No.5916
or federative units o algo
No.5918
>>5917>I live in the rich part of BrazilDefinitely Salvador
No.6250
>>6248No way there’s 50 people who use the Zarty
No.6252
>>6251Yeah there definitely are lurkers, however I think that on the Zarty the ratio between lurkers and posters is more balanced than 99 to 1, posting and replying is a large component of what makes the Zarty fun.
No.6255
>>6249All of them are leftists btw
No.6264
>>6263All of them are leftists again btw
No.6272
>>6270the left-right divideis socialism-captialism, capitalism IS the right wing slavdog… you're thinking of liberalism vs totalitarianism
No.6273
>>6272>the left-right divideis socialism-captialismWho will tell him?
No.6277
>>6273I'm right you mongoloid
No.6278
>>6263All of them are modern and therefore cannot stop the devastation of liberalism.
No.6282
itt: people once again fail to place every ideology on a one-dimensional axis
No.6283
>>6282tsmt, the term 'right wing' in common sense day language and not some soyence peer reviewed "definition" encompasses so many different ideologies that can conflict with each other, that the term loses any value other than being a very very simple label.
No.6285
>>6273I will take the burden of educating my fellow unwashed brown masses
>>6272capitalism and socialism are both liberal revolutionary concepts, aka leftoid nonsense
What (You)'re thinking of is reddit political compass memes
No.6286
>>6284I think even usual square political coordinates represent reality better than this something. Lenin is more left than Trotsky(???), Czarism is about 100% absolutism(evendoe czars had to balance between their ideas and nobility), Hitler is close to absolutism(???????), you can't be republicanist and a darwinist at the same time(????????????????) etc.
>>6285Holy TRVKE that saved Europe and Christianity.
No.6287
>>6278>Anarcho-Capitalism is moderateobsessed rotten mindbroken by bbc frenchie brain
>>6283right wing is capitalism, left wing is socialism, tell me an ideology and I'll place it in this axis and explain why. AnCaps are far-right, Fascists are center-left, Communists are far-left
No.6288
>>6286>Lenin is more left than Trotskywhatever, they're both dead
>czars had to balance between their ideas and nobilitythe struggle for power and possibility of a coup is always there, we are talking about ideological postulates, not how well they were implemented in practice
>Hitler is close to absolutismfuhrerprinzip
>you can't be republicanist and a darwinist at the same timeyou can't, the concept of human rights doesn't allow that in fullness
No.6289
>>6284this looks really retarded, it still has the exact same problems as the original PC has. It clumps up totally contradictory ideologies in the left-right divide, you might as well not have that divide at all. At least it gets rid of fake ideologies such as Anarcho-Communism or Authoritarian-Capitalism
No.6290
>>6285revolutionary-conservative has got nothing to do with left-right you braindead mongrel
No.6291
>>6289classification of ideologies based on tradeoffs between three values makes much more sense than "everything I don't like is left wing"
No.6292
>>6290Says you, the graduate from reddit.
It's quite literally exactly what it means. Kill yourself.
No.6293
>>6291okay? Not my point. Remove the left-right divide completely, it is meaningless in that framework. Any definition of the left-right divide that clumps together literal Anarchists and Absolutists is retarded. The Capitalism-Socialism one is the best, but it also doesn't really fit that triangle. Honestly, now that I look deeper into it, I think it's ok. The labels and position of figures/nations is REALLY retarded though; look at China, for example
No.6294
>>6293>Remove the left-right divide completelyYou can ignore it and that's what you should do, it is meaningless and always boils down to "this is bad according to my moral framework"
No.6295
>>6293>The labels and position of figures/nations is REALLY retarded though; look at China, for exampleI agree with this one, it's communist only in name
No.6296
>>6292you're such a stupid mongrel, wow. meanings change and evolve over time, the socialist-capitalist one is consistent, always. The one you propose is useless is any modern political sense;
tradition is linked only to a small niche of retarded conservatives without any real economic or political-structure values, while equality can mean anything you want depending on what you believe to constitute true equality. The historical roots are irrelevant for our discussion you stupid mongrel
No.6298
>>6295China is pretty much Fascist, which is why they're not a complete shithole; Fascism is bad, but it is still 10x better than Communism
No.6301
>>6296You admit that the meaning of left and right are fluid throughout time and context.
You insist upon left and right being determined by economic framework, however the contemporary meanings of left and right are not solely defined by economic systems, furthermore ideology is not reducible to a single aspect.
It does not matter what definition academics come up with for a term, what matters is how people use the term in real life. In real life left and right aren't only about economic systems, but about an ideology as a whole.
