Well said.
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You must log in or sign up to comment
5 comments:
Regarding paragraph three, counter-revolutionary Rightists such as Bonald attacked both capitalism (that Marxist term didn't exist in his time, the word he used was usually if not always industrialism) and individualism (this term came from the early socialists, his contemporaries, Bonald simply adopted the term).
Rightism effectively died off not after the Revolution, but decades later along with Bonald and his fellow travellers.
I think it's fairer to say that the Revolution's Left is closer to today's 'Right' than Left.
Today's Left is closer to the aforementioned early socialists who had little to do with the Revolution: the likes of Saint-Simon, Fourier (an early proponent of both feminism and homosexualism), and Owen weren't prominent till the 1820s, and they tended to attack the Revolution from a position generally, but not always, to its Left.
In other words, the liberalism, e.g. Constant, Tocqueville (a much more heterodox liberal who also had both Rightist and radical sympathies) versus Leftism (e.g. the early socialists) politics of today indeed started there, but it was originally tripartite (thus, as earlier mentioned, Tocqueville overlapped into all three groups).
Skimming the remaining text, I can't find any errors.
In conclusion, don't believe that the Revolution was the beginning of this bipartite arrangement. Liberals like Constant and Tocqueville were *not* on the same side as Bonald. Once the counter-revolutionaries died off, it indeed essentially became bipartite, although people like Maurras and his followers would later appear who represented something like a temporary revival of the counter-revolutionaries.
Furthermore, don't believe that the Jacobins are precursors of today's Leftists, when they are more obviously precursors of today's Centre and pseudo-Right. Marx clearly viewed the Revolution as bringing about 'capitalism', not socialism.
The soon-to-be socialists obviously opposed capitalism. The liberals obviously supported it. The counter-revolutionaries also opposed it, but on different grounds than the socialists, such as that industrialism destroyed communities and families because people emigrated to cities in their efforts to partake in the capitalist economy. (The same phenomenon happened much later in Japan, where there remain today many 'ghost' villages consequent of it.) Marx conversely saw this urbanisation - precisely because it destroyed community and family, which he dismissed as 'idiocy' - and the consequent individualization as one of capitalism's good points.
Rightism effectively died off not after the Revolution, but decades later along with Bonald and his fellow travellers.
I think it's fairer to say that the Revolution's Left is closer to today's 'Right' than Left.
Today's Left is closer to the aforementioned early socialists who had little to do with the Revolution: the likes of Saint-Simon, Fourier (an early proponent of both feminism and homosexualism), and Owen weren't prominent till the 1820s, and they tended to attack the Revolution from a position generally, but not always, to its Left.
In other words, the liberalism, e.g. Constant, Tocqueville (a much more heterodox liberal who also had both Rightist and radical sympathies) versus Leftism (e.g. the early socialists) politics of today indeed started there, but it was originally tripartite (thus, as earlier mentioned, Tocqueville overlapped into all three groups).
Skimming the remaining text, I can't find any errors.
In conclusion, don't believe that the Revolution was the beginning of this bipartite arrangement. Liberals like Constant and Tocqueville were *not* on the same side as Bonald. Once the counter-revolutionaries died off, it indeed essentially became bipartite, although people like Maurras and his followers would later appear who represented something like a temporary revival of the counter-revolutionaries.
Furthermore, don't believe that the Jacobins are precursors of today's Leftists, when they are more obviously precursors of today's Centre and pseudo-Right. Marx clearly viewed the Revolution as bringing about 'capitalism', not socialism.
The soon-to-be socialists obviously opposed capitalism. The liberals obviously supported it. The counter-revolutionaries also opposed it, but on different grounds than the socialists, such as that industrialism destroyed communities and families because people emigrated to cities in their efforts to partake in the capitalist economy. (The same phenomenon happened much later in Japan, where there remain today many 'ghost' villages consequent of it.) Marx conversely saw this urbanisation - precisely because it destroyed community and family, which he dismissed as 'idiocy' - and the consequent individualization as one of capitalism's good points.
This is good to distinguish the modern left from the fake right, but this anon is wrong, at least in part.
