Removed by mod
I agree on allowing culture to change naturally. When you try to abrupty impose social policies that oppose aspects of people’s culture, they naturally push back. I feel that much of the hostility towards LGBT and the like seems to be due to people’s desperation so they think that doing what “God” likes will get them more stuff. Naturally, if everyone has all the stuff they need, then no one will need to care much.
Wanting death to rapists is all well and good but I heard from a victim that, because most sexual abuse is committed by people the victims know, punishing them with death disincentivizes people from reporting their abusers. Maybe that can be alleviated by teaching people from a young age to recognize abuse and that rapists must die no matter how you personally feel about them? I don’t know, it’s a sensitive issue and I’m fearful of letting my hatred for abusers (my own and otherwise) cause me to accidentally hurt victims.
Perhaps the punishment should be set after consultation with the victim. Sexual abuse absolutely must be punished and prevented though.
Market reforms of Deng were amazing
I hope you won’t mind my ultra moment here. I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
Even in retrospect, Deng Xiaoping seems to be the rightmost someone can be and still reasonably be considered a communist. Looking at some of his unimplemented ideas and the policies that were reversed in the following decades, it’s understandable why someone would think he was a capitalist roader in his time. The path he set the CPC on meant that the party had to walk a difficult tightrope, fooling the westerners by obfuscating their long-term plans while keeping the creeping liberalism at check. Whole the capacity of her administrators and will of her people played the main part, China couldn’t have made it to today without fortune by their side.
Tldr I agree but only with hindsight
isnt that true all the time though? i remember reading in john reeds book that what made the soldiers finally break for the october revolution was kerenski demanding and not asking. Up until then a lot were undecided and the revolution might have failed because the ones that were decided were stronger on kerenskis side? so much in life is up to chance that the best you can do is hedge your bets
I don’t think this is an ultra moment, so much as leaving out dialectics. Luck always factors into things, yeah, but the results speak for themselves because communist theory and practice works, and socialist projects continuously show this. The way they went about it could have gone wrong in a number of ways, sure, but so can working toward a revolution, so can the start of a revolution, so can the day to day mundanity of organizing a local party meeting, etc. It’s how you use the dialectical process to adapt to the shifting circumstances and predict outcomes that makes the difference. And of course the people themselves, the struggle they put into it every step of the way. But point being, Deng and whoever all agreed with his path were picking a path and trying it, and in some ways it worked and some ways it didn’t, and they have adjusted since. It’s that adjusting that is so pivotal.
Or to put it another way, while luck is always a factor in things, analysis can usually reveal that there’s less luck than it might seem at a glance and sometimes it’s a matter of how deep you get into the factors in play. Casinos play on this all the time by having the appearance of handing over outcomes to luck, but in reality, being heavily weighted toward the “house winning.”
I think while the results speak for themselves, he got lucky.
It was a leap of faith and incredible trust in the future generations. If that went as market reforms did elswhere we would be now cursing him as second Gorbachev (or Gorbachev as second Deng). And the world could be as well completely doomed with no socialist China.
Death penalty is good actually, as long as it isn’t used just on minorities. Super useful to scare capitalists.
Death penalty, but only for the bourgeoisie and for politicians who betray the proletariat
And child pr3dators
Oh fuck yes, no list for them, just straight to the guillotine after sentencing
And for supporters of death penalty
Found Luigi’s account. hi
I don’t think fear is a good reason to be using the death penalty. Tho tbf, considering the topic question, it does sound pretty right-wing to be wanting to use fear as a tactic to control people.
i know deterrence doesn’t work for regular crime but maybe it does for white-collar crimes that are premeditated conspiracies and continuously reaffirmed by the perpetrators?
I mean, I’m not against state intervention in suppressing the capitalist class during the transition to where class doesn’t exist. That’s an important thing. I’m not even opposed to China’s handling of corruption, which sometimes involves death sentence as far as I know - I don’t know what reasoning they’re operating from and why they think that makes sense for them, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to weigh in on it.
But as a general principle concept of promoting death penalty to “scare” “bad people”, I don’t see how it would accomplish anything on that alone. If regular people commit crimes in spite of scary repression when they are desperate enough, capitalists and the like no doubt will some of the time too because the inertia of their class circumstances drive them toward financial crimes. And fearing getting caught may deter some people some of the time, but it doesn’t address the inertia.
I can however think of at least one other reason more directly practical that a socialist state might go for death penalty for some financial crimes. Which is, in dealing with imperialism along with concerns about internal reactionaries, there’s always the possibility that a corrupt figure who is influential enough / has strong enough ties can escape or get released later by some form of opposition and used further against the working class.
