At this point in time, does right-wing basically mean "nationalist" while left-wing basically means "globalist"?

At this point in time, does right-wing basically mean "nationalist" while left-wing basically means "globalist"?

Other urls found in this thread:

politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909
patreon.com/vaatividya
radixjournal.com/altright-archive/altright-archive/main/blogs/untimely-observations/when-fascism-was-on-the-left
youtube.com/watch?v=kd_4jx8wB24
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The labels keep changing shape and size, but the central idea is that of isolationism vs cosmopolitanism, whether in social, cultural, economical or military aspect.

Pretty cool image BTW. Who's the artist? Do you have more stuff?

Yeah.
Interesting, 50 years ago it was the opposite.

politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-realignment-partisan-political-party-policy-democrats-republicans-politics-213909

Good article about this, pretty much says that what we are seeing is the GOP becoming a nationalist working/blue collar class party while the Democratic party will be a globalist upper middle class party with the support of urban minorities and wealthy progressives.
I ask myself where Bernie and his supporters fall in this new political realignment. In some ways him and his supporters are Nationalist (Trade deals, keep jobs in America, help the vets) and in others they are globalists (Pro immigration, refugees )
Can they be the new moderates?

kind of, but there are still liberal anti-globalist

go to bed pedo pedro

Mae me

Make me*

There's some far-left environmentalist eco-fanatics who think globalization is the worst ebul ever and we should all live local, grow local and buy local to save planet earth. Obviously they're marginal far-left crackpots and won't get far with their ideas (other than maybe forming some shitty hippie communes) but they still exist

And the centre-right (basically the establishment Democrats like Obama and Clinton) is very pro-globalization, pro-free trade

fucking Mae Me nigger

>taking shortcuts
That's how we got into this mess to begin with.

So whats wrong with globalism exactly?

Or are you just not realizing that there is no real separation?

>Thinks all countries have wall at border and independent economies and culture

same shit different style at the most

Sorry I saw the image on here and just saved it cause i thought it was cool

No, that's incredibly reductive and the last thing people here need is more ways to put political enemies in neat little boxes to avoid making actual arguments.

In Europe anti-EU socialists are not unheard of, and in America there are plenty of anti-NATO and anti-NAFTA liberals. "Globalists" (and I'm beginning to really fucking hate that word) and anti-globalists exist outside of the left right spectrum much like authoritarians and libertarians do.

I would say yes. Globalism vs. Nationalism will be the big divide of the 21st century, the new left and right.

Honestly I think that the absolute end goal of the parties are

Republican
>Ban automation. Ban outsourcing. Ban importation of cheap goods. De-technify the USA to the point where we have artificially turned back the clock to a time when everyone with no college education can have a job and provide for their family. Basically a whole nation of pseudo Quakers.

Democrats
>10% of the population are absolutely phenomenally wealthy and live in walled in cities in every state in the union. These are futuristic first world cities like out of a sci-fi movie. Everyone else receives a Universal Living Stipend and socialized healthcare performed by robots and imported doctors from India. Everyone lives in Commie Blocks. All cities look like third world slums. No one has any ambition. Literacy rates plunge dramatically. But no one cares because Keeping Up With The Clintennedys is on TV.

I mean. The end game. The absolute end game has to be one of those.

You can't try to give everyone a job without destroying the automation and globalization.

You can't have a universal allowance based socialist utopia without the ghettofication of your entire country.

I honestly have no idea how humanity will continue for the next few hundred years.

There's no shining example anywhere in the world of how to go forward.

economic equilibrium puts production in china and the 3rd word. The free market destroys the western working class

That makes sense, but the way I see it, those far-left eco-fanatics aren't really "nationalists". For instance, they would probably welcome people from different cultures and ethnicity into their fold. Their main concern is that globalism will harm the environment, but when it comes to things like race/immigration, they are "globalist" in the sense that they think everyone can live as one.

Then maybe a new system need to be implemented along with globalism if it was going to work for the sense of utopia. But if it wasnt then what you described is just fine.

For people who are actually more informed, who have a realistic picture of what's going on geopolitically, then yes, the real dichotomy comes down to globalism vs anti-globalism, or cosmopolitanism vs valuing the local.

