Sweden has received too many immigrants

[Deletedaccount1]

"Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism", while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism""

So would you say the USSR was a bastion of freedom, equality, human rights, progressive positions, and internationalism?

Or would you say they were authoritarian, hierarchical, with strict concepts of order, duty, nationalism, etc?

Because any glance at history shows they were the latter.

I know you don't want to admit that any "bad people" are on your "side", but that isn't how anything works and you really need to understand nuance and context.

This is simply being ignorant of historical context. Not all terms mean the same thing all the time.

From the Wikipedia article on Left-wing politics:

The term was later applied to a number of movements, especially republicanism during the French Revolution in the 18th century, followed by socialism,[8] communism, anarchism and social democracy in the 19th and 20th centuries.[9] Since then, the term left-wing has been applied to a broad range of movements[10] including civil rights movements, feminist movements, anti-war movements and environmental movements,[11][12] as well as a wide range of parties.

Throughout the 20th century and to this day, even in the United States, communists and Soviets were considered part of the left-wing. On the global level, communism was the major left-wing movement of the 20th century and large percentage of the world's countries were heavily influenced by it.

"Left-wing politics" referring to modern progressive or social democratic ideals is not the sole definition of left-wing.

- - - Updated - - -

More "let's make up bullshit and pretend Endus said it, because it's easier to make shit up than actually discuss his actual points".


By way of comparison, care of the Political Compass, here's the candidates for the US 2016 election;

And while the test has some issues, it isn't biased to put everyone in that top-right quadrant. Here's Canada and the UK's most recent elections, by comparison;

Much more variety.

The problem with that test is that it arbitrarily moves all possible political ideologies into 4 colored quadrants based off of limited questions of dubious quality that is asked from an American, not a global, perspective.

The website has no academic standing or basis and it was made anonymously.

[Endus]

That is ridiculous, I guess Ronald Reagan would be on page 2?

So no actual, legitimate counterpoint?

This is simply being ignorant of historical context. Not all terms mean the same thing all the time.

From the Wikipedia article on Left-wing politics:

Throughout the 20th century and to this day, even in the United States, communists and Soviets were considered part of the left-wing. On the global level, communism was the major left-wing movement of the 20th century and large percentage of the world's countries were heavily influenced by it.

"Left-wing politics" referring to modern progressive or social democratic ideals is not the sole definition of left-wing.

You're conflating economic theory and political theory. I've already clearly stated that the Soviet Union's economic system was left-wing, largely, but that their political system tended to lean the other way.

If you want to dig into the history of the terms, they originate with the French Revolution, and how their Parliament was set up; those supporting citizen's rights and liberty sat to the left, and those supporting the aristocracy and the old system, the right. The thing is, by creating the Party and establishing a new hierarchical system, one which restricted civil liberties extensively, the Soviets leaned to the right in that respect.

The entire root of the issue is trying to boil down diversely complex societies with specific implementations and claim that they are exclusively one or the other on that spectrum, without any variance, and that's just a silly and reductive position in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with that test is that it arbitrarily moves all possible political ideologies into 4 colored quadrants based off of limited questions of dubious quality that is asked from an American, not a global, perspective.

The website has no academic standing or basis and it was made anonymously.

Right, I said it has problems, but it's also a quick reference with convenient graphs to demonstrate the point I was making. American politics, as compared to most other developed nations, leans right. The Democratic Party is not particularly left-wing, at all; it tends to be centrist to center-right (some members lean further left). If measured by objective principles, rather than the American context exclusively with a false middle set between the two parties' platforms.

[Deletedaccount1]

You're conflating economic theory and political theory. I've already clearly stated that the Soviet Union's economic system was left-wing, largely, but that their political system tended to lean the other way.

If you want to dig into the history of the terms, they originate with the French Revolution, and how their Parliament was set up; those supporting citizen's rights and liberty sat to the left, and those supporting the aristocracy and the old system, the right. The thing is, by creating the Party and establishing a new hierarchical system, one which restricted civil liberties extensively, the Soviets leaned to the right in that respect.