The difference is that capitalists aren’t desperate. They commit crimes just to make numbers get bigger. Just fining corporations for doing crimes doesn’t do anything, because then it just becomes a cost of doing business. You must attack the people in the corporations making the decisions to make money, and the death penalty is one of the tools for that.
To understand the use of the death penalty, imagine how many worker hours a capitalist who steals a billion dollars takes away. Assuming the average US salary (~$66,000) and working lifespan (77.43 years - 20 yr childhood), they’ve stolen the entire life earnings of 264 Americans. These calcs look even worse for any non-U.S. country because the theft is usually done in the USD, but all the workers make a much less valuable currency.
As of now, China mostly uses death sentence with reprieve for financial crimes, which means that if the sentenced person doesn’t commit another crime in a couple years, their sentence gets demoted to life sentence. Actual execution has only been used for extreme cases, such as Sichuan mining tycoon Liu Han, worth $6.4 billion, for his crime syndicate of gambling, loan sharking, illicit arms trading, contract killing, and actual lethal shootings.[1]
reform through forced labour is good, tho there is a clear distinction when it’s on a capitalist country and private individuals profit of the prisoners labour to when the prisoner labour is used to develop the country, like gulags in the USSR.
Not so much of a “view” as it is an action, but I unironically love buying army surplus stuff.
That if you move to another country you should be learning that language to the best of your capabilities. I work with a lot of foreigners and the amount of them that are incapable or simply unwilling to speak, in my case, Dutch is insanely high. I do think we as a society should invest more in schooling and developing both the native and the new language of course. But learn the fucking language. At least try.
Ok but it’s Dutch, I understand the hesitation
In my top 3 most ridiculous languages for sure, can’t keep a straight face listening to those people, lol.
Everybody ganster until they have to pronounce arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering
I agree, especially for those American expats
a) languages are hard. but immersion helps
b) I think the vast majority if expats won’t even consider learning the local language.
Languages is hard that’s true. An initiative our party took is the ‘festival of the mother tongue’ in which many different nationalities can showcase their language and local cuisine and whatnot. Really helps people think about language.
Also, it turns out that further developing your native language can also help with learning a new language. Hence why I think it’s important to stimulate that as well though reading and stuff.
also the question is if there are programs to help people learn the local language, rather then demonising them for struggling
While I am a stern believer in criminal justice reform, we should be like China, absolutely no crime is tolerated, and addictive drugs, excluding marijuana, should be banned. This only happens if the police are controlled by the people, not the billionaire class.
any society will need some form of policing, we can only argue on how it should be structured.
however, we can’t forget that the biggest factor for crime is poverty, once people aren’t desperate for basic material needs, crime drops.
so any crime remediation that focuses mostly on policing is bound to only enforce a class division and is inherently regressive.
policing needs to be done with the utmost accountability to the people. the US system of cops are just a gang that will execute anyone they feel like and suffer no consequences it’s hardly what i would call policing in any real sense of the word.
we should be like China, absolutely no crime is tolerated, and addictive drugs, excluding marijuana, should be banned.
If the revolution doesnt come with ending the drug war, what was the point?
This is a good example where context matters. China’s policy comes in part out of the Century of Humiliation and manipulation through Opium. In the US, the “war on drugs” was used in part to target black revolutionaries, along with mass incarcerating minorities in general. So any new state in the Turtle Island region that said “we’re going to be socialist but still be repressive about drugs” would be justifiably concerning.
That said, I don’t know how all China handles it in the particulars, but I believe there has been at least one country in the world where they tried decriminalizing drugs (not to be confused with legalizing the sale of) and creating programs to help people rehabilitate, and that seems like a sensible path forward for a place with history like the US.
but I believe there has been at least one country in the world where they tried decriminalizing drugs
Portugal
Ah, thank you!
Yeah the distinction between the two shouldn’t be forgotten, the Wests notion of the drug war however prevents other countries from not adhering too it through soft power.
Similarly the Chinese approach while successful, still bares the obvious scars of their colonized past and cant have been said to be a policy that was informed by sociological principles, but a defensive mechanism against the repetition of mass destabilization that can happen when a foreign power floods your populace with highly addictive and deadly drugs, and you lack the means to properly educate the working class on the mechanisms of drug addiction.
Regardless I do think that moving towards a policy of at least, principled scientific reform of drug policy to adhere to informed practices around recreational use.
