Extremes have the same economic beliefs

[MrWonka]

I saw an article today in the Economist about how the Far Right and Far Left in France both favor soaking the Rich, and it reminded me a bit of the U.S.
Whether Bernie people would like to admit it or not, Trump stole a lot of his economic ideas from Bernie. The protectionism, the hate for NAFTA, China and Globalism... Trump is even trying to go after Unions now.
When it comes to pure economic concepts the far left and far right aren't actually as far away from each other as the left might like to admit. How is that possible?

Liberals have long talked about the stupidity of blue-collar whites voting against their own economic best interests.
They vote for trickle-down policies that never actually trickle down. They vote for the very free trade policies that often ship their jobs overseas.
When Cheeto Mussolini was in office he forced re-negotiated aspects of NAFTA, and he implemented tariffs on China. Biden has no even attempted to undo them, and neither Bernie nor Warren have complained.
How is it that these groups who in most ways could not possibly be farther apart are kinda sort of on the same side of things?

The answer is men. More specifically white men. The policies of the Democratic party have for a very long time benefitted blue-collar people, including white men.
But the Democratic party has become associated with women, feminism, people of color, the LBGTQ community, and of course anti-gun.

And because white men value their identity as white men, and inherently view being a white man as superior they simply cannot vote for the party built out of women, poc and gays no matter how much it might benefit them.
Toxic Men would rather kneecap themselves economically than join the party of non-white men.

But the second a racist right-wing shit bag starts offering up Bernie-like policies chock-full of testosterone, the ****ing love it.

 

[dmpi]

France is socialist. Of course both the left and the right want to soak the rich.

 

[eman623]

 

[bomberfox]

No the far right and far left dont have economic ideas in common. They dont even approach economics in the same way. The far right everything is personal, there has to be a dick dastardly behind the scenes. The far left its class and systemic analysis.

 

[Sven Karma]

"horseshoe theory"

 

[Airyaman]

France is socialist. Of course both the left and the right want to soak the rich.

Unlike Trump who wants to soak the poor and middle class with his proposed tariffs on all imports.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

I saw an article today in the Economist about how the Far Right and Far Left in France both favor soaking the Rich, and it reminded me a bit of the U.S.
Whether Bernie people would like to admit it or not, Trump stole a lot of his economic ideas from Bernie.

So you read an opinion piece in the Economist about politics IN FRANCE, and that's your cue to make bizarre claims about politics IN THE US?

At least link to the Economist, which might be something less than 100% bullshit.

 

[MrWonka]

France is socialist. Of course both the left and the right want to soak the rich.

France is definately not socialist. Even if you're silly enough to think they are they still have a far-right that hates migrants and globalism as much as you do.

 

[MrWonka]

So you read an opinion piece in the Economist about politics IN FRANCE, and that's your cue to make bizarre claims about politics IN THE US?

Supported by facts whether you like it or not. Prior to 2016 Republicans were almost universally defending NAFTA, and it was Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren trashing it.
When President Obama started working on a trade agreement with east Asia he was attacked almost as much from the Left as the Right.
Bernie has long talked about using tariffs to combat China's unfair trade policies. Trump implemented those.

Tell me which of these things aren't true, I dare you. You can't because they all are.

 

[MrWonka]

No the far right and far left dont have economic ideas in common. They dont even approach economics in the same way. The far right everything is personal, there has to be a dick dastardly behind the scenes. The far left its class and systemic analysis.

No, you're thinking of the moderate right. The Reagan right. The are the ones who negotiated and supported NAFTA, but they're long gone. It's Trump's party now, and he is all about the protectionism.
His supporters refer to Democrats as "The Globalists!" And they don't mean it as a complement.

 

[bomberfox]

No, you're thinking of the moderate right. The Reagan right. The are the ones who negotiated and supported NAFTA, but they're long gone. It's Trump's party now, and he is all about the protectionism.
His supporters refer to Democrats as "The Globalists!" And they don't mean it as a complement.

No im thinking about the far right. Libertarians, leftists, etc. approach economics very differently. There is a distinct difference between Lenin’s book Imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism and nazis raving about jewish bankers.

