FA+
Shop
My political stance, once and for all.
5 years ago
Alright, I've really tried to keep my own political opinions off my art sites for as long as I've been able to, but there are things happening in my country and in the USA, where many people I know and appreciate live, that have made me realize it's time for me to take a stand in public.
I have lived in a country ruled by a third-positionist government for almost twenty-two years.
For those of you who don't know what third-positionism is, it's a political ideology which maintains that the State should be in control of the means of production for as long as it has to be, and invest them into the welfare of the workers; the catch is that "the workers" means "pure-blooded citizens of our nation, no one else". Foreigners and people of mixed descent are not "the workers", but enemies, "the bourgeoiesie", "degenerates", whatever you'd like to call them. And you better believe Jews are counted there, too. All who aren't "the workers" must be expelled or eliminated from the great nation, or better yet, from the face of the Earth, for "treason", for having conspired to undermine the great nation with their "degeneracy". That kinda thing.
It's called "third position" because it purports to be neither left-wing nor right-wing, neither communist nor fascist, but opposed to both, and therefore, theoretically, superior to both. However, their way of opposing both, as you can see, is to be as ultra-nationalist/ultra-xenophobic/ultra-antisemitic as fascists (so anti-left) and as promoting of "the State will control the means of production in the meantime" as socialists (so anti-right). In other words, their idea of being neither left nor right is to be extremes of both at the same time. The resulting concoction is roughly the same as mixing Coca-Cola with milk; a disgusting poison.
(Keep in mind that Mussolini and Hitler eventually dropped the "socialist" part entirely in practice, if not in name, which is why their own third-positionism is not actually "left-wing because it's in the name", and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying to you. One of the first things Hitler did once in power, actually, was to wipe out the more left-leaning-ish wing of the Nazi party, along with several more of his enemies. Does the "Night of the Long Knives" ring a bell?)
Why am I making the distinction between third-positionism and fascism? Because there is a growing movement in my country, which is made up of absolute Trump worshippers who truly and genuinely believe he is correct and anyone who opposes him must be destroyed. People who would gladly have a legitimate military ultranationalist dictatorship in my country, much like the one we had for almost the entire decade of the 1950s, because these people don't care about genocide as long as it doesn't happen to them and they have money to live well. People who now even disown the very democracy they used to touch themselves to between 1958 and 1999, because it allowed "the degenerates" to rule. People who now believe that uniting a country's people on the basis of their nationality or race to expel or exterminate the "inferiors" in order to make their country "great again" is a noble cause that is worthy of any kind of support. Who are even now expressing all kinds of support for the bypass of all democratic processes entirely in order to maintain the leader of such a cause in power indefinitely. People who want regular fascism instead of "fascism in a Che Guevara t-shirt".
And you know what? After I have seen the results of nearly twenty-two years of fascism in a Che Guevara t-shirt, I have decided that I don't want to see what even a fraction of a week of regular fascism is like.
I believe that the best form of government is democracy, the rule of the people. Specifically, socialdemocracy, the rule of the people in a market economy where they can and do still receive help from the State. I honestly understand why pure communism (no State, no classes, no money, no material greed) would be the best, but, unfortunately, the human species' collective psyche hasn't evolved that far yet. I wish it could, and, indeed, I hope it does. For now, though, democracy is second best, and for as long as I can defend it, I will.
Here's what we're gonna do. I'm going to leave comments open, so you (whoever is reading this) can tell me whether or not you agree with me.
If we (mostly) disagree, well, that sucks. I hope, that, before the end of your life, you can realize exactly what kind of monstrous, inhuman atrocity you are backing up, and walk away from it before it takes its toll on you.
If we (mostly) agree, all I can say is: thanks.
I have lived in a country ruled by a third-positionist government for almost twenty-two years.
For those of you who don't know what third-positionism is, it's a political ideology which maintains that the State should be in control of the means of production for as long as it has to be, and invest them into the welfare of the workers; the catch is that "the workers" means "pure-blooded citizens of our nation, no one else". Foreigners and people of mixed descent are not "the workers", but enemies, "the bourgeoiesie", "degenerates", whatever you'd like to call them. And you better believe Jews are counted there, too. All who aren't "the workers" must be expelled or eliminated from the great nation, or better yet, from the face of the Earth, for "treason", for having conspired to undermine the great nation with their "degeneracy". That kinda thing.
It's called "third position" because it purports to be neither left-wing nor right-wing, neither communist nor fascist, but opposed to both, and therefore, theoretically, superior to both. However, their way of opposing both, as you can see, is to be as ultra-nationalist/ultra-xenophobic/ultra-antisemitic as fascists (so anti-left) and as promoting of "the State will control the means of production in the meantime" as socialists (so anti-right). In other words, their idea of being neither left nor right is to be extremes of both at the same time. The resulting concoction is roughly the same as mixing Coca-Cola with milk; a disgusting poison.
(Keep in mind that Mussolini and Hitler eventually dropped the "socialist" part entirely in practice, if not in name, which is why their own third-positionism is not actually "left-wing because it's in the name", and anyone who tells you otherwise is either ignorant or lying to you. One of the first things Hitler did once in power, actually, was to wipe out the more left-leaning-ish wing of the Nazi party, along with several more of his enemies. Does the "Night of the Long Knives" ring a bell?)
