Do you consider the Left/Right divide to be more economic or social/cultural?

[Tooting Carmen]

In this thread of mine: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?151573-Which-of-the-following-do-you-believe-should-be-wholly-or-predominantly-State-owned

I am taken aback by the number of self-declared conservatives and right-wingers who nevertheless support widespread State ownership and intervention in the economy, which at least from a modern Anglo-American perspective is anathema. Therefore, do you understand 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' to refer more to your views regarding economic issues, or social and cultural issues?

[Tenma de Pegasus]

More social/cultural. In my class there are some or many well off people that defend PT party and Lula.

[Joso]

Left and Right are two sides of the same coin. I prefer anarcho-capitalism.

[Tooting Carmen]

Left and Right are two sides of the same coin. I prefer anarcho-capitalism.

Given its emphasis on private ownership and profit, I'd definitely classify anarcho-capitalism as more right-wing than left-wing. However, the point is that it is very out of step with how many mainstream right-wingers think, especially outside the Anglosphere.

[JohnSmith]

It is definitely not economic.

[Tooting Carmen]

More social/cultural. In my class there are some or many well off people that defend PT party and Lula.

So for you, the maintenance of order, family and tradition are more important than having a heavily privatised, market-oriented economy?

[JMack]

All of them. But I don't think ''right-wing'' or ''left-wing'' are definitive terms. They are generalizations we use to encapsulate many things which are highly volatile.

I think there are 4 main possibilities in ''Western'' or westernized places:

1 -Culturally ''conservative'' and politically and economically liberal (general Anglo-American Right and their puppets elsewhere, like Pinochet and Bolsonaro). Due to Anglo-American hegemony after WWII this is what most people understand as ''right-wing''.

2- Culturally and politically liberal and economically anti-liberal/statist. This is what most average leftists are, they are full on liberal cultural agenda and generally oppose heavily any iliberal/anti-liberal policies regarding sexuality, race, ''muh freedom'', all kinds of obscenity and similar stuff. Despite overlaping with Anglo conservatives in defense of democracy and political establishment (representative democracy, ''rule of law'' etc.) somehow they think they are miles away from them.

These first two options are the most ''respectable'' nowadays and are the mainstream in pretty much all of the ''democratic'' world.

3- Economically anti-liberal, politically anti-liberal, socially more or less liberal depending on the question. This is where most socialist states were before the 90s. Opposing heavily the anglo ways of organizing the economy and also being sometimes against some of the culturally liberal trends of the West like feminism and homosexuality. Castro Cuba and USSR are good examples.

4- Economically anti-liberal, politically reactionary, socially conservative. This is the traditional Right in Europe, where suspicion of free-market/free-trade ideology was always high and distrust for American things was also equally high. These are the so-called Third-Positionists, Fascists, Nazis, Integralists, Falangists etc. They overlap way more with authoritarian socialism than with Anglo-American right-wing. The main difference is that socialism has a progressive narrative about the world history and reactionaries a regressive one.

[JMack]

Ah, I forgot about the Libertarians who are generally liberal in ALL the stances: economy, politics and cultural issues. They are absolute thrash in my world view.

[Tooting Carmen]

Ah, I forgot about the Libertarians who are generally liberal in ALL the stances: economy, politics and cultural issues. They are absolute thrash in my world view.

But they're very much a minority and an irrelevance all over the world, although slightly more prominent and numerous in the Anglosphere than elsewhere.

[Mingle]

Social/cultural by far.

[JMack]

But they're very much a minority and an irrelevance all over the world, although slightly more prominent and numerous in the Anglosphere than elsewhere.

Yeah, sometimes they overlap with Anglo-style right-wing though.

[Tooting Carmen]

Yeah, sometimes they overlap with Anglo-style right-wing though.

Quite a few philosophers have been libertarians, like Adam Smith, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman etc. However, for fairly obvious reasons politicians seldom are, although important exceptions like Ron and Rand Paul in the US and Alan Duncan in the UK do exist.

[Nazarene]

Social/cultural by far.

+1

[JMack]

Quite a few philosophers have been libertarians, like Adam Smith, David Hume, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman etc. However, for fairly obvious reasons politicians seldom are, although important exceptions like Ron and Rand Paul in the US and Alan Duncan in the UK do exist.