The entire root of the issue is trying to boil down diversely complex societies with specific implementations and claim that they are exclusively one or the other on that spectrum, without any variance, and that's just a silly and reductive position in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -



Right, I said it has problems, but it's also a quick reference with convenient graphs to demonstrate the point I was making. American politics, as compared to most other developed nations, leans right. The Democratic Party is not particularly left-wing, at all; it tends to be centrist to center-right (some members lean further left). If measured by objective principles, rather than the American context exclusively with a false middle set between the two parties' platforms.

I agree that it is too simplistic but there are problems with saying that the Soviet Union is politically right-wing because it was authoritarian. For one, libertarians are considered right-wing for the sole reason that they believe in markets. They are the anti-thesis to authoritarianism and the person who invented the precursor to the political compass was a libertarian who did this intentionally.

Calling libertarians left-wing doesn't make sense either but under your logic they would need to be since they don't support a hierarchy, order, duty, or nationalism.

It is strange you consider the left-right spectrum to be too narrow but are okay with the political compass when it fails for the same reason. IIRC, there are questions about things like abortion which is a uniquely American issue in the left-right context. America might be more right-wing than other countries but there is at least some evidence to the contrary.

First of all, the Democratic party is not center-right. There are a large number of centrists but the party itself is center-left. The only people I have ever seen call it center-right are leftists on this website who themselves lean very far to the left. A large faction of the party (Bernie Sanders' supporters/allies) is just as left-wing (if not more so) than some left-wing European parties especially in regards to trade protectionism and regulations, many European leftists are more pro-market in that sense because their main desire is a welfare state with strong unions which is not enough for a large chunk of the American left.

[Endus]

I agree that it is too simplistic but there are problems with saying that the Soviet Union is politically right-wing because it was authoritarian. For one, libertarians are considered right-wing for the sole reason that they believe in markets. They are the anti-thesis to authoritarianism and the person who invented the precursor to the political compass was a libertarian who did this intentionally.

Well, it depends on the kind of libertarian. Left-libertarianism is a thing, after all. American Libertarians are usually classed as right-wing economically, rather than socially; I think it's an awkward classification though, for reasons you note.

Calling libertarians left-wing doesn't make sense either but under your logic they would need to be since they don't support a hierarchy, order, duty, or nationalism.

FWIW, the American Libertarians do support a hierarchy, it's just one rooted in free-market action. Hierarchical structures don't have to be implemented top-down to be a desired outcome.

It is strange you consider the left-right spectrum to be too narrow but are okay with the political compass when it fails for the same reason.

You're overestimating the credence I give to the Political Compass. I linked to it for some convenient graphs to demonstrate a simple point, nothing more. And admitted to the flaws you're talking about, as I did so.

First of all, the Democratic party is not center-right. There are a large number of centrists but the party itself is center-left. The only people I have ever seen call it center-right are leftists on this website who themselves lean very far to the left. A large faction of the party (Bernie Sanders' supporters/allies) is just as left-wing (if not more so) than some left-wing European parties especially in regards to trade protectionism and regulations, many European leftists are more pro-market in that sense because their main desire is a welfare state with strong unions which is not enough for a large chunk of the American left.

C'mon, it's hardly just people here saying this.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/b...-righ_n_147072
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2008/11/24/665713/-
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/noa...pectrum_right/

[RobertoCarlos]

ITT people not from Sweden talking about sweden

[Deleted]

Serves them right, then, doesn't it?
Did they think this would all go as smooth as butter?
Their actions, their consequences.
I just think it's unfair that the people of Sweden didn't get democratic vote to decide if they want multicultural society and millions of immigrants.
But that's elite politicians for you.

[Deleted]

Hierarchical systems are right-wing by definition, yes.

All complex systems are hierarchical, in any case, this by definition makes Socialism and Libertarianism the same thing - I think you will find that makes no sense.

The thing is, this is a spectrum, not a binary distinction. And there are a myriad of factors on which any given institution may lean one way or the other, regardless of how they lean on other factors.