 

[bomberfox]

Theres also a major difference between marx’s critique of capitalism and a liberal talking about the 1%. When you are talking about class, Marx’s class analysis has nothing to do with how much one makes. Its everything to do with their relations to the means of production.

 

[bomberfox]

No, you're thinking of the moderate right. The Reagan right. The are the ones who negotiated and supported NAFTA, but they're long gone. It's Trump's party now, and he is all about the protectionism.
His supporters refer to Democrats as "The Globalists!" And they don't mean it as a complement.

Also the Reagan right started this whole descent into ayn randism. Reagan was moderated by the political system. People forget that the new deal consensus was first majorly opposed by Reagan.

 

[Ahlevah]

How is it that these groups who in most ways could not possibly be farther apart are kinda sort of on the same side of things?

The answer is men. More specifically white men. The policies of the Democratic party have for a very long time benefitted blue-collar people, including white men.
But the Democratic party has become associated with women, feminism, people of color, the LBGTQ community, and of course anti-gun.

And because white men value their identity as white men, and inherently view being a white man as superior they simply cannot vote for the party built out of women, poc and gays no matter how much it might benefit them.

Democrats used to be sane, with a solid coalition encompassing organized labor, civil rights organizations, and feminists. Now the radical left has hijacked it, seeing politics as a polar struggle between those they view as privileged and others they see as marginalized victims. It’s not unusual for them to define “privilege” along racial, ethnic, or gender lines. Progress is seen as a zero-sum game based on power and those who possess it. The Left is all about convincing people that someone is out to screw them. Usually that someone is white males with money. Instead of focusing on uniting us all as Americans, they’re out to deconstruct society so they can get rid of the old power structure that they view as suppressing their attempt at creating a new, more just society, except with them at the top of the power pyramid based not on merit but as a matter of right due to past injustice. Some people think it’s their patriotic duty to resist that.

 

[eohrnberger]

Democrats used to be sane, with a solid coalition encompassing organized labor, civil rights organizations, and feminists.

Now the radical left has hijacked it, seeing politics as a polar struggle between those they view as privileged and others they see as marginalized victims. It’s not unusual for them to define “privilege” along racial, ethnic, or gender lines. Progress is seen as a zero-sum game based on power and those who possess it. The Left is all about convincing people that someone is out to screw them. Usually that’s white males with money. Instead of focusing on uniting us all as Americans, they’re out to deconstruct society so they can get rid of the old power structure that they view as suppressing their attempt at creating a new, more just society, except with them at the top of the power pyramid based not on merit but as a matter of right due to past injustice. Some people think it’s their patriotic duty to resist that.

You've captured the essence of today's progressivism.

The main problem with today's progressivism is it has same top down enforcement via the barrel of a gun to one's head as the Marxists and Communists throughout history have always done, which they closely resemble and all that to inflict their 1/2 baked ideological utopia of rainbows and unicorns which is founded and rooted in reality as much as those rainbows and unicorns.

Just look at the progressive public policy prescriptions which have resulted in abject failure. 'Defund the police', 'No Cash Bail', Oregon decriminalizing the use of hard drugs, the progressive DAs which refuse to charge criminals. All wildly successful? Quite the opposite.

Progressive aren't the people that you want to give any political power to of any kind, not under any circumstances.

 

[Ahlevah]

The main problem with today's progressivism is it has same top down enforcement via the barrel of a gun to one's head as the Marxists and Communists throughout history have always done, which they closely resemble and all that to inflict their 1/2 baked ideological utopia of rainbows and unicorns which is founded and rooted in reality as much as those rainbows and unicorns.

These neo-Marxian leftists are all made from the same cloth. They depend on getting people to channel their anger based on whatever or whomever they can convince is subjugating them. In the past it was based largely along social or economic class lines. Then came “Capitalism with a Face,” as in lifetime pensions and corporate medical insurance, thus delaying the arrival of the expected revolution. So then they had to go back to the drawing board. Today they’ve redefined the struggle more along racial, ethic, and gender lines. But it’s always to the same end: to bring down “the Man” and, therefore, “the System.”