This type of 'right' with some scale of free-market ideology is the mainstream 'right-wing' in most countries now. Exceptions are places where the so-called ''extreme-right'' has some influence like Italy and Hungary. But most of those ''far-right'' parties (like Lega or Orbán's party) are not traditional Third-Position but follow some type of mixed ideology.

Third Positionists nowadays are on the fringes: Jobbik, CasaPound, Golden Dawn etc.

[Tooting Carmen]

This type of 'right' with some scale of free-market ideology is the mainstream 'right-wing' in most countries now. Exceptions are places where the so-called ''extreme-right'' has some influence like Italy and Hungary. But most of those ''far-right'' parties (like Lega or Orbán's party) are not traditional Third-Position but follow some type of mixed ideology.

Third Positionists nowadays are on the fringes: Jobbik, CasaPound, Golden Dawn etc.

How would you classify Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu and Modi?

EDIT: and not to mention Trump, of course.

[JMack]

How would you classify Putin, Erdogan, Netanyahu and Modi?

EDIT: and not to mention Trump, of course.

Politically mixed types but opposed to liberalism in different degrees in the cases of Putin, Modi and Erdogan. Trump and Netanyahu are predominantly liberal (more the latter though). Netanyahu is only ''far-right'' in the sense of being a radical of the first type of ideology I described. He's very far from being similar to traditional far-right. The same for Trump. They are extreme versions of anglo-type of conservatives.

[Tooting Carmen]

Politically mixed types but opposed to liberalism in different degrees in the cases of Putin, Modi and Erdogan. Trump and Netanyahu are predominantly liberal (more the latter though). Netanyahu is only ''far-right'' in the sense of being a radical of the first type of ideology I described. He's very far from being similar to traditional far-right. The same for Trump. They are extreme versions of anglo-type of conservatives.

Interesting you say that, as Trump and Netanyahu are often described as textbook examples of authoritarian rightists-cum-fascists. By contrast I'd say that Merkel, Macron and to some extent Theresa May are more 'mainstream/liberal' right-wingers.

[KMack]

Interesting you say that, as Trump and Netanyahu are often described as textbook examples of authoritarian rightists-cum-fascists. By contrast I'd say that Merkel, Macron and to some extent Theresa May are more 'mainstream/liberal' right-wingers.

By leftists. The Trump Administration gets sued, for everything that Obama did, by leftist organizations.

[JMack]

Interesting you say that, as Trump and Netanyahu are often described as textbook examples of authoritarian rightists-cum-fascists. By contrast I'd say that Merkel, Macron and to some extent Theresa May are more 'mainstream/liberal' right-wingers.

Well, if you compare them with the likes of CasaPound and Jobbik they are certainly much closer to Macron and Merkel, just with a more abrasive rethoric.

[Smitty]

Both. I've always understood there to be two aspects of the divide, social and fiscal. It wasn't until more recently that I understood the cultural dimension. But I think all are important. For anyone who values the past, the reasons for the social and cultural are obvious. But if you read about socialism/communism (and yes, they are the selfsame ideology), you realize that it is a globalist philosophy. It destroys culture and does so by means of the economy. So although I can find common ground with the more fiscally leftist "conservatives" of Europe, for example, I think they get it only half right - or maybe three-quarters.

[JMack]

Also, it should be noted that the Anglo-type of ''conservatives'' have more in common with social-democrats and other types of leftists than with the ''far-right''. Both accept the pressupositions of the western modernity, liberal-democracy and representative political system, a certain horror to hierarchy, secularism etc.

[Smitty]

Interesting you say that, as Trump and Netanyahu are often described as textbook examples of authoritarian rightists-cum-fascists. By contrast I'd say that Merkel, Macron and to some extent Theresa May are more 'mainstream/liberal' right-wingers.

You may not be making this claim, but Trump is no fascist. Anyone who says so doesn't even know what fascism is. Trump is no more authoritarian than presidents of the last thirty years and arguably less.

[Tooting Carmen]

You may not be making this claim, but Trump is no fascist. Anyone who says so doesn't even know what fascism is. Trump is no more authoritarian than presidents of the last thirty years and arguably less.

I dislike Trump, but I am not saying he is a fascist - it is just a fairly common accusation levelled against him.