I can appreciate a few cosmopolitan centers, but think it's essentially to allow the local - culturally, ethnically, ecologically - to be preserved.

Left vs right is meaningless to me. I'm a green skeptic of full scale globalization who is sympathetic to the preservation of all old cultures and ethnicities.

Looks to be this guy
patreon.com/vaatividya

I don't know about the US, I think detroit is the nornal example, but large areas of Northern England have been turned into post industrial hell holes due to the impossibility of competing with china for production

Globalism encourages one world governments. Here's the question: Who's going to be in charge?

It's not going to be honest, morally upstanding people.

At least when one nation does something stupid like let itself collapse from stupid policies or corrupt governments, the other nations can look and write down notes. But if the whole world is run by a small elite, then a bad policy will fuck over everyone.

> actually wanting to fight for some kind of 'global utopia'

Come now. People are inherently flawed, why would you want to concentrate the power of the whole world in one group of humans? They would surely become corrupt and then we're screwed. Not to mention the fact that separate, competing systems and cultures is what makes the world so great.

The ultimate redpill in my view is eco-hippies with more ancient, pre-englightenment values, who are sympathetic to all indigenous interests, who support either eco-fascism or ancient monarchistic lineages ordained by the old Mystery rites.

Again your too used to the idea that a form of modern slave labor is the only way to successfully exist within a society.

A debt based society or even one based on currency may possibly not be viable for a true globalist utopia.

Globalism implies an absolute central authority with say over the lives of subjects who live far removed from their masters.

It means all peoples (regardless of their histories, culture, etc..) are completly interchangeable assets.

If you cannot understand why this is a bad thing for everyone except for the supreme leader -there is no point in arguing with you.

which wing are patriots?

also globalism = multi-culturalism is a sister of socialism. they are both born out of blindness to the rivalry that exists between people

It fails due to lack of independence within such a paradigm. If everyone pulled an iceland there will be no issue.

If a president declares martial law for whatever reason and literally no one goes along with it then nothing changes.

Banks and companies dont get paid if no one pays them.

and people dont know shit if the news doesent tell them.

Im not fighting for shit. Whatever is around I will adapt.

The ultimate redpill needs to be something practical and realisable user. If we formed an eco-hippy commune of timeless practices and balance China or some other modern nation would steamroll us into oblivion and take the resources. Your ideal political ideology can't just be theoretical, it needs to be able to be realised in the real world.

I try not to debate not so much argue.

and again your equating globalism with some new world order conspiracy instead of a form of utopia where the planet is unified.

>So whats wrong with globalism exactly?
It pretends as if there is no difference between people with different skin color when a single cursory glance at any major adult website convinces me otherwise.

The sex drive isn't colorblind. And therefore I am neither.

This. And you know what? It's the same divide as socialism vs capitalism. Why? Because to glaobalists we're all brothers. We're all the same. We should be colorblind. Doesn't this blindness to rivalry remind you of socialism/coimmunism?
>everybody should have roughly the same, we are all equals

But to "nationalists" there exists competition and there will always be competition and any neglection of rivalry in the hearts of man is foolish and will lead to suffering.

Also, see

>utopia

You keep saying that.

I wish unicorns and santa claus were real too, but that doesn't change the reality of our world.

Also, the other user raised a point that id appreciate you addressing (instead of just repeating something about unity, or some other feel-good nonsense). Who WOULD lead under a system of globalism?

They are shuffling the deck of cards

No. Globalism can be both liberal and totalitarian. Stalin, Hitler and Mao dreamed of worldwide fascist states.
Nationalism can be likewise liberal and totalitarian.

The problem is that it's much harder to fight or at least call out fascist globalism from the position of liberal globalism, so people flock to liberal(ized) nationalism.

1. Economically

globalism is not viabale unless we betray our working class with slave level wages, and no health and safety except maybe the odd suicide net, and even then we're at a disadvantage as we cannot illegally devalue our currency

2. socially

humans are tribalist by nature, people will naturally divide themselves be it based on race or what colour hat they're wearing. Its natural and part of our evolution, no amount of apple shops and McDonalds will overright that

Your right everything should be a form of aggression, passive or blatant and there should be one king to tell us what to do because it always been that way and thats whats "real".

