I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
I can’t really think of a reason for that as Reddit is hated somewhat equally by “both” sides of the spectrum. It’s just something I find interesting.
When discussing the whole space of possible political views, there is no “both sides”. There are seven zillion different axes on seven zillion different issues, some of them concrete (“should we forbid chemical companies from manufacturing neonicotinoid pesticides?”) and some abstract (“what is the best relationship between individual creativity, the marketplace, and the state?”).
“Both sides” (polarized duality) is partly an artifact of specific electoral systems. It can lead to people shooting at each other over tiny differences in doctrine — or, even more often, over which leader to follow this year.
Also: for example both US parties would be considered as a (far) right party here in Germany
Nah, one center-right (formerly centrist) and one far-right (formerly center-right). See discussion here and here.
In gist:
The Democrats have become the party of international free-trade capitalism with appropriate regulation, and with international policies that represent loyalty to the nation’s traditional alliances.
The Republicans have become the local representative of the international far-right: the Putin-Trump-Erdogan-Orban-Netanyahu-etc. axis, focused on granting strongman leaders the ability to loot their states, purge opposition even among the elite (see DeSantis-Disney), betray the nation’s traditional alliances (e.g. NATO) in favor of the far-right axis itself, and excite their “base” through hate & oppression of various minorities (e.g. immigrants, LGBTQ+).
The Democrats are the party of “keep the system working, but when you get a chance, try to make it work better for everyone.”
The Republicans are the party of “tear the system down, and replace it with loyalty to our authority figures; keep the masses stupid and busy trampling on queers & foreigners.”
Okay but the leftist position isn’t
I’m just seeing two right-wing parties.
I mean, we can agree that neoliberalism is right-wing, right?
Yeah, I literally just said today’s Democrats are a center-right party, and today’s Republicans a far-right party. Back when the Republicans were neoliberal, they were center-right. But they’re not anymore; they’re aligned with Putin and the international neofascist tendency.
Okay, I see what you’re saying. But can you tell me what makes anything about it ‘center?’ I disagree about that part - I think they are bog standard ‘right.’ I don’t understand what moderates this partisanship in your view.
Oh! I was using “center-X” vs “far-X” as a distinction. The same distinction could be expressed maybe as “X” vs “radical-X” — the Democrats are “rightist” and the Republicans are “radical rightist” — much in the same way that we might say that social-democrats are “leftist” and revolutionary communists are “radical leftist”.
A good non-radical leader can be one who is a good manager of the current system, who gently reforms it toward social goals. However, radicals would never accept such a milquetoast weakling; they want someone who will come in, smash everything, “drain the swamp”, and implement the dictatorship of … um … someone.
Okay but center is third to something relatively more left and something more relatively right. What is it center in relation to? If Republicans are right, then Democrats can be less-right but that doesn’t make them center. And it doesn’t make sense to call them center in relation to leftism, because they are neoliberals which isn’t in any way leftist.
To me and the political theory that I am used to working with, radical means dedicated to the fundamental principles of something, so I’m going to substitute it with ‘extreme’ in my reading as this is a relative descriptor.
I would never, haha. Communists are leftist, but SocDems run a range from liberal to neoliberal which are both right-wing. To make sure we’re on the same page, the definition of SocDem to me Social Democrat which is not socialist. It was started in the 19th century as a right-wing reform of capitalism so as to prevent rebellion and revolution among the poor. It advocates for (neo)liberal market economics with the implementation of a social safety net. They’re my favorite right-wingers but they still support oppressive and hierarchical economics.
Some things can’t be reformed. Why try reforming the market out of the market?
Clearly, we’re starting from different assumptions!