[Tooting Carmen]

What was interesting about the 1990's Balkan Wars was that in terms of their social and cultural outlook Milosevic, Tudjman and Izetbegovic were actually pretty similar (and not really in a good way either). However, the main reason why the West opposed the former and supported the latter two was because the former wanted to maintain a mostly socialist economy, whereas the other two were happy to go along with the mass privatisation and liberalisation agenda.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Monetary is the least important aspect of it.

[JMack]

I dislike Trump, but I am not saying he is a fascist - it is just a fairly common accusation levelled against him.

What I called ''average leftists'' in my first post accuse everyone they don't like of being a ''fascist'', because they have been brainwhashed by both 'right-wingers' and 'left-wingers' to believe Fascism is the absolute evil. They have no idea of what Fascism is and where it stands in the political compass.

[Tooting Carmen]

Monetary is the least important aspect of it.

I consider you to be one of the most culturally left-wing members of this forum, principally because of your love of sex and dark skin. :D

[Joso]

Monetary is the least important aspect of it.

Actually, monetary is the only thing that matters, a world of sovereign infividuals engaging in mutually beneficial trade would mean a word of freedom.

[SardiniaAtlantis]

Actually, monetary is the only thing that matters, a world of sovereign infividuals engaging in mutually beneficial trade would mean a word of freedom.

I don’t mean in that regard. I mean as far as the left right split goes in people’s minds.

[Joso]

I don’t mean in that regard. I mean as far as the left right split goes in people’s minds.

Ok, by the way, what do you think about anarcho-capitalism?

[Tooting Carmen]

Anyone else?

[Visage pâle]

In this thread of mine: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?151573-Which-of-the-following-do-you-believe-should-be-wholly-or-predominantly-State-owned

I am taken aback by the number of self-declared conservatives and right-wingers who nevertheless support widespread State ownership and intervention in the economy, which at least from a modern Anglo-American perspective is anathema. Therefore, do you understand 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' to refer more to your views regarding economic issues, or social and cultural issues?

Nowadays it's more social/cultural.

[leonj]

social/cultural

[Voskos]

Racial.

[Rouxinol]

Mainstream left-wing is economically statist and socially liberal.
Mainstream right-wing is economically liberal and socially conservative.
Then there are these so-called "far-right" parties whose main aspect that differentiates them from left-wing is their conservative to ultra-conservative social stance (such as the Rassemblement national, former FN, in France). They're anything but right-wing.
So my opinion is both in equal measure.
Personally I'm both socially and economically liberal, however I favor a rigorous control of immigration, not the "open borders for everyone" policy of now.

[Ayetooey]

Social/cultural. I wouldn't describe say an Anarcho-Capitalist who's about as "right wing" as it gets economically but socially very Libertarian as a "rightist" as an example; I would use that term for social conservatives/nationalist conservatives.

[Sikeliot]

Both.

[Kazimiera]

I think it depends on the country. I'd say in the US it's cultural/social. In South Africa it is almost purely economic. The South African far-left isn't interested in gay rights, women's rights, equality and all the rest. The far-left in SA is about land reform, nationalising banks and nationalising mines etc etc.

[Tooting Carmen]

I think it depends on the country. I'd say in the US it's cultural/social. In South Africa it is almost purely economic. The South African far-left isn't interested in gay rights, women's rights, equality and all the rest. The far-left in SA is about land reform, nationalising banks and nationalising mines etc etc.

Actually, from what I understand the ANC implemented one of the most gay-friendly and women-friendly constitutions in the world.

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Finnish Swede]

Leaders of left wings lives very well too.

The supporters of left wings are more often poorer/weaker people, but in any cases....it is still more social/cultural divine.

Questions like: what are richer people (or richer nations) responsibilities to help poorer people (or poorer nations).

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Phenix]

It depends on the importance of which in a determined epoch, and the prevalence of a subject in political debates, for example the actual divide in European politics is social because it is based on identity and immigration topics.

[Nurzat]

I consider the divide to be economic and doesn't need to go hand in hand with racial considerations. I am anti-communist pro-capitalist but not racist, I think racial discourse is outdated and unfortunately the feminism keeps it present the most, they put everything in a 'racial segregation' invented context and even encourage anti-white racism, otherwise 2019's people, most of them, mostly find the racial discourse irrelevant, at least in the historically 'Caucasian' world. and those who go back to such ideas are mostly instigated by feminism.

