• average650@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s possible to be left in one area, and right in another. Someone could be left economically, but not necessarily socially.

    • devil_d0c@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Left economically but right socially? Like, they’d want single payer healthcare but only for straight white people?

      • Hextic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I got my parents to almost agree with free healthcare if only whites had it, but they caught on and doubled down on “waiting times”. Despite surviving on socialism Medicare.

      • egonallanon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not far off what Strasserism was/is. Though ultimately being x left and y right always means your just a right winger as people drop the x left to preserve the y right.

      • average650@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what I meant, but sure, that’s a position someone could have.

        Or someone could want single-payer healthcare for all but thinks abortion should be outlawed. Or hell, the opposite is possible too. Someone could want to remove all safety nets, but want marriage equality.

        For example, a party like https://www.solidarity-party.org/platform is a combination of left and right positions. Their first two party positions are: 1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice. They explicitly support workers rights and economic security as well as care for the environment. At the same time, they have a pretty conservative view on family (and probably by extension homosexuality, though I haven’t seen that explicity mentioned).

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago
          1. Sanctiy of Life (anti abortion) and 2. social justice

          literally mutually exclusive.

          Anyway, what you’re describing is liberalism and neo liberalism, and both serve the status quo and enable fascism, hence are garbage. You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist.

          https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/10/14/liberalism-and-fascism-partners-in-crime/

          https://blacklikemao.medium.com/how-liberalism-helps-fascism-d4dbdcb199d9

          https://truthout.org/articles/fascism-is-possible-not-in-spite-of-liberal-capitalism-but-because-of-it/

          https://nyanarchist.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/scratch-a-liberal-a-fascist-bleeds-how-the-so-called-middle-class-has-enabled-oppression-for-centuries/

          • average650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            That would be one possible position, but that is not what is espoused by the link I gave. " You simply can’t claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of people while supporting the systems that need to destroy and exploit that welfare and wellbeing to exist." They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.

            • DessertStorms@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They explicitly don’t want to do this but want to build those systems up.

              My point exactly - they uphold and maintain the status quo that is oppressing and killing millions if not billions for the benefit of a few hundred people.
              Anyone who not only supports those systems, but wants to make them stronger, cannot, sincerely anyway, claim to care about the welfare and wellbeing of anyone but themselves and the oppressors whose boots they lick.

              • average650@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry, I misread what you wrong and thus was very unclear. My mistake.

                They explicitly support “a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party

                If you view that as supporting the status quo, then I don’t think I understand your position.

                • DessertStorms@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  My position (well, the reality) is that it doesn’t matter if you support workers rights if you’re also opposed to some people’s human rights, and that it is literally impossible to support universal healthcare while opposing abortion. The Nazis called themselves socialists and were all for (some) workers rights, that doesn’t make them leftist, on anything.

                  There is no such thing as socially one way (left/right) and economically the other since the two (social and economical) are inextricably linked, and being conservative on one automatically means you are a hindrance (at best) to progress on the other.

                  Anyone who tells themselves otherwise is just doing mental gymnastics to defend their cognitive dissonance, while serving those at the top, who are known to co-opt leftist ideas to get in to power.

        • hypelightfly@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          The disingenuous party’s platform isn’t really relevant. It’s not a real platform and their “solidarity” is a lie, they’re just republicans with a different label.

          • average650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, " It favors fiscally progressive policies[12][8][13] and a social market economy with a distributist character,[14][15] that seeks “widespread economic participation and ownership”[15] and providing a social safety net program." … “The American Solidarity Party supports a universal healthcare system as well as an economy containing widespread distribution of productive property, in particular increased worker ownership and management of their production.[25][26][27]” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Solidarity_Party)

            That doesn’t sound at all Republican to me. That sounds remarkably liberal.

            Now, other parts do sound very Republican. For example, “The American Solidarity Party opposes abortion, euthanasia, and capital punishment on the basis of the sanctity of human life. It views the traditional, heterosexual family as being central to society.[13]” With the exception of capital punishment, that sounds very republican.

            But my main point was that a person or party can be left in some areas, and right in others, which those positions seem to be. Simply saying “that’s not what they really believe” seems like a cop out to me. How are you every supposed to have a discussion if that’s your response?

            • hypelightfly@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’m not sure why you think quoting their platform has any meaning whatsoever as a reply to me.

              While your point may be valid in general, this example is counter to it. Find a real example or don’t use one at all next time if you want to have a discussion.

              • average650@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m quoting Wikipedia which has sources for the claims I made.

                But besides that, it seems like the most logical 2ay to talk about what a group believes is to look at what they say about what they believe. That is read their platform.

                If you think they are describing their own platform I’m bad faith, I think it’s on you to demonstrate that.

                I would be interested in you demonstrating that to me. It would certainly affect my opinion of them if you did so.

          • average650@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            They specify human life.

            But, I would point out they also say

            "We support strengthening the specific rights of animals against abuse and neglect at the hands of those meant to steward them, recognizing them as more than inanimate property. We seek to regulate more strictly animal research, especially pound seizures. We call for stricter regulation of factory farms and stockyards, and the repeal of food-disparagement laws and so-called “ag-gag” laws that prohibit free speech regarding animal agriculture. We support local and family-owned farms and farming cooperatives as essential to ethical, sustainable, and humane consumption. "

    • notacat@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think it’s more common that people claim to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal.