . moderate left:. social-democracy. social liberalism. . moderate right:. libertarianism. conservatism. . radical right:. nazifascism. traditi

Posting mode: Reply [Return]
Name
Options85135	riq⚌+♻f\H/.♅hn,p$☩'2yV♸_Z! \|>?C]usM&a~}l=OQe@0Y(-m#k%PI8dv☥wTSUc;:4{*6xj)`9tELWBA3
Subject	Spoiler Image
Comment
Verification
Flag
File
Embed
Password	(For file deletion.)

File: 1776825350820.jpg (206.08 KB, 1024x768, 22772541314_582b737965_b.jpg)

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:35:51 No.2789424

In my view, all ideologies can be compressed in these 12:

radical left:
anarchism
communism

moderate left:
social-democracy
social liberalism

moderate right:
libertarianism
conservatism

radical right:
nazifascism
traditionalism

Am I wrong?

I just didn't know where to put socialism in general, but I think the revolutionary socialists are just communists and "democratic socialists" are somehow the same thing as social-democrats basically, so I'll leave it as it is.

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:40:32 No.2789426

left: communism
moderate right: anarchism
far right: everything else
if you disagree you need to be shot

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:45:53 No.2789432

>>2789426
I am sorry to disappoint you but I think anarchists are more radical than communists.

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:50:32 No.2789433

are there any ideologies that would be a fusion of two?

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:56:03 No.2789435

>>2789433
Well, social-democracy and social liberalism can be labeled together as "progressivism" because they are similar, but one tends more to socialism/labourism and the other to liberalism.

Anonymous 22-04-26 02:59:44 No.2789436

>>2789432
anarchists deny the dictatorship of the proletariat, nothing is more radical than total proletarian hegemony, this makes anarchists moderate right
since they are moderates there can be a level of collaboration with them against the far right (social-democrats, liberals, fascists), hopefully they can be made to see the correct path in the process

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:00:50 No.2789437

>>2789436
i mean do they really?

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:10:53 No.2789440

>>2789436
Is the dictatorship of the proletariat really the only or the best way to free the poor and oppressed tho?
Not everyone thinks "economic oppression" is the only kind of oppression there is.
I always wonder about those classes below the regular proletariat, like the lumpen. Aren't they more oppressed?

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:16:39 No.2789444

>>2789435
>social-democracy and social liberalism can be labeled together as "progressivism"
Can they be labeled like that? Maybe 100 years ago, in a few places of the world, whats progressive about social-democracy and liberalism now? What do they progress towards? Was Gorbachev progressive? Was Yeltsin progressive? Are the ex-USSR countries doing better now after those two progressives or are they butchering each other in a reactionary war?

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:20:06 No.2789448

>>2789424
yeah you are pretty much right, I don't see any division or merger to be made aside from putting libertarianism and conservatism as the same thing, liking gay people and weed doesn't form a true distinction from conservatism.

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:21:59 No.2789452

>>2789444
Well, these ideologies are progressive about minority rights and, in the case of social-democracy, about social organizations like labour unions and other social movements.

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:27:37 No.2789453

>>2789448
To me, libertarians are just right wing liberals.
Liberalism would be the center ideology.
Even conservatives accept lgbt rights to some extent since they don't cross certain lines.

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:31:13 No.2789454

>>2789452
Are things for sexual minorities and labor unions in Russia better now after Gorbachev?

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:33:50 No.2789457

>>2789454
Are you implying Russia is not a conservative state?

Anonymous 22-04-26 03:59:10 No.2789466

>>2789457
not at all, I'm saying it became that after social-democrats disolved the USSR, which is why I asked where does social-democracy lead to and why is this direction worthy of being considered progressive, it lead all of eastern europe into something worse than what they had before, thats the opposite of progress
I think social-democracy and social liberalism can only be considered progressive on very underdeveloped and backwards places, and there are fewer and fewer places like that each passing day

Anonymous 22-04-26 04:06:16 No.2789469

>>2789466
Progressivism is supporting human rights, minority rights, freedom of speech and expression, labour rights, social movements. Social-democracy is supposed to support all this.

Anonymous 22-04-26 04:15:29 No.2789473

>>2789469
>Social-democracy is supposed to support all this.
yet it did the opposite of supporting those things in the case I'm pointing out, it weakened those things, just because "its supposed to" doesn't make it actually that

Anonymous 22-04-26 04:18:55 No.2789476

>>2789473
Your kind is so annoying. Be aware of that.
Social-democracy basically gave all this to Europe.