Guidelines and needs being met based off of consensus of the total and factors that take in to effect things like under representation and steal systematic corruption.

That's the entire point. Left and right are being redefined. Get out of here with your prior definitions.

No, you misunderstand the logic behind what we call globalism: it considers the difference in skin color negligible. Pornhub.com, otoh, tells me that it's not.

If you think that skin color does not matter AT ALL and that we should all be colorblind all the time, you are left. If not, you are "vile, racist right-wing scum".

Bernie is not the new moderate. Have you seen how his supporters act?

Also,
>open borders
>moderate

Your stuck in a box.

You have been programmed well.

*threat level minimal*

*Critical thought non existent*

Globalism the way you percieve it may not be viable, Globalism done the right way will be viable.

Humans are to be hearded if they cannot be independent. This is why we have government. But if humans were to live to optimal standards government wouldnt be a thing.

Population control.

Japan is the third way.

Cutie patootie.

no, you can be left wing and still be nationalist or right wing and globalist

think about the leave/remain sides. they were composed of left and right wingers but the true distinction was that they were nationalists or globalists

>College education
>Required for competency

Kikes get out

Nice word salad, you rambling cuck!

Pretty sure I was able to decipher:
"From each according to their ability. To each according to their needs."

Eh, comrade?

>dirty HS blue-collarfag detected

stay mad bitch nigga

Pretty much. The terms right and left and liberal have become far too jumbled.

This is a nice point as delicately subverts the BM//WF shilling.

They also believe that nations are social constructions, the implication being they can "construct" any kind of nation they want… which implies they think they can construct deep feelings of patriotic love - which is as creepy as it is impossible.

>he doesnt know tertiary education is just one big globalist brainwashing sham

Steal was meant to be stealth.

And I dont really favor any form of government that doesent promote rationality.

You obviously wouldnt make the cut.

and what I am saying is were too advanced to be doing work anymore we have science so make the robots do everything and let us just live and maintain them until they can maintain themselves and do all the work and studies and discoveries for us.

Tip, young people and people new to being this invested in politics : don't get too attached to your political party.

I've gone from being conservative to liberal to conservative without changing any of my core beliefs or attitude about life.

I'd say of the classical definition I am a moderate liberal, but by today standards that makes me a hardcore conservative. I bet in another 20 years I'll be considered liberal again.

the modern left wing doesn't even know what they want, they claim to be for worker's rights and shit but think our countries should be importing hundreds of thousands of 3rd world unskilled immigrants to stop racism. they are not the left wing, they are just useful idiots. true left wing basically does not exist anymore except maybe in some people like slavoj *sniff sniff* zizek *sniff*

This is a global right wing board. We care about other countries. But not the stupid way left winged idiots.

>surrender your free will

big brother will take care of you

not if Shillary is defeated

See: Labor arbitrage, tax arbitrage, and regulatory arbitrage. Globalism is purely a system predicated on exploitation and has a vested interest in the degradation of global standards.

Im sure were was meant to be we're this time.

What cut are you implying I wouldn't make exactly?

I hope for your sake that the "cut" isn't determined by one's ability to construct a well thought out, non run-on sentence.

Im arguing global politics with a moronic fucking 16 year old at 3 in the morning...fuck me.

nah most right wing parties are also globalist and there are left wing parties who are anti globalism, just look at belgium...we have a "nationalist" party in power who supports the EU and a communist party which is way more anti EU

you're right about seeing politics now as nationalist vs globalist tho

>The small minded drone focuses not on the platform of discussion but that sentence structure

yea you honestly wouldnt make the cut

well damn, your ad homs, poor spelling and mobile goal posts sure have convinced me trip fag

Definitely dark souls. Seen it in one of vaati's videos

Yo man I heard you like parties so I made a party for your party to ensure my party wins!

ha ha

Finally a serious discussion on Sup Forums

Think most of you have his wrong when it comes to globalism having no culture. Globalism has an extremely unique culture - it's American. You can see this demonstrated the most in the big "international" cities like New York, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc.
>same language English
>same huge corporate commercial centers, American
>same pop culture, American
>same music and cinema, American

"Globalism" vs "not-Globalism" is just American hegemony vs no America hegemony.