I thought the question was “what is THE single most right wing view” and i was like “Idk probably supporting genocide” then i read the comments and was so confused.
Glad i didnt comment without reading the question again that would have looked bad.
Its hard cuz idk what even is right wing or isnt half the time.
I don’t remember the exact quote, but i saw something like “To be a revolutionary is to be a ruthless bloodthirsty monster.” attributed to Che Guevara. I agree with it. I think to operate as a revolutionary successfully against something like a capitalist regime you can’t afford to limit your actions. You do what you have to do to win. No matter how cruel, no matter how unreasonable. Victory is the only goal. For any suffering you may cause pales in comparison to the suffering caused by your failure.
There should be substantial financial and social help given to families that want to have children, and they should get more help the more children they have.
(But to balance that out with a left wing policy, i also want free contraception for everyone who doesn’t want children.)
this 100%. We had a kid during the lock downs our government was paying everyone to stay inside. me and my partner got to stay in and focus on being parents, taking our time and doing a much better job then if we had to worry about making rent and feeding us on minimum wage.
What was that time like?
it was really great for the most part. the covid lock down part kinda sucked but the rest was great and it really shifted my perspective on a lot of things. the main one being having a kid isn’t actually the hard part about having a kid, capitalism is the hard part of having a kid, we just got to focus on what’s important instead of making money to keep us alive.
Aren’t those both left?
Definitely. I hope China will be the first country to find a good solution to the birth crisis faced by all developed countries, since no capitalist country has found a solution yet. Reducing working hours, providing social support, increasing household wealth and living standards, and decreasing stress from raising kids should hopefully fix this.
As a global south citizen, I don’t care a single iota about domestic/social cultural policies of western politicians or parties, and would be glad to see a socially conservative movement take power there if it meant an end to Genocide, War, and economic exploitation in my part of the world. I guess it is some form of critical support, same reason I support Iran and Russia in their resistance to Imperialism despite their less than ideal social stances.
Reading these comments got me like “🙂”
While I strongly believe in rehabilitation, I think that convicted pedophiles/rapists should be put down. I’m not sure if I want would it to be the case for every single one, but it should be on the table.
I think that everyone should have the right to own a gun for self-defense purposes. At least, ideally.
I guess in a vacuum, I can understand that proper documentation could be required in order to vote. But only in a socialist society, and only when the state guarantees everyone can access their own documents freely and like candy.
How do you handle false convictions? They are obviously very rare but doesn’t it seem like executions should be avoided considering that they do in fact occur.
Based on all the discourse recently, my position that AI and LLMs should be outlawed.
I am an unapologetic Butlerian Jihadist
I understand the sentiment in your view, but I politely implore you to think of all the people and scientific advancement that A.I. is already helping.
There have been numerous cases of researchers using A.I., and the A.I. discovers numerous treatments for many types of diseases/illnesses, like types of cancer.
Or the A.I. come sup with new types of steel and building materials, that actually work.
I have a background in virtual screening software, where we just brute forced every compound that was commercially viable to produce (ZINC database) to see if it would bind to a cell receptor.
Having a new way to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks does not impress me.
But better AI should be able to pick stickier shits, which will save work in the long run. I agree that AI should not be used to hurt workers, but will be very important for fully automated luxury communism.
We are so far from automated luxury communism, and the idea that this technology would actually move us closer, is laughable. I honestly don’t believe that any technology has actually moved us closer to Communism. They seem to actually just concentrate more and more power in fewer and fewer hands.
Look if you want your fun little tech fetish, go right ahead, but don’t claim that LLMs are making the world better.
I watched the “Computer Revolution” and how it was going to fix EVERYTHING. It was going to transform the world.
All it did was just make a couple thousand people, more rich than was possible before.
All we are going to see is this buggy, hallucinating, flawed God take over everything, and like a mad God, it will make incomprehensible demands and pronouncements, and we’ll all be forced to obey them, while a handful of billionaires cook the planet and extract all the value, then we all die.
It’s the stupidest fucking outcome, and every person who keeps being a booster for LLMs and masks their little freakish obsession with them with flowerly marxist language makes me sick.
“actually it’s good that artists, programmers, and writers are being proletarianized, replaced with a shitty hallucinatin LLM that can’t actually do the work, but can bullshit it enough that management thinks they can layoff everyone and just pocket the savings”
Jesus Christ.
“Yes but we need the LLMs to destroy everyone’s livelihoods so that we can have our secular version of a Rapture (violent revolution where a bunch of people who never fucking shoot guns (the SRA is a joke) win against a superior force) and finally achieve fully automated luxury Communism”
Completely delusional
When the heck did I say that LLMs are going to run society? AI is much more than just LLMs, though LLMs are the manifestation of the current stage of development of AI.