The left and right absolutely exist, and in terms that are easy to understand and observe. The left, foundationally, supports progress over all other considerations. The right, foundationally, supports conservation over all other considerations. I don't mean the "conservatism" of the fake right, which has conserved nothing. I mean the true form of it, which all right wingers adhere to, even without understanding, of wanting to maintain and keep the traditions that work, that promote life, that are efficient, that promote continuation, that promote safety, that promote abundance, that are truthful, things like marriage, family, hierarchy, nation, Christianity (or religion in general), absolutism of truth, patriarchy, merit, and so on. These bedrock traditions have enabled all of our nations, for thousands of years, to grow, prosper, and be healthy. These things must be conserved, if we're to exist, persist, and thrive.
In opposition to this, the left thinks we can "progress" ourselves away from these necessary foundations of civilization. This is why the left, and to a lesser extent the fake right, embrace things like feminism, egalitarianism, race blindness, equality, affirmative action, destruction of merit, atheism, relativism of truth, sexual hedonism, and warped/destructive family structures. This is, consequently, also why leftist governments are so adept at killing their own people and instilling misery upon their citizenry, because they reject the necessary foundational truths necessary for life, to procreate, to be healthy and the thrive, ultimately resulting in millions of dead.
The never ending pursuit of "progress" has forced the left, and fake right, to pursue a never ending death spiral away from truth, into deeper and more destructive lies. We see this clearly with just egalitarianism, of the false idea that people are equal and should be treated equally. It first applied to White men, and then to men of all races, and then to men and women, and then to all sexual preferences (LGBTQ), and then to trannies, and now to age (to promote pedophilia). At every stage, the false concept of trying to equate different things as equal has "progressed" society away from truth, and only resulted in more destruction.
And, to be clear, most conservatives are not averse to progress when properly directed and applied. Things like science, philosophy, math, invention, art, and creativity require a certain level of progressivism, but not so much as to completely destroy and ignore all the truth that led up to it, to prevent the dessicrations, degradations, and degenerations that we're seeing today.
The left and right absolutely exist, and in terms that are easy to understand and observe. The left, foundationally, supports progress over all other considerations. The right, foundationally, supports conservation over all other considerations. I don't mean the "conservatism" of the fake right, which has conserved nothing. I mean the true form of it, which all right wingers adhere to, even without understanding, of wanting to maintain and keep the traditions that work, that promote life, that are efficient, that promote continuation, that promote safety, that promote abundance, that are truthful, things like marriage, family, hierarchy, nation, Christianity (or religion in general), absolutism of truth, patriarchy, merit, and so on. These bedrock traditions have enabled all of our nations, for thousands of years, to grow, prosper, and be healthy. These things must be conserved, if we're to exist, persist, and thrive.
In opposition to this, the left thinks we can "progress" ourselves away from these necessary foundations of civilization. This is why the left, and to a lesser extent the fake right, embrace things like feminism, egalitarianism, race blindness, equality, affirmative action, destruction of merit, atheism, relativism of truth, sexual hedonism, and warped/destructive family structures. This is, consequently, also why leftist governments are so adept at killing their own people and instilling misery upon their citizenry, because they reject the necessary foundational truths necessary for life, to procreate, to be healthy and the thrive, ultimately resulting in millions of dead.
The never ending pursuit of "progress" has forced the left, and fake right, to pursue a never ending death spiral away from truth, into deeper and more destructive lies. We see this clearly with just egalitarianism, of the false idea that people are equal and should be treated equally. It first applied to White men, and then to men of all races, and then to men and women, and then to all sexual preferences (LGBTQ), and then to trannies, and now to age (to promote pedophilia). At every stage, the false concept of trying to equate different things as equal has "progressed" society away from truth, and only resulted in more destruction.
And, to be clear, most conservatives are not averse to progress when properly directed and applied. Things like science, philosophy, math, invention, art, and creativity require a certain level of progressivism, but not so much as to completely destroy and ignore all the truth that led up to it, to prevent the dessicrations, degradations, and degenerations that we're seeing today.
Toast message
https://files.catbox.moe/re8c1f.png
Problems go further back to being allowed back into England though:
https://files.catbox.moe/s1tmjl.jpg
Then one dark Wednesday back in 1992 soros broke the British sterling, and everything was downhill from there.