I do not believe any serious future society will allow completely anonymous internet for its users. There's just too much harm that comes from being able to say and do whatever without your person being associated with it.
Ask Lemmygrad
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
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 does not work shall also not eat
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 offshoring and porky's cost-cutting through terms like "woke nonsense", "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.
Comrades need to look presentable and dress normally when they are representing Marxism in a public form. Part of being a communist is appealing to everyday people. There is a reason why every successful communist movement, from the Panthers to the Bolsheviks, presented themselves well and professionally.
This isn't even really right-wing.
Yes. Optics means something to many people, and respecting that will help the movement
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.
Agreed, but there's a lot of places where being a leftist = liking weed and people really think letting recreational drugs go loose is some benefit to society.
Gambling should be illegal
I'm just gonna say it, many of these really don't feel like explicitly right wing ideals and more just "things that most people actually see are reasonable but like, wouldn't be ok in a futuristic Star Trek level utopia," but are things that many people will agree upon makes sense given the current material and social conditions of society.
Public smoking should be banned. And I'm not sure why so many people insist that they have a right to pollute everyone else's air. Especially when asthma is not an uncommom condition.
And kids are being hurt just by this drug abuse being on public display almost everywhere
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.
Ok but it's Dutch, I understand the hesitation
Everybody ganster until they have to pronounce arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering
It is either:
Pornography should be illegal
or the Axis of Resistance should be supported.
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
It doesn't necessarily require it, sure. But people are frequently presented with issues which have a materialist solution that conflicts with directly with their religious idealism. It happens all the time and when that's combined with the threat of eternal punishment for doing the "wrong" thing, the idealism usually wins to the detriment of everyone.
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.
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
As a global south citizen, I don't care a single iota about domestic/social cultural policies of western politicians or parties, and would be glad to see a socially conservative movement take power there if it meant an end to Genocide, War, and economic exploitation in my part of the world. I guess it is some form of critical support, same reason I support Iran and Russia in their resistance to Imperialism despite their less than ideal social stances.
Maybe there should be limits to kids being on social media and on the internet
I thought the question was "what is THE single most right wing view" and i was like "Idk probably supporting genocide" then i read the comments and was so confused.
Glad i didnt comment without reading the question again that would have looked bad.
Its hard cuz idk what even is right wing or isnt half the time.
I don't remember the exact quote, but i saw something like "To be a revolutionary is to be a ruthless bloodthirsty monster." attributed to Che Guevara. I agree with it. I think to operate as a revolutionary successfully against something like a capitalist regime you can't afford to limit your actions. You do what you have to do to win. No matter how cruel, no matter how unreasonable. Victory is the only goal. For any suffering you may cause pales in comparison to the suffering caused by your failure.
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.)
I believe in the death penalty as a security measure, but not as punishment, at least in theory.
In practice, the cost to society to ensure absolute certainty in guilt almost always far outweighs the security gain, so it doesn't make sense. Maybe once a century.
Reading these comments got me like "🙂"
Death penalty is good actually, as long as it isn't used just on minorities. Super useful to scare capitalists.
Death penalty, but only for the bourgeoisie and for politicians who betray the proletariat
Market reforms of Deng were amazing
I hope you won't mind my ultra moment here. I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
Even in retrospect, Deng Xiaoping seems to be the rightmost someone can be and still reasonably be considered a communist. Looking at some of his unimplemented ideas and the policies that were reversed in the following decades, it's understandable why someone would think he was a capitalist roader in his time. The path he set the CPC on meant that the party had to walk a difficult tightrope, fooling the westerners by obfuscating their long-term plans while keeping the creeping liberalism at check. Whole the capacity of her administrators and will of her people played the main part, China couldn't have made it to today without fortune by their side.
Tldr I agree but only with hindsight
I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
It was a leap of faith and incredible trust in the future generations. If that went as market reforms did elswhere we would be now cursing him as second Gorbachev (or Gorbachev as second Deng). And the world could be as well completely doomed with no socialist China.
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.