5 ms·
Because the elites are a bunch of right-wingers, right?
by fatcat500 5y ago
Because the elites are a bunch of right-wingers, right?
- Apocryphon 5y agoEconomically so, yes. They tend to want to entrench their wealth and not fetter it with taxes on programs that don’t benefit their interests.
- jevoten 5y agoWhat about axes other than economic and foreign policy? There are many government policies in effect that large parts of the right strenuously object to. In fact, even on foreign policy, I'd be surprised if the forever wars in the middle east enjoy majority support among the right. Isn't isolationism also right-wing? If it's at all helpful to classify policies into 'left' and 'right'..
- Apocryphon 5y agoSocial and cultural axes exist, yes. That’s why I specified economically right-wing. Isolationism could be left wing or right wing.
- acomar 5y agoso-called "left-wing elites" still favor privatization while public ownership is never in the conversation, so yes.
- krapp 5y agoyes, but the "left-wing elites" aren't the ones pushing political nihilism. "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem" isn't something the left ever claims.
- whatshisface 5y agoAnyone father left than "slightly more money for foodstamps" may be heard saying exactly that - with the caveat that they're talking about our government, not the idea of government generally.
- nopenopenopeno 5y agoMarxist here. Just like any libertarian, we acknowledge the capitalist state as a monopoly on violence, but we also acknowledge the capitalist state exists because capital maintains it. When you understand this, you quickly realize that fighting for something like a national universal healthcare program challenges the capitalist state more than anything libertarians want to do.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago[dead]
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThat's because we've seen where that brand of socialism (and anarchy) leads --> authoritarianism. It has never worked on anything bigger than the village level. You need abstract means of exchange (money) to get people on a large scale to cooperate. People in my village do not care about people two villages over who they only ever barely met let alone someone hundreds of miles away.
- filoeleven 5y agoWe have all heard the horror stories of those notorious authoritarian hellholes like Denmark and Canada and Italy and South Korea and… Public ownership of certain systems does not imply abolishing money.
- pessimizer 5y agoYes. To be a wealthy left-winger, you have to condemn yourself. People sometimes get confused because they watch 24 hour news networks that think H. Clinton is a radical communist. Our entire current wave is based in 90s tea party astroturfing by billionaires that got out of control when it encountered the militia movement.
- fallingfrog 5y agoThat’s always going to be true. By definition elites are the people who have benefited most from things being the way they are. They may be socially somewhat liberal, if it makes them look good, but economically always conservative. Because being pro gay marriage doesn’t cost them anything. But universal health care would. Hence you people like Nancy pelosi who use socially progressive positions as a cover for deeply regressive and right wing economic and military policy. That’s also why you get the superficial lip service paid to Black Lives Matter, where they will paint a street or kneel in kente cloths while simultaneously doing nothing whatsoever to materially improve black peoples lives. One costs money, specifically costs the elites money, while the other is free.