[pulstar]

Strictly social. Poor and middle class citizens usually tend to be more left, while village people and rich class right wing. Reasons: conservative people usually try to preserve their possessions (land, wealth and other assets) and they provide the citizens with food, goods or services. They are self-sustaining in case of emergency while left-leaning people usually live in cities and for the most depend on the first one.

[Papastratosels26]

Both

[CostaRicaBall]

Ah, I forgot about the Libertarians who are generally liberal in ALL the stances: economy, politics and cultural issues. They are absolute thrash in my world view.

1 and 5 samples are the better. Cultural conservative/economic liberal and liberal (in the cultural and economic ways).

[Kazimiera]

Actually, from what I understand the ANC implemented one of the most gay-friendly and women-friendly constitutions in the world.

It's just a law. There wasn't immense lobbying or pressure around it from either the social left or right.

The laws are available to those who want to make use of them. For those who don't, it doesn't affect them.

[Tooting Carmen]

It's just a law. There wasn't immense lobbying or pressure around it from either the social left or right.

The laws are available to those who want to make use of them. For those who don't, it doesn't affect them.

OK, in your personal opinion, which of these two statements sounds more 'left-wing'?

(a) I want to nationalise all public transport in the country.
(b) I want to introduce gay marriage and gay adoption.

[Kazimiera]

OK, in your personal opinion, which of these two statements sounds more 'left-wing'?

(a) I want to nationalise all public transport in the country.
(b) I want to introduce gay marriage and gay adoption.

A. In a South African context, definitely the nationalisation of public transport. The government is concerned with economic reform, nationalisation of banks/mines, redistribution of land, affirmative action policies etc.

The social rights in the context of gay rights movements (and others) isn't a government concern. There are citizen-driven non-governmental organisations which rely on donations and volunteer support that try to bring social issues like this to the public's attention. They make a noise every now and again at it usually makes page 3 of the newspapers.

The abortion law is there. You can choose to use it or not. The gay marriage law is there. You can choose to use it or not. There is no big fuss about these things in South Africa like there is overseas. It's really a non-issue.

[Tooting Carmen]

A. In a South African context, definitely the nationalisation of public transport. The government is concerned with economic reform, nationalisation of banks/mines, redistribution of land, affirmative action policies etc.

The social rights in the context of gay rights movements (and others) isn't a government concern. There are citizen-driven non-governmental organisations which rely on donations and volunteer support that try to bring social issues like this to the public's attention. They make a noise every now and again at it usually makes page 3 of the newspapers.

The abortion law is there. You can choose to use it or not. The gay marriage law is there. You can choose to use it or not. There is no big fuss about these things in South Africa like there is overseas. It's really a non-issue.

During the Apartheid regime, how much government ownership of the economy was there? Obviously, companies had to strictly comply with Apartheid laws, but in any case that would apply whether they were public or private.

[Kazimiera]

During the Apartheid regime, how much government ownership of the economy was there? Obviously, companies had to strictly comply with Apartheid laws, but in any case that would apply whether they were public or private.

I don't know enough about the economy and policies to discussed this deeply.

There were a lot of parastatals - Eskom, Iscor and Sasol - being the most prominent then. Eskom is still a parastatal and Sasol is privately owned although the government still retains some shares. The financial sector is highly developed and has never been controlled by government. There is still state-owned media (SABC). Naspers was government-run but is now private and known as Media24. The Post-Office and telecommunications was government-run but is now private - called Telkom.

A general rule of thumb is that the government holds about a 25% state in strategic industries (mines, arms etc).

[Tooting Carmen]

Even in this forum, there is often confusion in how we politically define our members. For example, I personally would describe KMack as more right-wing than Smeagol, because of his strongly free-market views regarding the economy, but Smeagol is clearly more fascistic than Kmack because of his far more socially authoritarian views.

[Smaug]

More social/cultural. In my class there are some or many well off people that defend PT party and Lula.

Retards.

[Tenma de Pegasus]

Retards.

Also because part of them use drugs, thats why.

[Tooting Carmen]

Social/cultural. I wouldn't describe say an Anarcho-Capitalist who's about as "right wing" as it gets economically but socially very Libertarian as a "rightist" as an example; I would use that term for social conservatives/nationalist conservatives.