That being said, I believe left-right is too simplistic to fully encapsulate ideology, although it can be useful to determine enemy-friend distinction in some cases.
If you want to have clear communication you should use the terms socialist-capitalist instead, however you use left-right because that has more moral weight to people compared to socialist-capitalist.
No.6304
>>6300kys mongrel
>>6301fair. I agree honestly, but I still believe pushing the left-right distinction as socialism-capitalism is worth it. The left-right dichotomy will not die anytime soon, and it is currently used in the mainstream as right = everything bad for the neoliberal status quo, and left = everything useful-idiot-like for the neoliberal status quo. The right-wing fascism and nazism narrative has established itself on people's head definitively, so they now use it to attack capitalism as analogous to nazism or some other retarded collectivist shit like that (some even go as far to claim that Stalin was capitalist), so pushing something as consistent and easy as the socialism-capitalism division into the left-right divide is worth it in the end
No.6305
>>6301> furthermore ideology is not reducible to a single aspect. although this is pretty irrelevant and doesn't go against anything I've said.
> In real life left and right aren't only about economic systems, but about an ideology as a whole. which is why we should change it, and the left-right dichotomy does not stem exclusively from top-down or bottom-up action, its current form is only useful for retarded neoliberals and progressists
No.6308
>>6288>whatever, they're both deadAnd? Who cares if they're dead, was more right and adaptive than people thing. Evendoe he was a homosexual.
>we are talking about ideological postulatesThen czarism isn't even an ideology, that's just the word commie use to say "monarchy is le bad"
>fuhrerprinzip>we will place people at coordinates not because of their deeds, but because of what they say.>you can't, the concept of human rights doesn't allow that in fullnessRepublicanism isn't about human rights though. It's about election, no matter who or how elects.
No.6309
>>6296>meanings change and evolve over time, the socialist-capitalist one is consistent, alwaysJesus Christ, socialist-capitalist one is consistent even though it was made up by bunch of leftists in 19th century and never was correct. Let's make it more clear: everything that goes against traditional foundation is revolutionary and leftist. "Capitalism" itself, in the definition of a market economy, isn't left but if you trying to push your liberal degenaracy labeled as "TRVE capitalism" it will still remain a liberal degeneracy.
No.6310
>>6309I meant consistent as in it works-consistent, not consistent throughout time as a concept.
> Let's make it more clear: everything that goes against traditional foundation is revolutionary and leftistsubjective. How far back would you trace that foundation? Let's say you set it at the birth of the left-right divide; this would mean 99.999% of the population nowadays is leftist
>but if you trying to push your liberal degenaracy labeled as "TRVE capitalism"??? A market economy requires freedom, freedom allows
degeneracy as long as it doesn't infringe on other's rights
No.6311
>>6310>I meant consistent as in it works-consistent, not consistent throughout time as a concept. Still never worked in fact, one dimension is not enough to describe an ideology.
>subjective. How far back would you trace that foundation?It doesn't goes back, it goes right. We still have the same traditions, only details change.
>Let's say you set it at the birth of the left-right divide; this would mean 99.999% of the population nowadays is leftistNo, I don't need to set it at the birth of the left-right devide. As I have said, we still have the same traditions. Anyone, who declines it and tries to find something new is leftist. Those, who accept it and build their nation in accordance with tradition are rightists.
No.6312
>>6311>dimension is not enough to describe an ideology.no one's describing an ideology zigger
>it goes right.zigger die
>traditionwhose tradition you dictate? Again, it is subjective. That left-right divide is the ziggerest shit ever, its awful
No.6313
>>6312>no one's describing an ideologyWhat the fuck then you mean by left\right? That's a political system.
>whose tradition you dictate?Every ethnic group has its traditions, oh my God, how brainwashed lefties can be
>Again, it is subjective.>No, in this left\right devide I will be a leftist and I want to call myself right so u wrong. Mmmmmmm macaco soup, yum yum. No.6314
>>6310>this would mean 99.999% of the population nowadays is leftistNo you dimwit. People live under governments, of which you could say 99% are leftist (most countries are some sort of facade democracy), and as people can only politically operate within the purview of the government they're under, they can only engage in leftist governance (voting, running for elections etc.) But that doesn't mean right wing positions can't be had within this purview. Anything championing tradition, even within leftist governing bodies, is right wing.
No.6315
>>6314both can be true at the same time you retarded fuck
No.6333
nah cause have this shit on the website was confusing and it took an hour to know what all of them met
(i took National socialist for Denmark?? :3333).