this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
89 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
149 readers
15 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure they do - they want to conserve the social hierarchy. They want social classes, and nobles/a pyramid of individuals in charge, and they get sold the lie that this is the natural order and that they won't be at the bottom
Liberals push for a system that will handle all people and situations under the same rules, which sounds like equality (but isn't necessarily).
The right is preservation of the status quo, while the left seeks to change things.
This is far from the only sets of axises, and you can apply it to any specific area, such as economics, personal rights, foreign policy, etc
And that's why the 2 party system is terrible - neoliberals are liberal right, our conservatives are increasingly conservative. Both sides seek to keep the status quo and support increasing financial inequality, but make a big production over the fight for our personal rights.
Ancaps and minarchists are right-wing, but not for any status quo. Both are usually more liberal in terms of personal rights and economics than most left-wingers. Also usually just as pacifist, if that's what you mean by foreign policy.
(Literal fascists would also like to see certain radical changes, though in their mythology these would be called the return to good old order of things.)
It's terrible because it neuters any kind of real political diversity. Ideas converge into two bland parties, intended to be as similar in actual policy as possible so to not lose the competition for the general mass of voters.
I don't think they really fit right wing - that means preserving the status quo. You could argue they're conservative, but really they're closer to anti-liberal, which is not the same as conservative - both liberal and conservative become authoritarian as you progress, and those are very anti-authoritarian
Ah, you use the American meaning of "liberal", "right" and "left", I guess. In this case that's about same as what I said.
I don't think I do
In your understanding what would left, right, liberal, and conservative mean?
Well, "liberal" would mean the same as "libertarian", for starters, only the latter word was invented due to the meaning of the former becoming fuzzy (say, somehow meaning people advocating for central regulation, which doesn't have much to do with "liberty").
"Right" initially would mean tradition, privilege, social hierarchy, military etc.
"Left" initially would mean change, equality, social mobility, peace etc.
Now, closer to the end of the XIX century "left" became associated with social-democracy and various labor regulations by the state, emancipation and internationalism, and "right" with market liberalism, traditionalism and isolationism\chauvinism, and also notably "left" as in favor of bigger state intervention, while "right" in favor of individualism.
Anyway, your use of the word "liberal" was what surprised me the most, ancaps are more liberal than just anybody else, they are the extreme.
Huh, liberal is the difference here, but the definition I'm using isn't commonly used in the US, up until college we're taught left=liberal=democrat, and even then basic humanities courses might barely mention the difference
Your definition makes more sense based on the root of the word, but my more recent understanding is that liberal trends towards maximizing freedom (eg, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose). That jives pretty well with libertarians - their ideology is a mix of this idea of liberalism but with the structure cranked down until it approaches anarchy
To push back a little on another front though, anarchy isn't about freedom, it's a lack of having anyone above you. It's group rule in a way very different than democracy - there's no person or system above you, instead all that is replaced by social norms.
It's no rulers, not no rules - it could be extremely high or very low freedom depending on the specifics (and real world examples tend to have more rigid social norms, so this isn't just pedantics)