This doesn't make the definition "too broad", it means you need to understand context and nuance rather than trying to fit everything into a single box and pretending it's distinct and separate from everything else.

A definition that includes everything, and excludes nothing is useless.

So you're shitposting, rather than participating in good faith, since I said none of those things.

No, you did.

Though it's pretty damned obvious that the USSR wasn't Marxist communism, if you want to be serious for a moment, given that Marxist communism cannot be totalitarian. Literally impossible.

Total control of the economy cannot be done absent total control -

But then you'd have to admit that "communism" is a broad range of concepts with a lot of diversity of theory, rather than insisting falsely that it's one tiny ideological box distinct from everything else.

You keep doing that, see?

And you have yet to admit that any form of communism is left wing.

[Macaquerie]

And you have yet to admit that any form of communism is left wing.

Genuinely left wing communism more resembles an Israeli kibbutz or a hippie farm, where everyone chooses to live communally and act for the greater good voluntarily, so that no form of state coercion is necessarily. These tend to work on a small scale, because finding a couple dozen people who all basically agree on what's best and are willing to share with each other is not that hard. It's when you try to implement this on a nationwide scale that you run into problems, in which case the leaders tend to resort to authoritarian tactics to keep everyone in line. This isn't so much a function of Marxist ideology as it is of the political circumstances of places like the USSR and China, which have experienced the same kind of heavy handed rule both before and after communism.

[Venant]

So Wikipedia is "dingaling left wing"?

I'll also note this is still just a personal attack without any backing for your claims. So you're still hoping that being insulting might be mistaken for having a valid point.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E...tical_spectrum

"Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism", while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism""

So would you say the USSR was a bastion of freedom, equality, human rights, progressive positions, and internationalism?

Or would you say they were authoritarian, hierarchical, with strict concepts of order, duty, nationalism, etc?

Because any glance at history shows they were the latter.

I know you don't want to admit that any "bad people" are on your "side", but that isn't how anything works and you really need to understand nuance and context.

we all know that wikipedia is heavily SJW converged, as can be seen with how their moderators engage regularly in ideological crusades (just look at some of the stuff they did for gamergate). Here is an alternative to wikipedia

https://infogalactic.com/info/Left%E...right_politics

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes fascists, Nazis, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.[5][6]

Researchers have also said that the Right includes capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.

- - - Updated - - -

Genuinely left wing communism more resembles an Israeli kibbutz or a hippie farm, where everyone chooses to live communally and act for the greater good voluntarily, so that no form of state coercion is necessarily. These tend to work on a small scale, because finding a couple dozen people who all basically agree on what's best and are willing to share with each other is not that hard. It's when you try to implement this on a nationwide scale that you run into problems, in which case the leaders tend to resort to authoritarian tactics to keep everyone in line. This isn't so much a function of Marxist ideology as it is of the political circumstances of places like the USSR and China, which have experienced the same kind of heavy handed rule both before and after communism.

I will just point out that a significant percentage of biological families are so dysfunctional that a group of 4 or 5 cannot live under the same roof with this degree of communal voluntarism.

[Endus]

All complex systems are hierarchical, in any case, this by definition makes Socialism and Libertarianism the same thing - I think you will find that makes no sense.

Your premise there is obviously false. It doesn't even bear responding to, really. You don't get to just make things up and pretend you've reshaped reality itself.

And you have yet to admit that any form of communism is left wing.

Well, that's just a flat-out, bald-faced lie.

Their economics were left-wing.

No excuses; that was in a direct response to you, specifically. You are maliciously lying.

- - - Updated - - -

we all know that wikipedia is heavily SJW converged, as can be seen with how their moderators engage regularly in ideological crusades (just look at some of the stuff they did for gamergate). Here is an alternative to wikipedia

https://infogalactic.com/info/Left%E...right_politics

Your nonsensical accusations aside, your own source backs me. Given that it includes nationalist, imperialists, authoritarians, and so forth in the right wing, which was my entire point.

[Deleted]

Kinda funny that the leader for the second largest party went out in metro (paper) saying our biggest challenge the coming years will be the refugees.
How much things have changed in just a few years.

