The Distributist To be “right-wing”... (in 9 points)

JagerIV

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
625
New Distributist video trying to find a unifying definition for right wing more descriptive than "apposed to the left".


1. "The strong axiom of human teleology" :: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=1046
2. "The axiom of virtue" :: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=1313
3. "The collective axiom of human teleology" :: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=1559
4. "The entropic law of human nature" :: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=1913
5. "The entropic law of human institutions" :: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=2096
6. "The Iron Law of Oligarchy":: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=2344
7. "Prioritize human uplift over human comfort":: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=2710
8. "Favor investment-oriented accountability systems":: https://youtu.be/N_kuFyN3Cwk?t=2947
9. "Pursue order-based politics"::
 

JagerIV

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Reaction score
625
So the argument is that those nine traits define being right-wing?
Or at least, its an attempt to create a definition for the right that is both:

1) descriptive of the right, and
2) That is in some way's useful.

He's making his definition in comparison to the definition used by a different youtuber, Academic Agent: "the right is those who are apposed to the left". He mostly makes the argument that there's nothing really combining various right wing movements, he compared Thatcher to Hitler, and how there's very little that put them on the same "side", to make them both right wing, besides both resisting communism. That's there's little connecting a monarchist and a Capitalist besides an opposition to "the left".

So, this is a definition of right wing where the right really doesn't really represent anything deeper than a coalition: its people who for whatever reason are opposed to the left, which does have a set belief system, which is why all left wing states that pursue their program to the extreme arrive in much the same place, but the various right wing groups when pushed to their extremes go to radically different places, and thus aren't really a coherent belief system.

The distributist (the creator of the video) does not agree with this conception: there is something deeper that unites the right, as disparate as it can get. He doesn't think there could be the kind of smell test where one can fairly quickly say something is left or right if there wasn't some underlying points of unity.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
2,756
Part of the issue is Europe vs the US. Mist of Europe has broad agreement on a powerful far reaching state. Which is why both thier right(facism, monarchism etc.) and left(Communism). Both end up with heavily authratariqn goverments. Where as the US right wing is pretty anti government. Traditional US politics is literally big gov v small gov.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
1,323
Part of the issue is Europe vs the US. Mist of Europe has broad agreement on a powerful far reaching state. Which is why both thier right(facism, monarchism etc.) and left(Communism). Both end up with heavily authratariqn goverments. Where as the US right wing is pretty anti government. Traditional US politics is literally big gov v small gov.
Arguably, this is part of what makes US politics so very uninformative because neither Republicans nor Democrats are opponents of "muh big government." It's more like "big government" versus "bigger government."
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
2,756
Arguably, this is part of what makes US politics so very uninformative because neither Republicans nor Democrats are opponents of "muh big government." It's more like "big government" versus "bigger government."
Fair enough doesn't change the fact that US politics aren't European politics. Which is where the Nazis were left/right wing thing comes from.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
1,323
Fair enough doesn't change the fact that US politics aren't European politics. Which is where the Nazis were left/right wing thing comes from.
"Left wing" and "Right wing" are best described as coalitions of differing parties. Each coalition wants power, and the groups that make up the coalition want to do different things with that power. Nazis were right-wing because they opposed the left-wing forces of Germany. They weren't conservative, however.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
2,756
"Left wing" and "Right wing" are best described as coalitions of differing parties. Each coalition wants power, and the groups that make up the coalition want to do different things with that power. Nazis were right-wing because they opposed the left-wing forces of Germany. They weren't conservative, however.
Why would Nazis fighting commies make them right wing? The socialists killed each other all the time and were all left wing. "Killed socialists" can't be the defining trait it its meaningless.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Joined
Aug 26, 2019
Reaction score
1,323
Why would Nazis fighting commies make them right wing? The socialists killed each other all the time and were all left wing. "Killed socialists" can't be the defining trait it its meaningless.
Because right-wing and left-wing are just coalitions, and the groups within those coalitions change constantly. The Nazis were socialist, but they were right-wing socialists because they aligned themselves with those in the German Republic that considered themselves right-wing.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
2,756
Because right-wing and left-wing are just coalitions, and the groups within those coalitions change constantly. The Nazis were socialist, but they were right-wing socialists because they aligned themselves with those in the German Republic that considered themselves right-wing.
Right so the entire thing Is retarded then? Socialismis either left or it's not what your describing. Is utterly ridiculous.
 

