Depends on the country. The “conservatives” in the late USSR were the people opposing abolishing the union. I think the same descriptor is used for chavistas and Cuban communists.
Not on lemmy, where being left means you have to absolutely and entirely go along with whatever the others feel should be a leftist belief. Purity tests all day every day, followed up by literal campaigns and concerted efforts by other “leftists” against the offending people.
See the whole online boycott war being fought against .ml because the owners ran afoul of something. Lemmy is just as stupid as other social media but has a different demographic, which makes it at least for the time being more palatable.
A “conservative” leftist would probably be someone who generally agrees on economic theory but has a less open and progressive view towards social issues such as marriage rights or immigration.
What i define is how most actually socialist or communist countries of the past were organized though. See for example the GDR, socially just as conservative as most other countries at the time; to the point that the formerly GDR part of germany is now a breeding ground for far right political power.
My point is not that socially conservative ideas have merit, but that they are not inherently ideologically incompatible with wanting a not-capitalist economy. And that we do ourselves little good by constantly falling back into the old leftist trope of never being able to achieve political power because everyone only agrees on like, 90% of issues.
You are mixing a lot of things here : capitalist vs anti capitalist regime is not this same as progressive/conservative politics.
If you believe social progress should benefit only you and not me, you are not progressive.
And I’d like to point out that all regimes you mention are not different from any other : they all had a ruling class. This is, again, not progressive.
And as I pointed out in an other comment: studies suggest that Totalitarianism is not about left or right, because they use the same concepts to validate their ideologies.
Totalitarianism is a made up word by a CIA stooge (who was an actual anti-Semite, before the word lost all meaning) cooked up to draw parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany so as to propagate red scare propaganda.
In Hannah Arendt analysis it does not matter for what purpose the tools of state power are utilised, merely that they are utilised. It does not matter if the state has broad support from the population, all that matters is that the state acts. This is an infantile worldview.
The word itself is without any meaning beyond “descriptor of enemy state”. Any definition is either so broad as to describe every nation-state or so narrow that it could just be replaced with the name of the state one is trying to foster fear of.
You can indeed be a right wing liberal, it is however more difficult to be a left wing conservative
is being a left wing conservative even possible?
Depends on the country. The “conservatives” in the late USSR were the people opposing abolishing the union. I think the same descriptor is used for chavistas and Cuban communists.
I am of the opinion that green are very often left wing conservatives.
I thought they were communists
Not on lemmy, where being left means you have to absolutely and entirely go along with whatever the others feel should be a leftist belief. Purity tests all day every day, followed up by literal campaigns and concerted efforts by other “leftists” against the offending people.
See the whole online boycott war being fought against .ml because the owners ran afoul of something. Lemmy is just as stupid as other social media but has a different demographic, which makes it at least for the time being more palatable.
A “conservative” leftist would probably be someone who generally agrees on economic theory but has a less open and progressive view towards social issues such as marriage rights or immigration.
What you define is segregation : a society where progress benefits me, but not you, because you are different.
What i define is how most actually socialist or communist countries of the past were organized though. See for example the GDR, socially just as conservative as most other countries at the time; to the point that the formerly GDR part of germany is now a breeding ground for far right political power.
My point is not that socially conservative ideas have merit, but that they are not inherently ideologically incompatible with wanting a not-capitalist economy. And that we do ourselves little good by constantly falling back into the old leftist trope of never being able to achieve political power because everyone only agrees on like, 90% of issues.
You are mixing a lot of things here : capitalist vs anti capitalist regime is not this same as progressive/conservative politics.
If you believe social progress should benefit only you and not me, you are not progressive.
And I’d like to point out that all regimes you mention are not different from any other : they all had a ruling class. This is, again, not progressive.
And as I pointed out in an other comment: studies suggest that Totalitarianism is not about left or right, because they use the same concepts to validate their ideologies.
Damn you’re hilarious, any more jokes in there?
If we consider one of the key value of the “left” being progress, I think it is difficult to concillate both.
People who tried to conserve Soviet Union can arguably be called left wing conservatives.
I’d argue they were totalitarian and not conservative. The funny thing about Totalitarianism is that it does not really care about being left or right and seems to share the same values : https://news.emory.edu/stories/2021/09/esc_left_wing_authoritarians_psychology/campus.html
Totalitarianism is a made up word by a CIA stooge (who was an actual anti-Semite, before the word lost all meaning) cooked up to draw parallels between the USSR and Nazi Germany so as to propagate red scare propaganda.
In Hannah Arendt analysis it does not matter for what purpose the tools of state power are utilised, merely that they are utilised. It does not matter if the state has broad support from the population, all that matters is that the state acts. This is an infantile worldview.
The word itself is without any meaning beyond “descriptor of enemy state”. Any definition is either so broad as to describe every nation-state or so narrow that it could just be replaced with the name of the state one is trying to foster fear of.
Not really no, closest is a Moderate Conservative, which is just any conservative with a leaning towards the center