[Player Twelve]

You're Bhuddist, so if people are talking about "Bhuddists", you're in that group.

You're also "German". But being "German" doesn't mean you can't be "Bhuddist". And that person who's Thai can emigrate from Thailand, become a German citizen, and then they're German and Bhuddist, like you. Wheee.

Like I've said multiple times; these aren't exclusive or distinct groups. They bleed into each other all over, everyone belongs to multiple iterations of them, and there's no homogeneity within them either.

You're talking about demonyms while others are talking about ethnonyms or nationality. A thai literally cannot be Swedish in nationality. The word nationality relates to: birth, a godess, offspring, race, tribes, a people(which relates to ethnic group or nation). If you're asked about what nationality you are and you are thai and say swedish then no, you're wrong. You don't belong to the swedish people, you are part of the thai people.

[DarkAmbient]

Sweden has fucked itself. It's a bloody shame.

[PC2]

The problem is left wing and right wing tries to grasp political theory in a single dimension, when multiple dimensions are necessary to capture all possibilities. In the single dimension, left wing and right wing do carry those features, even if technically bullshit on an academic level. We all use the terms in vague concepts though, such as to convey authoritarianism as right wing.

When the topic is specifically about migration, it is a single dimension. The left is inherently about equality above nationalism, the right is about nationalism above equality. Therefor leftists have to let how ever many 3rd world poor unskilled migrants in, otherwise they don't believe in equalization.

[Player Twelve]

The problem is left wing and right wing tries to grasp political theory in a single dimension, when multiple dimensions are necessary to capture all possibilities. In the single dimension, left wing and right wing do carry those features, even if technically bullshit on an academic level. We all use the terms in vague concepts though, such as to convey authoritarianism as right wing.

How does that work out in Swedens case where the left-wing have been the ones who have been the most anti-immigrant?

[Fojos]

ITT people not from Sweden talking about sweden

I'm from Sweden, living in Sweden and the country is going downhill in many regards. What did you want to say?

[RobertoCarlos]

I'm from Sweden, living in Sweden and the country is going downhill in many regards. What did you want to say?

Right wingers have an obsession with Sweden so they can wave their finger and point out the blunders of socialist lefties. Thats what I was saying, as you were.

[PC2]

Where does migration fit on the political compass? Left or right? Or up and down?

It fits to the left when the topic is mass unskilled immigration. The left by definition has to prioritize equality.

If the country only allows rich or highly skilled migrants then that is an act of rational self-interest and is not left wing policy.

[Player Twelve]

It fits to the left when the topic is mass unskilled immigration. The left by definition has to prioritize equality.

If the country is smart and only allows rich highly skilled migrants then that is an act of rational self-interest and is not left wing policy.

No, the left has been the ones who are the most anti-immigrant in Sweden, mainly because they think it will lead to wage dumping as the immigrants are usually not educated enough to compete on equal terms as swedes so they have to work for lower wages, which they don't accept because they're very influenced by labor unions who fight against wage dumping.

[Fojos]

So Wikipedia is "dingaling left wing"?

I'll also note this is still just a personal attack without any backing for your claims. So you're still hoping that being insulting might be mistaken for having a valid point.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E...tical_spectrum

"Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism", while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism""

So would you say the USSR was a bastion of freedom, equality, human rights, progressive positions, and internationalism?

Or would you say they were authoritarian, hierarchical, with strict concepts of order, duty, nationalism, etc?

Because any glance at history shows they were the latter.

I know you don't want to admit that any "bad people" are on your "side", but that isn't how anything works and you really need to understand nuance and context.

"The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism."

From the same wiki page you linked, in regards to Europe. When did soviet support capitalism and private property? The whole idea to begin with was identity politics and social redistribution, just like the far left today. Guess who supported the bolsheviks? Hint: it wasn't any right or center party in Europe.


"ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" this is liberalism, not left-wing (it can be both, but it's usually center). The left strive for equity, not equality. In other words equality of outcome, not opportunity. In their view it's not fair that a physician receives more than someone in a supermarket.