Well I decided to revive this thread because an Australian forum member in a discussion I had with him labelled right-wing libertarians as "Leftists" because of their social liberalism.

[Tooting Carmen]

Basically, what do people consider to be a more 'quintessentially right-wing' statement?

(1) "I want to privatise our education system".
(2) "I want to ban gay marriage".

Funny as it may sound, many people on the Left nowadays would be less outraged by statement one than statement two. By contrast I, as someone who is centre-leftist, socially liberal and bisexual, nevertheless do recognise that the first proposal would ultimately harm a lot more people's lives than the second one.

[Sacrificed Ram]

I think it is sexual. Left wingers do more sex because with more partners because they are free. Conservative people can do sex only after marriage and with only one partner because they are tied with religious beliefs.

[Tooting Carmen]

I think it is sexual. Left wingers do more sex because with more partners because they are free. Conservative people can do sex only after marriage and with only one partner because they are tied with religious beliefs.

A gross over-simplification, but point taken.

[Trouble]

At this point, in the west and especially America, it is far more social. Some economic ideas of the left may resonate with people but their social agenda can be rather off-putting for most. That's how it is for me anyway.

[catgeorge]

I swing to both (left and right) based on the issue on hand I dont think there is a real answer for my sake at least.

Its a case by case type thing - I dont like being pidgeon holed and prefer to analyse issues on its merits than being closedminded

[Decius]

Social/Cultural.

[MysteriousWays]

Used to be economic but it's 90 percent social now.

[Lucas Rodrigues]

Left and Right are two sides of the same coin. I prefer anarcho-capitalism.

I totally agree, not forgeting the left is funded by the state, all that leftist hysteria, feminazis and so on in Sweden are funded by the state.

[Creoda]

I totally agree, not forgeting the left is funded by the state, all that leftist hysteria, feminazis and so on in Sweden are funded by the state.
Every global corporation pushes faggotry, feminism, race-mixing and mass immigration. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by Jewish bankers in the USA and Germany. Communists and Capitalists have been working hand in hand for a century against the only real opposition in the West.

[Pine]

temperamental

[Pine]

Every global corporation pushes faggotry, feminism, race-mixing and mass immigration. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by Jewish bankers in the USA and Germany. Communists and Capitalists have been working hand in hand for a century against the only real opposition in the West.

What does the Bolshevik revolution have to do with the West?

[Crn Volk]

What does the Bolshevik revolution have to do with the West?

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

[Dick]

Every global corporation pushes faggotry, feminism, race-mixing and mass immigration. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by Jewish bankers in the USA and Germany. Communists and Capitalists have been working hand in hand for a century against the only real opposition in the West.

Also the Republican revolution in China which happened right before WW1. Look at how many nations became Republics after WW1 and even WW2, Yugoslavia and Greece come to mind. As for Britain their Royalty were/are just a bunch of figureheads in cahoots with the jewish bankers to this day, same with the Saudis. The only real opposition to both the communists and capitalists was always monarchism. The truth is countries with monarchies are better off because royal families act as a unifying force and a powerful symbol, monarchies rise above politics and nations with royalty are generally richer and more stable. You get rid of them and you can suck the blood out of their people. All of these "revolutions" were funded by bankers including the French and American revolutions, Gaddafi RIP etc. the Iranian Revolution seemed to have backfired though but they will try to fix it with a future war

[Lucas Rodrigues]

Every global corporation pushes faggotry, feminism, race-mixing and mass immigration. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by Jewish bankers in the USA and Germany. Communists and Capitalists have been working hand in hand for a century against the only real opposition in the West.

Yeah but they are not that effective. Most of today's progressist mentality were pushed by the state brainwashing people at school. And those corporations are private, they can do whatever they want with their money, unlike the state which robs you through taxing and use it to promote gay pride marchs, abortion, privileges to women. Gender idelogy is another agenda they will push into school with your money. I don't want the state using my money funding abortion, gay marchs and the feminazism agenda at school. I have heard they even promote gay idelogy in the British school, teach about gay relationships.