I meant centrists, in a nationalism vs globalism scale, Bernie will come off as a centrist

This isn't automatically a good thing though.
>“Neofascism will be the ultimate expression of libertarian social liberalism, of the unit which starts in May 68. Its specificity holds in this formula: All is allowed, but nothing is possible. The permissiveness of abundance, growth, new models of consumption, leaves the place to the interdict of the crisis, the shortage, the absolute depauperation. These two historical components amalgamate in the head, in the spirit, thus creating the subjective conditions of the neofascism. From Cohn-Bendit (libertarian leftist) to Le Pen (French extreme nationalist), the loop is buckled: here comes the time of frustrated revanchists.”[2]

>“The State was the superstructural authority of capitalist repression. This is why Marx denounces it. But today, with globalisation, the inversion is total. Whereas the state-nation could be the means of oppression of a class by another, it becomes the means of resisting globalisation. It is a dialectical process."[3]

I mean if capitalism and the market is now wholly on the side of "globalism" then at the very least there is an aspect of nationalism that is anti-capitalist no? How can you guys not be afraid of this? When has anti-capitalism every won?

I read this article the other day about Fascism and Mussolini
radixjournal.com/altright-archive/altright-archive/main/blogs/untimely-observations/when-fascism-was-on-the-left

If it is true that Mussolini saw Fascism as a vehicle for socialist revolution against the conservative forces at the time (which were all empire btw) then isn't really what we TRULY need to be secure is a Right-Wing/Conservative empire? This anti-capitalism stuff is self destructive in the end.

There is no such thing. Either you think skin color makes SOME difference or not.

You have yet to adress anyones counter-arguments, you twit.

The way you (poorly) construct your sentences actually says quite alot about your lower-than-average intelligence -which goes a long way towards explaining your goofy political leanings..

It's all just to save the working (or really anything not 1%) class of the west from decline in wages, dignity, "economic justice" or whatever...

>far left environmentalists
>anti globalists
Those are the same people who want a one world government to save the rain forest

*ever won*

Not when it comes to American nationalism, race does not play as much as a role as it does in Europe.
A German nationalist arguably would have to be white, while an American nationalist can be a Hispanic who loves America.
youtube.com/watch?v=kd_4jx8wB24

These times are coming to an end. The US will experience failure as a melting pot for people with different skin color.

That's why the more common face of fascism was the NSDAP.

You will note that WWII was fought between three different groups of socialists. The international socialists under the USSR, the nationalist socialists under Germany, and the centrist socialists under the USA. If you think differently, you're wrong.

>a Hispanic who loves America.

Berncucks are greens mostly. Democrats are neocons/globalists and pay minimal lip service to the radical left fascists such as him. Liberalism as a whole is dead. Democrats as a party are the way they are currently because they lost the empirical and theoretical arguments for their ideologies back by the 60's. If you can't win the argument or on facts you import human livestock that will vote for your lies. Immigration was put in place by Kennedy in the 60's for example. Like many things I'm sure the intentions were somewhat good for a few years.

This. In democracy, demographics is a weapon.

"globalism" isn't American. Nor will ever be. America was founded by prejudiced. It's people have lost power of its government and have been power slaved into full elite control to embrace a "ONE WORLD NATION" which has been in the works since 1913. Fucking over 100 years ago. These kikes will stop at nothing to create another Babylon - so they can watch it fall and take it all. They tried to get Germany in WW1 but failed..so 100 years later they are trying again.

E Pluribus Unum would apply if people were given time to assimilate. They should not be coddled. If they can't hack it they can go back home like many Europeans actually did back then. English should be the only language period.

Globalism is the new Fascism. Many here on this board will already know that Fascism is always leftist ideology. Armed with new technology (internet etc) governments are free to suppress any and all dissent. They strive for more and more power of the state. Re-education camps are now called workshops for example. This is how the entire "First World" operates currently.