In a functioning post-capitslist society, people should be expected to work if they are reasonably able. (I'm not sure if this is really even right wing but I know a lot of people who would say that it is).
this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Lemmygrad
947 readers
2 users here now
A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You're right, this isn't right-wing, guaranteed employment is in socialist constitutions. The more of us working, the less we'll individually have to. Contrast with, say, nazi Germany where they had relatively few people working many hours.
Lenin said that he who doesn’t not work shall also not eat
Definitely not my most rightwing view, but my most rightwing conscious position is that comrades should join and build up whatever organisations they can, even if they are right-deviationists or contain reactionary elements, and fight over those inside the organisations. This includes parties with settler, LGBT-phobic, misogynous among other deviations.
I also have another view that may be seen as rightwing here (and is definitely controversial) that settler-colonialism is not the principal contradiction in current day USA, North America, or most of the rest of the Americas. It's first between the international bourgeoisie (with home base in the US) and the international proletariat, then between peripheral nations and the imperial core finance, military and cultural sectors, and only after that it's between oppressed minorities (be they native or "imported") and the national state repression force. Some day I'll take the time for this struggle session.
maybe that being a communist doesn't require to be a militant atheist. Atheism is a method for some people to avoid reactionary traps that usually come with religion
To be a communist is to be a materialist. You cannot separate the two of them
I agree, I think a materialist perspective in the realm of political thought is key, but as for people’s personal lives they can believe what they wish about the nature of the universe outside of that. So long as the org is secular and people are applying a materialist philosophy in their analysis of the natural world here then it’s completely compatible
Out party consists of many religions and (so far) no problem has occurred. Not between the Muslims and the Christians, or even Muslims and LGBTQ+ community like so many libs like to go on about. Nothing. It can absolutely work when working towards socialism.
Rothbard has awesome smile
Honestly, many of these posts aren't even "right-wing" views, they're just shared positions like "guns are empowering to civilians", "have some respect for cultures you're entering and learn to communicate", "people raising a child should be supported", "child abusers should be removed from society".
The framing of some of these as "right-wing" or "anti-left" due to progressivist liberals is harmful and something we have to punch through. In my union, I had to put on a nice face and discuss with a member who only knew how to frame their legitimate proletarian objections to outsourcing and porky's cost-cutting through terms like "woke trash", "diversity" and the like. And it sucks for them too, because their unfortunate, inaccurate choice of words lumps them in with absolute scum, and so they have to justify every other sentence with a good ol' "I'm not a racist" to try and clarify their objection (which, in this case, based on their other views and talking to them further, I really think was true and not just the classic shield tactic that Nazi scum abuse to feign humanity). When progressive liberals have garbage analysis and advocate idealist misguided solutions, that alienates reasonable people who might end up believing themselves to be "anti-left", given the Overton window puts proglibs in the "left" here.
I can only imagine if they talked to someone else who took their language at face value and then (understandably) dismissed them as an anti-worker pro-bigotry bastard etc. etc., instead of realizing it's just (for lack of a more neutral word) ignorance. Their legitimate proletarian concerns would be answered with dismissal or an attack. That's why we need to say loudly and clearly that we have shared proletarian values, not just "leftist" values.
(daily reminder that "left-right" is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
(daily reminder that “left-right” is a nonsense subjective category anyway)
I'm not convinced it's nonsense as a whole, but there is a lot of confusion surrounding it. Especially in situations like US electoral "republican-democrat" dichotomy, where people sometimes label republican as right and democrat as left, which is indeed nonsense. I think it's kinda like "fascism" where there is historical meaning and then there is how it gets bandied about, and there's a lot of muddied use of it.
Well said. This really gets to the heart of it. I forget where I heard this quote but "the culture war is a proxy class war" is something I feel has a lot of truth to it.
Great phrase, I'll have to remember that one! And that's absolutely at play here from the "progressive" liberalist side too - I suspect a significant chunk of the frustration with "DEI" and "woke" is due to the capitalist abuse the underlying progressive movements, comparable to rainbow capitalism. Offshoring (I originally miswrote that as "outsourcing" before you replied) to cheap underqualified labor is justified as "diversity", but local workers suffer because the capitalist is hiring people who aren't doing the job as well. The capitalist is justifying their anti-worker exploitation as being social justice! So for people who are brought up in a casually racist environment [read: most citizens here] and just not used to thinking about how they say things, they can thoughtlessly say something that's easily misinterpreted as racist bigotry. Consider: "They keep giving our jobs to Indians who can't do it as well" - it absolutely comes off as racist (or nationalist) to me, but could also just be someone who seriously doesn't care about whether they're from India or a different race, they're objecting to the outsourcing which just happens to currently be to India. Thoughlessness, which leads them to have to justify with defenses: "I'm not a racist, the Indian coworkers over here are wonderful, I have an Asian wife", you get the idea. Again, I know those lines are also abused by dissonant racists, but we would be foolish to just assume.
The person I was talking about before had earlier complained that they were also getting in trouble at work for being direct and blunt, rather than diplomatic and polite, like if someone was talking loudly on their phone while others are trying to work, or they didn't put enough greetings and sugar in their email and someone got offended. And they mentioned that it wasn't easy for them to adjust, because they'd been conditioned in certain engineering and military [fuck the troops] jobs where you don't have time to formulate and beat about the bush or worry about politics, direct and timely communication matters, and I suspect that leads them toward this thoughtless unfortunate phrasing, forcing them to backtrack with those defenses; "they can't say anything anymore". And, yes, again, that's the same line we also see used by pieces of crap who want to say racist garbage. It's all so tiresome!
yeah definitely. I think a those of us who have beliefs we've taken the time to think through choose our words carefully, we assume others do the same. in reality most working people haven't, they just regurgitate things they've heard on TV, Facebook and other corporate platforms. the silver lining is that our ideas are not as unpopular as they might appear. you really don't know until you find a common language with someone what you really disagree on.
We should attempt to get rid of alcohol and drugs in society. That’s not say immediate criminalization but we should go after producers of these ills and work to eliminate them through gradual, supportive-of-addicts means entirely.
I partially agree, I think drugs should be outlawed and/or limited. I'm not against people in certain mental health situations being given ayahuasca or similar drugs with potential therapeutic effects but I don't think people should be able to buy heroin at the corner store for regular recreational use and that there should be allowed this drug culture (420, etc) around it.
I think ceremonially people should be allowed reasonable limited amounts of certain substances like alcohol (and weed) in state regulated amounts (like tied to a state ID card) like a bottle of wine for new years and a few other holidays and a bottle of whiskey a year but not like 2 bottles of whiskey and a case of beer a week type consumption. Not you know spending every other day high out of your mind on weed for hours at a time. I think what weed that is available recreationally should be weakened back to mid 20th century levels of THC and no one under 24 should be allowed access to it given the potential dangers to developing brains. As smoke is a carcinogen by itself consumption in that form should be discouraged for those who wish to use it, those who require it be done that way for traditional ceremonial/cultural reasons can still do so but most should be encouraged to bake it into foods or imbibe in some other manner that reduces the harm.
I understand why under capitalism people drink heavily or do lots of drugs, how miserable life can be, how hard labor conditions are so I'm not in favor of harsh restrictions on alcohol/weed under capitalism (though I'm also not in favor of legalization of more hard drugs which would be used to harm the proletariat, drug people into a sense of uncaring acceptance, exploit people to addict them to a product for profit, etc).
I think it's a definite harm and people don't understand that say the type of weed that Stalin smoked was like a hundred times weaker than the stuff you can buy in a shop today. Back in Stalin's day weed was a mild relaxant really compared to what it is today.
Even if marijuana could be more mild, it still impairs driving. There is absolutely no reason for recreational marijuana to be legal and I think that attempts to take down these dealers is important since they kill people through impaired driving. I think it needs to be dealt with through long term social reform, elimination of poverty, arrests and destructing of the dealers, and education.
I don't want no gubbermint taking my guns.
Not even right wing, Marx said this shit
It is either:
Pornography should be illegal
or the Axis of Resistance should be supported.
Based
Comrades need to look presentable and dress normally when they are representing Marxism in a public form. Part of being a communist is appealing to everyday people. There is a reason why every successful communist movement, from the Panthers to the Bolsheviks, presented themselves well and professionally.
This isn't even really right-wing.
Yes. Optics means something to many people, and respecting that will help the movement
I'm just gonna say it, many of these really don't feel like explicitly right wing ideals and more just "things that most people actually see are reasonable but like, wouldn't be ok in a futuristic Star Trek level utopia," but are things that many people will agree upon makes sense given the current material and social conditions of society.
And that's a good thing thankfully, it would be pretty alarming if there were.
I believe in the death penalty as a security measure, but not as punishment, at least in theory.
In practice, the cost to society to ensure absolute certainty in guilt almost always far outweighs the security gain, so it doesn't make sense. Maybe once a century.
Gambling should be illegal
I'm somewhat of an anti-natalist. I don't think it's necessarily smart to have children, only if you really want to but even then not too many.
I think there are too many rules when it comes to things like alcohol and cigarettes because I think it is the responsibility of the person itself and not the government. But fuck cigarette and alcohol advertising though
Lastly I don't like it when people are too affectionate in public and think they should keep it to themselves
Agreed besides for the last point. I don't mind holding hands and kisses on benches. I can see your point if you mean making out or further intimacy.
Every person I know with a child does not regret having them. However, from an outside perspective, every person I know with a child has had to eat some form of major shit because of the fact they had a responsibility for that child. You are easier to control with a child. That is a simple fact.
Either or not that is worth having a child in this current system is up to you and I don't think anyone should be limited from having a child.
100% on that last point LMAO, not the rest though
view more: next ›