ShieldWife

Marchioness
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Reaction score
3,035
I’m inclined to say that the right isn’t really well defined but that the left is. The right just a coalition of factions that are opposed to the left. The left, while having some diversity of opinion, is much more monolithic. It supports socialism, feminism, egalitarianism, is anti-white, anti-western, anti-make, for gay rights, for large government, globalist, pro-regulation, authoritarian, conformist, and so on.

The right oppose the above vision for the world, even if they might agree with leftists on some issues. That is why you can have national socialist, socially liberal libertarians, the religious right, and now-conservatives all on the same side of the political aisle despite being radically different from each other.
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
3,591
Left Wing and Right Wing are terms that originated in the French National Assembly and French revolution. The left was the republican anti monarchist faction which was apparently on the left side of the assembly(from the view of the presider of the assembly) and the aristocrats and monarchists on his right side.

Today the terms have become broadened-though that does not lessen their value.

If I could give a definition, I would say right leaning politics is opposed to the idea of transformative politics. Whether that be equality of outcome, mass migration or self flagellation over historical issues(slavery, colonialism, and so on).
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
3,591
Leftist politics were until recently, still very much national/local. While a "western" left can be said to exist, or a transnational left, leftist power and influence in say Spain, and in say Britain were very different. What the left has done, is set the framework. The terms of debate, the meta framework of which we conceptualize our understanding. So the right is often fighting on ground the left has set, using terminology the left has claimed and defined, and ends up losing in the process.

Also perhaps we are being too broad. Maybe we should speak of modernism and postmodernism, of the French revolution and the changing in how the world itself was known.
 

Prince Ire

Section XIII
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Reaction score
37
Location
USA
Part of the issue is Europe vs the US. Mist of Europe has broad agreement on a powerful far reaching state. Which is why both thier right(facism, monarchism etc.) and left(Communism). Both end up with heavily authratariqn goverments. Where as the US right wing is pretty anti government. Traditional US politics is literally big gov v small gov.
I would argue that there is functionally no mainstream right in the US. Most so called American conservatives are just classical liberals.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Reaction score
2,756
I would argue that there is functionally no mainstream right in the US. Most so called American conservatives are just classical liberals.
I would ask why we in America should use foreign definitions. As opposed to defining politics based on our system. I see no reason to accept European definitions for anything.
 

Tyanna of Pentos

The King's Raven
Super Moderator
Founder
Hetman
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Reaction score
7,359
Location
The Tower
I would ask why we in America should use foreign definitions. As opposed to defining politics based on our system. I see no reason to accept European definitions for anything.
You're right. Because of the rather extreme cultural shift from our predecessors in the Haudenosaunee Confederation to the modern United States and its similarly located eastern metropole, the United States is still enculturating to its landscape. I'm not sure it will actually survive in the long term as a mass federation across the entirety of North America, but the culture of its people is necessarily going to reach some kind of equilibrium with the local environment--something that the mass media and neoliberal elites have actively fought against.

The United States is an American country which happens to be white, not a white country which happens to be American. We are fundamentally "rich Brasil", not another European country. One can argue about the exact reasons for our success and if they relate to the input from Europe being in a much higher ratio than Brasil's, but it is only that, input. If one wanted to define an anti-liberal conservative movement in the United States, it's necessary not to blindly copy Europeans. You have to rely on the works of other Americans (in the broadest possible sense). I recommend starting with Plínio Salgado: He put real effort into indigenising right-wing thought for the Americas.
 

gral

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 15, 2019
Reaction score
505
I recommend starting with Plínio Salgado: He put real effort into indigenising right-wing thought for the Americas.
That's because his works are derived from, and inserted in the context of, Brazilian Modernism - in fact, in his poet days before being one of the founders of Integralism, he was part of a Modernist circle, one with a high nationalistic bent. The central theme of Brazilian Modernism is the question "What is Brazilian Art?". It's not surprising he took the same question and applied it to the realm of political thought.
 
Top Bottom