[Seya]

it depends on the country. here is only economic. actually the right wing is the one who advocates for all kinds of human rights, while the left wing is more conservative (in speach at least, cose they do nothing in practice)

[Cernunnos]

In Portugal: Economic
In Brazil: Both
In the USA: Social/Cultural

[Tooting Carmen]

In Portugal: Economic
In Brazil: Both
In the USA: Social/Cultural

So over things like gay rights and feminism, there is not much of a debate in Portugal then?

[Cernunnos]

So over things like gay rights and feminism, there is not much of a debate in Portugal then?

No only among the identitarian/"woke" left and the most classical radical left. But that is just a minority of a minority. Now with the rise of the far/conservative (evangelical fueled) right we may see a resurgence of those debates, but the main ones were in the 2000's about gay marriage, abortion and gay adoption.

[Tooting Carmen]

No only among the identitarian/"woke" left and the most classical radical left. But that is just a minority of a minority. Now with the rise of the far/conservative (evangelical fueled) right we may see a resurgence of those debates, but the main ones were in the 2000's about gay marriage, abortion and gay adoption.

From what I can tell, Portugal when compared to e.g. Denmark and Sweden has a much more limited welfare state, but at the same time more nationalised companies and less competition.

[Cernunnos]

From what I can tell, Portugal when compared to e.g. Denmark and Sweden has a much more limited welfare state, but at the same time more nationalised companies and less competition.

Nah. Portugal has only 15% Public employees compared with 25-30% from scandinavia on average, also we (the government) don't spend as much as % of our gdp as those countries usualy do.

[Tooting Carmen]

Nah. Portugal has only 15% Public employees compared with 25-30% from scandinavia on average, also we (the government) don't spend as much as % of our gdp as those countries usualy do.

So how come Scando countries are usually rated as being more 'economically free' than Portugal and other Med countries? Is it more to do with the initial bureaucracy involved in setting up a business?

[Cernunnos]

So how come Scando countries are usually rated as being more 'economically free' than Portugal and other Med countries? Is it more to do with the initial bureaucracy involved in setting up a business?

Those rankings are bullshit made by foundations who are funded by mega corporations. Also those scando countries are at max social democracies with capitalist tendencies, their companies (and even their state owned companies) are involved in third world exploitation. But I think it's the less bereaucracy involved yeah and maybe some low taxes.

[Smitty]

No only among the identitarian/"woke" left and the most classical radical left. But that is just a minority of a minority. Now with the rise of the far/conservative (evangelical fueled) right we may see a resurgence of those debates, but the main ones were in the 2000's about gay marriage, abortion and gay adoption.

There is an evangelical movement in Portugal? That surprises me, although growing up, I knew of a Portuguese missionary family (they were Portuguese themselves).

[Cernunnos]

There is an evangelical movement in Portugal? That surprises me, although growing up, I knew of a Portuguese missionary family (they were Portuguese themselves).

Brazilian immigration. Protestantism among Portuguese people is very irrelevant.

[Tooting Carmen]

Every global corporation pushes faggotry, feminism, race-mixing and mass immigration. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by Jewish bankers in the USA and Germany. Communists and Capitalists have been working hand in hand for a century against the only real opposition in the West.

Which 'real opposition' is that?

[Tooting Carmen]

Regarding environmentalism, it is nowadays seen as a left-wing ideology, even though many of its most fundamental aspects, such as its suspicion of technology and economic growth and its love of nature, are actually quite conservative and traditionalist.

[Creoda]

Which 'real opposition' is that?
The people who don't necro threads and respond to 5 year old posts.

[Incal]

Lefties are mostly people who'd never worked (rich background or living on welfare) or don't want to work, on the right we have people who have made themselves by own merit mostly.

[Tooting Carmen]

Lefties are mostly people who'd never worked (rich background or living on welfare) or don't want to work, on the right we have people who have made themselves by own merit mostly.

Not always true: ever heard of oligarchs and monarchies?

[ultright]

Left = egalitarian, Right = order. The latter tends toward Social Darwinism, the former toward Socialism.

[♥ Lily ♥]

Traditional leftists stood for the working class, anti war, freedom of speech, etc. JFK was an example.

Unfortunately the traditional left was hijacked by radical wokeness, liberal totalitarianism, and rainbow flag imperialism to discredit the traditional left.