 

[eohrnberger]

These neo-Marxian leftists are all made from the same cloth. They depend on getting people to channel their anger based on whatever or whomever they can convince is subjugating them. In the past it was based largely along social or economic class lines. Then came “Capitalism with a Face,” as in lifetime pensions and corporate medical insurance, thus delaying the arrival of the expected revolution.

So then they had to go back to the drawing board. Today they’ve redefined the struggle more along racial, ethic, and gender lines. But it’s always to the same end: to bring down “the Man” and, therefore, “the System.”

. . . and this is when and where the identity politics, the politics of division and divisiveness was born, and is practiced by progressives, liberals, and now, that they've gained control of the Democrat party, the Democrats as well.

 

[Ahlevah]

. . . and this is when and where the identity politics, the politics of division and divisiveness was born, and is practiced by progressives, liberals, and now, that they've gained control of the Democrat party, the Democrats as well.

A couple more points. They understand the importance of symbols and a cohesive institutional framework, so attacks on cultural, political, and religions institutions and symbols aren’t an accident. If a historical figure is part of the old establishment, he’s gotta go. That means students don’t need to study his works; if his name is on a building it should be renamed; and if he has a statue in a prominent place it should be removed or torn down. They also understand the importance of forming coalitions and a united front, as they’ve done with the BLM and Israel Divestiture movements.

 

[eohrnberger]

A couple more points. They understand the importance of symbols and a cohesive institutional framework, so attacks on cultural, political, and religions institutions and symbols aren’t an accident. If a historical figure is part of the old establishment, he’s gotta go. That means students don’t need to study his works; if his name is on a building it should be renamed; and if he has a statue in a prominent place it should be removed or torn down. They also understand the importance of forming coalitions and a united front, as they’ve done with the BLM and Israel Divestiture movements.

Yeah this is certainly the case.
Progressives want to tear down all the came before Progressivism or doesn't toe the progressive ideological and political line, and replace it with all theirs which is; this the height of cultural and societal Marxism and totalitarianism. Progressivism must be thwarted at every turn and denied any and all access to political power. The Democrats made their deal with that Devil and now are suffering for it.

 

[Ahlevah]

Yeah this is certainly the case.
Progressives want to tear down all the came before Progressivism or doesn't toe the progressive ideological and political line, and replace it with all theirs which is; this the height of cultural and societal Marxism and totalitarianism. Progressivism must be thwarted at every turn and denied any and all access to political power. The Democrats made their deal with that Devil and now are suffering for it.

I differentiate between historical progressivism, which engaged in a critique of classical liberalism but still respected its central tenets such as an emphasis on the rights and freedoms of the individual, and this neo-Marxian perspective that rejects liberalism in favor of a collectivist viewpoint that emphasizes group identity. The old progressives (“liberals”) were content to attempt to reform what they saw as deficiencies or failures within the existing system, while this new version of progressive (more appropriately, radical leftist version) wants to completely tear up the old social contract and rewrite it to favor groups they identify as historically aggrieved. They don’t view ideas espoused in western political thought (natural law theory, separation of powers, limited government, federalism, etc.) as in any way superior to other means of governance, but it is really just a Eurocentric, imperialistic system designed to subjugate “marginalized” groups in favor of the “privileged” (basically, wealthy white people, generally men).

 

[eohrnberger]

I differentiate between historical progressivism, which engaged in a critique of classical liberalism but still respected its central tenets such as an emphasis on the rights and freedoms of the individual, and this neo-Marxian perspective that rejects liberalism in favor of a collectivist viewpoint that emphasizes group identity. The old progressives (“liberals”) were content to attempt to reform what they saw as deficiencies or failures within the existing system, while this new version of progressive (more appropriately, radical leftist version) wants to completely tear up the old social contract and rewrite it to favor groups they identify as historically aggrieved. They don’t view ideas espoused in western political thought (natural law theory, separation of powers, limited government, federalism, etc.) as in any way superior to other means of governance, but it is really just a Eurocentric, imperialistic system designed to subjugate “marginalized” groups in favor of the “privileged” (basically, wealthy white people, generally men).

Agreed. the liberals and progressive of old aren't the same as the ill-liberals falsely claiming to be liberals and ill-progressives falsely claiming to be progressives of today.