Anonymous 22-04-26 04:52:28 No.2789491

>>2789476
No, those were concessions given to working class when socialist and communist movements were close to taking over, when social democrats finally took power they removed those things.

Anonymous 22-04-26 05:04:52 No.2789495

>>2789491
That's not a good way of seeing things.
Social-democracy (and also liberalism) is the main force against social conservatism which doesn't really care about social rights at all.
You may say they don't do enough, but you can't say they don't do nothing because most progress we have today is because social-democrats and liberals in powers pushed those agendas and voted for things.

Anonymous 22-04-26 05:11:35 No.2789496

>>2789495
socdems largely abandoned so called progressivism after the 80s and openly embraced neoliberal capitalism and austerity

Anonymous 22-04-26 05:22:25 No.2789499

>>2789496
In western democracies you have basically two options: moderate right or moderate left.
You can't be playing with this shit. Everytime you deny a center-left or even a centrist candidate or party you are also letting the right wing win (amd they are not only pro-capitalism, they are also anti-left)
The problem with people like you is that you tend to see society in an unilateral way so you forget most people (and I say really most people, like 80+) don't think like you.
You, just like right wing extremists, are just waiting for the collapse of civilization so your ideology can win, but this will never happen.

Anonymous 22-04-26 05:39:14 No.2789501

>>2789495
It's not a way of "seeing things" its purely the truth. This has consistently been the truth, if you want an old historical exemple, you can look up the provisional governement of the Second French Republic, in a few months, they gave a bunch of reforms for the workers of France, then revoked them, when the workers protested they massacred them, leading to the victory of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte.
It's the same thing really, social democracy is the left wing of capitalism.
>>2789499
Wasn't true until the 1980s. You has communist parties in western europe racking up 20-30% of the votes, those parties decline with the decline of the Soviet Union and the rise of neoliberalism.
There is no reason they can't rise again, after all, look at the far right, they rose again after 60 years of irrelevency.
It's not my fault the left wing parties aren't willing to field a candidate to my liking, they should appeal to me to get my vote, they don't own my vote.

Anonymous 22-04-26 05:59:38 No.2789509

>>2789501
In my personal experience, most people are fascists.
I learned to respect democratic centralism once I realized it is basically the only thing that keeps us away from Hitler.

Anonymous 22-04-26 06:01:04 No.2789510

>>2789509
All the petty bourgeois you call your family are.
The proles aren't.

Anonymous 22-04-26 06:08:00 No.2789514

>>2789499
everyone is tired of fake libtard democracy. you put too much faith in a rigged system run by rich pedos that was installed in the first place to take political power away from workers.

Anonymous 22-04-26 06:10:40 No.2789515

>>2789510
I don't use the term proletarian.
I divide people in rich, poor and middle class and most people are middle class.

Anonymous 22-04-26 08:06:15 No.2789548

File: 1776845175074.jpg (45.5 KB, 960x828, EdN1BM9WoAAeTDu.jpg)

>>2789424

Anonymous 22-04-26 08:25:30 No.2789555

File: 1776846329749.jpg (1.39 KB, 140x96, AbeXEX7kMtFrUJdOdsMDfDZ0sR….jpg)

A disillusioned Stalinist is an anarcho-egoist. A disillusioned anarcho-egoist is a Stalinist. The power grabbing and warrior like left, the maoists, cross over with the anarcho-nihilists, the egoists. The anarcho-socialists, the democratic socialists, the revisionists, all have cross over with one another. Early Leninism and the early individualist anarcho-communism flavors both have big roots in the 1800s nihilist movement so this makes sense.

Anonymous 22-04-26 13:54:24 No.2789670

>>2789510
Saying you're not fascist because you give exclusive political power to one class instead of the other is not particularly honest

Anonymous 22-04-26 13:58:03 No.2789673

>>2789515
>I don't use the term proletarian
Petite bourgeoisie lover statement

Anonymous 22-04-26 14:04:03 No.2789676

>>2789515
This is why nobody likes egoists

>The 'middle' between 100 billion and $0 net worth is actually $50,000

Anonymous 22-04-26 14:37:47 No.2789693

File: 1776868666699.png (188.38 KB, 602x452, 1543439901901.png)

This is the true political compass

Anonymous 26-04-26 14:36:05 No.2793055

File: 1777214165596.jpg (99.5 KB, 1200x925, 925hm3.jpg)

>muh ideology shop

Anonymous 26-04-26 14:40:21 No.2793061

>>2793055
I want pet frog

Anonymous 26-04-26 19:21:52 No.2793324

>>2789555
Trips of truth, but no one here is willing to accept it and start getting practical.

Unique IPs: 18