The western think-tanks and globalist elites construct divides in societies in order to start wars (e.g; the CIA and MI6 funded ISIS terrorists in Syria to wreak havoc upon Syrians, Iranians, Libyans, etc, funded terrorists in China, funded and provoked riots and colour revolutions all over Latin America, funded divisions and coups in Africa, and funded and orchestrated the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014 (prior to U.S. elites taking over control of Ukraine's energy companies and farmland and ownership of grains,) which destabilised their nation, and the CIA and NED funded Nazi Banderite extremists to cause divides and provoke Russia by massacring thousands of the indigenous ethnic Russian population in Donbass since 2014.)

Divide and rule is the globalist elites game. The war addicted U.S. globalist empire is like the British empire on steroids... the U.S. elites learned their techniques from the British elites.

The CIA also creates divides within their own societies too, as well as within their vassal states via the NED and Soros funded NGOs.... to look for cultural / religious / racial differences that can be exploited in order to stir provocations and play society against each other... and many fall into that divisive trap by confining themselves into boxes and applying labels to themselves, which means they can then be manipulated, baited, and controlled via the government and the legacy media.

Always confuse your enemies and refuse to be labelled into left vs right boxes, so the establishment won't understand you and thus won't be able to manipulate you.

Personally I draw inspiration from a variety of traditional left and traditional right ideas and policies (the best of both.)

The CIA and American oligarchs such as Soros funded far-right and murderous Banderite Nazis in Ukraine for decades.... and the NED and Soros funded the far-left and murderous BLM riots to cause havoc and chaos ahead of the 2020 US election.... by stirring racial provocations and divides.

The CIA doesn't care about left or right when they fund extremists on both sides, (e.g; BLM, Banderite Nazis, and ISIS,) and seek ways to divide societies around the globe for their own imperial and hegemonic benefit.

So at the next U.S. "election" (the U.S. has become a banana republic,) they'll argue with each other during the campaign over superficial and infantile debates, such as arguing if men can get pregnant, or arguing with each other about skin tone, and other distraction techniques that avoids addressing and opposing the real issues.

If the masses united against the globalist oligarchy system that oppresses and exploits and impoverishes them all, that would be the globalist elites worst nightmare because they can only thrive by creating distractions and divides.

The elites like to set the working class against each other, so the working class will often misdirect their woes and anger (for example,) upon migrants, (many of whom are forced to flee due to the globalists in Washington plundering their resources and impoverishing their people, along with sowing havoc, chaos, and wars all over the globe,) instead of targeting their anger at the foreign policies of their war addicted globalist puppet governments.

In the U.S. and also within the U.S. globalist empire controlled vassal states (UK, Canada, EU, etc,) the people have an illusion of choice.... (cyanide or arsenic - that's the "choice",) and so people often say they'll support the lesser of two evils (the problem with that philosophy though is that you still end up with evil.) Most of the governing parties and their mainstream so-called "opposition" party policies mirror each other - with only a few minor differences on topics such as gender, for example.

They also create fearmongering and try to convince their duped populations with endless lies that Russia, Iran, DPRK, and China (any nation that's not a subservient slave of U.S. globalist empire,) are the peoples "enemy" (they're the western globalist elites enemies for not bowing down to them,) and will try to convince people that President Putin and President Xi are the bogeymen to be feared, and thus will demand more of your hard-earned tax money to fund yet more globalist warmongering and for the MIC to make more profits, instead of investing in education, healthcare, infrastructure - it's a grift. The real enemy of the people are the war-junkie and compulsive liars in Washington, London, Brussels.

Most of the mainstream parties in the collective west all serve the same globalists and they do whatever the CIA or Klaus Schwab at the WEF orders, or /and they submit to the powerful Zionist lobbyists demands due to Mossad's techniques of using coercion, bribery, blackmail of leaking politicians secrets to the media (Epstein had a lot of dark secrets about his clients,) threats of assassination.... (as in the case of JFK.)

"Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." ("The more things change, the more they stay the same.") Alphonse Karr

[Maria Sharapova]

Historically I would say economic however in recent times it seems more social or social and economic in equal measures. The social divide was never supposed to become this prominent, historically government policy focused almost entirely on economic issues and the divide was an economic one.

[ultright]

Unfortunately the traditional left

Was it? These are the same people who brought us the French Revolution and Communism.

The caterpillar just turned into a butterfly.