Companies like Walmart are already using automated systems to optimize product distribution and maximize profit.[1] There is no reason why we can’t use improved versions of these AI systems to centrally plan country-wide economics in the future to maximize well-being and other democratically-defined goals.
Not sure if I’d go so far as “outlawed” (not really sure how that would be accomplished, at least in our current society), but I otherwise agree, and the discourse about the topic on this site has been genuinely upsetting the hell out of me lately, particularly because of much it truly is downplaying/denying the very real harm it’s causing, with some of it honestly coming across as cheering on said harm
So many of my friends and loved ones are artists too, so it’s particularly personal for me
Idk if it’s most but “Richmond is a hard road to travel” is a good tune.
as far as the western political spectrum is concerned, I would say a strong belief that you should maintain a close relationships with family even if they hold beliefs that are reactionary or culturally conservative as long as they aren’t overtly hurting you. it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on. isolation is one of the main things that leads to the type of derangement you see in the modern western fascist movements. obviously there is lots of nuance to this but generally speaking
This is essentially saying that the western patriarchal family unit is a force against fascism. If that were the case, then fascists would be against “the family”, but exactly the opposite is true. You also more or less directly say that compromising with reactionaries will somehow make people less fascist, which is ridiculous. Someone who’s estranged from their family specifically because they’re reactionary isn’t going to somehow become more fascist as a result of that, that doesn’t make any sense. A deranged ultra or something, perhaps, but that’s not the same thing.
I get that this is a thread about your most right-wing opinion, but yeah, this idea is reactionary as hell and trying to clumsily graft on an argument about isolation doesn’t make it any better. Isolation is deranging and that is a societal problem, but this idea is absolutely not a solution to that. If anything it’s a description of the problem - yes, a society where community and public spaces have been destroyed makes for a situation where this “family or isolation” dichotomy exists, and that can lead to derangement and ultimately fascism. The solution to this problem is to fix that situation, not decide that it’s a good thing.
I think you’re completely misunderstanding what I’m trying to say. I’m not making a “thing good” or “thing bad” argument. Like I’m not saying “the family as it has been constructed under capitalism is as force for good and should be protected at all costs”
it’s better to create a synthesis of your ideas in the context of your relationship with them then to hold a hard line about something neither of you are acting on
what I’m specifically talking about is in a context that is totally removed from any real political action, which is most conversations with my reactionary family members. at least in my context they aren’t materially opposing me in any real way, they just saw some shit on facebook and are vomiting it me. what I mean by find a synthesis is not find the direct center point between my opinion and theirs(my opinion being based in reality and theirs not) but instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs. the thing about peoples insane right-wing delusions is most of the time its not grounded in anything other then rhetoric, at least here in north America.
(sorry if I didn’t use the quote function right, I’m very new to lemmy)
instead find an aesthetic compromise that is grounded firmly in your beliefs
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
It sounds like you’re just doing “tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs” but obscured with lots of fancy words.
Propaganda has a very real effect on material circumstances anyway. To suggest otherwise in 2025 is wild.
What is an “aesthetic compromise” in this context? Do you have an example?
sure, I’ll use a personal example. I was talking with a relative of mine who hates rich people but loves elon musk because he owns the libs or whatever. instead of beginning the interaction by disagreeing about elon musk being a super cool guy who’s smart and awesome, I started the conversation from the perspective of agreeing with her about how much the rich suck and libs suck and yada-yada-yada but the place it ended at was that elon also sucks and that they should value less the performative aspect of our modern political climate more the substantive. so not an aesthetic compromise in the scene of a middle ground between aesthetics but the aesthetic of compromise itself. basically what I’m saying is just chill the fuck out and talk to people who you have a long relationship with instead of cutting them out in some sort of purity testing way.
tolerate people’s insane right-wing delusions and be civil above all else, never imposing negative social consequences for people spreading fascist beliefs
that’s not at ALL what I’m saying. I’m saying challenge those beliefs in a way the is effective. thinking about social interactions in a punishment/reward way isn’t very effective in my experience. Also some family systems are much worse then others and some ARE in fact good and something to be protected, specifically indigenous family systems should be protected as they are to a large extent inherently anti-colonial/anti-imperialist.
sorry if this still doesn’t make scene I’m not really used to having a conversation in this format so I might not be representing my point of view in the best way. please try to be charitable when interpreting what I’m saying.