Why am I making the distinction between third-positionism and fascism? Because there is a growing movement in my country, which is made up of absolute Trump worshippers who truly and genuinely believe he is correct and anyone who opposes him must be destroyed. People who would gladly have a legitimate military ultranationalist dictatorship in my country, much like the one we had for almost the entire decade of the 1950s, because these people don't care about genocide as long as it doesn't happen to them and they have money to live well. People who now even disown the very democracy they used to touch themselves to between 1958 and 1999, because it allowed "the degenerates" to rule. People who now believe that uniting a country's people on the basis of their nationality or race to expel or exterminate the "inferiors" in order to make their country "great again" is a noble cause that is worthy of any kind of support. Who are even now expressing all kinds of support for the bypass of all democratic processes entirely in order to maintain the leader of such a cause in power indefinitely. People who want regular fascism instead of "fascism in a Che Guevara t-shirt".
And you know what? After I have seen the results of nearly twenty-two years of fascism in a Che Guevara t-shirt, I have decided that I don't want to see what even a fraction of a week of regular fascism is like.
I believe that the best form of government is democracy, the rule of the people. Specifically, socialdemocracy, the rule of the people in a market economy where they can and do still receive help from the State. I honestly understand why pure communism (no State, no classes, no money, no material greed) would be the best, but, unfortunately, the human species' collective psyche hasn't evolved that far yet. I wish it could, and, indeed, I hope it does. For now, though, democracy is second best, and for as long as I can defend it, I will.
Here's what we're gonna do. I'm going to leave comments open, so you (whoever is reading this) can tell me whether or not you agree with me.
If we (mostly) disagree, well, that sucks. I hope, that, before the end of your life, you can realize exactly what kind of monstrous, inhuman atrocity you are backing up, and walk away from it before it takes its toll on you.
If we (mostly) agree, all I can say is: thanks.
That alone should be a key indicator of my stance on things politically.
I am left of center, which just means I want everyone to be left alone to just be themselves, and I want the government to not be run like a business, always seeking to profit from consumers. I don't agree with everything the liberals have done, but I'm more opposed to the conservative mindset than any other party.
(For instance the Wilhelm Gustloff, best "known" as the worst maritime disaster in history and one in a long list of communist war crimes that went down the memory hole)
The definition of "left-wing" is not "big state", nor "public economy", but "social equality". While economics do have a great and undeniable influence on society, the ultimate distinction between left and right is their conception of society, not their conception of economics.
You might know the old story about the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" having been coined during the French Revolution and named after the people who sat to the left and right of the president of the National Assembly. What you might not know is who sat on which side. The ones who sat on the right were the aristocrats, the Church, and other supporters of the King, who claimed that the then-current social order (the King on top, everyone else on different levels below depending on their social rank) had been decided by God Himself and everyone who dared challenge it was wrong. In other words, their conception of society was a "natural social hierarchy" of "superiors" and "inferiors", which is the idea that all right-wing ideologies since are based on.
On the left sat -most of- everyone else, who disagreed.
The Nazis were right-wing, because their ultimate goal was to exterminate their "inferiors", so that themselves, the "superiors", would assert their superiority over the world once again. In other words, to recreate and maintain the "natural social hierarchy". Never mind that they had the word "socialist" in their party's name, nor that they sought to create a giant, ever-present State with a hyper-centralized State economy; those were nothing more than means to their real, intended end goal.
If you'll allow me to venture an opinion, I believe, in fact, that the idea that the left-wing is "big State" or "State economy" is a tactic by the right-wing itself to convince people who don't know better that "natural social hierarchy" is not the correct definition. That way, they can be deceived into believing that social inequality is not actually right-wing, giving the right-wing free reign to put it into practice completely unopposed.
I do not consider the Soviet Union left-wing. They devolved pretty quickly into delusions that they were also "naturally" superior to everyone else and therefore the only ones "fit to rule" the world. Their society was also not communist as defined by Marx (no State, no social classes, and no money), but then again, there's no way it could have been. No State, no social classes, and no money is too far of a long shot for our lifetime.
As for the Wilhelm Gustloff incident, she was not a civilian ship when she was sunk. She was a troop transport. Was civilian between 1937 and 1940 (first as a cruise ship, then as a hospital ship), but immediately afterwards repurposed as a floating barracks until her sinking in 1945. In my view, that makes the incident more of a case of "the bad guys vs. the bad guys" than "the victims vs. the victimizers", as you seem to be implying here (which I hope is not the case; but if it is, I'd like to know which side you consider the "victims" and which the "victimizers").
Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn_RwIcL7cg
Personally? While I'm not arguing with you, there's a problem with the idea of "communism"; it can potentially lead to fascism. I mean, the basic idea? Capitalism is meaningless without boundaries, so bringing in socialism (at least to an extent with the right to choose free health care and limit capitalism) would be a good move.
Why not let people have the right to CHOOSE in politics?!?
If I wanted to NOT be able to vote for who I want in political leadership in politics? I could move to GERMANY...where it's got a bureaucracy. (But compared to the United States? I'm sure it's not THAT bad!)