PFLP optimisticman

1y

To your last point I think hip-hop can be fundamentally changed or replaced by something else that would actually be a new revolutionary art form. Maybe instead of American music it could be a foreign genre, but it would have to be a new wave who creates it

Andre Jaquet

1y

oh my god your a tankie??

PFLP optimisticman

1y

I already told u what I am mr.jordanian cracker

KuntaKinte

1y

Don't have to. You guys aren't even relevant in the discourse of any major country's political spectrum.

If you think being pro-capitalism is right wing? Ok, then? Tf that gotta do with me if you want to be irrelevant and wrong theory crafting with a bunch of nerds on the KTT2 communism thread then go be wrong lmao.

snowboyrari

1y

socialism isn't a fringe ideology at all, youre an out-of-touch american weirdo. most secular palestinians, even the frauds in the PLO, call themselves socialists. its really annoying and racist that you act like this tbh, do you think rallies in India with a million communist party members are just unhinged "online" people? get a grip.

BRAVE

1y

“ Maybe instead of American music it could be a foreign genre”

From this to your entire op, your premise is predicated on a separation between American blackness and hiphop as if the genre exists in a political vacuum separate from the complex and contradictory nature of American blackness that informs hiphop. Hiphop is fundamentally black* and with that comes some of these contradictions

Andre Jaquet

1y

"who is this imaginary guy" what? do you not go outside?? u could take the free healthcare part out and thats like a majority of normal people who claim to be left wing in the US and canada how popular do you think socialism or communism is?? those people are not RIGHT WING

Andre Jaquet

1y

no they dont

KuntaKinte

1y

OP posting this bait ass thread.

Issue with convos like this, is you get a bunch of normal posters reading some weirdo nigga stanning the USSR and Mao.

Bro we get it, you like the Soviets, Marxist-Lenninism, Maoism, TheseNutsism, Lysenkoism.

We get that you see these people as the Avengers in Infinity War.

We don't care, just be normal nigga. This is "Music", not "Politics". No one wants to have a 30 page argument with you about if the Soviets fought Hitler for the common good or because Hitler betrayed them and they stood ten toes down in the Russian winter.

We do not care! It's 2025. You are not the first nigga on KTT to do this weird s***.

PFLP optimisticman

1y

Main thing it promotes are hyper capitalist individualism, social chauvinism, brand worship. All the biggest media people and rappers are outwardly right wing. When are people gonna acknowledge this and let the genre die fr as being some kind of voice for anyone?

KuntaKinte

1y

OP posting this bait ass thread.

Issue with convos like this, is you get a bunch of normal posters reading some weirdo nigga stanning the USSR and Mao.

Bro we get it, you like the Soviets, Marxist-Lenninism, Maoism, TheseNutsism, Lysenkoism.

We get that you see these people as the Avengers in Infinity War.

We don't care, just be normal nigga. This is "Music", not "Politics". No one wants to have a 30 page argument with you about if the Soviets fought Hitler for the common good or because Hitler betrayed them and they stood ten toes down in the Russian winter.

We do not care! It's 2025. You are not the first nigga on KTT to do this weird s***.

snowboyrari

1y

yes they do? socialist organizations in the west bank and gaza exist both above and below ground as an armed force.

why you so dedicated to yapping

xxxkiraxxx

1y

· edited

I’mma try to make you less confused.

The terms “left” and “right” come from the French Revolution (late 18th century). In the French National Assembly:

Those who sat on the left supported radical change, egalitarianism, and often opposed monarchy and privilege.

Those on the right supported the monarchy, tradition, and hierarchy.

Originally, it was more about social and political order than strict economics.

BUT

When it comes to modern usage (especially 19th century - 20th century and onward), especially with the rise of Marxism and capitalist-industrial societies, the left–right divide became heavily associated with economic positions:

Left (economically)

• Anti-capitalist or atleast critical of capitalism
• Supports redistribution, public ownership, welfare, labor rights
• Examples: socialism, communism, social democracy (centre left)

Right (economically)

• Pro-market, pro-capitalism
• Supports private property, deregulation, free trade
• Examples: classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism

So in modern politics, yes — the economic divide between pro-market and anti-market has become a core part of the left-right distinction.

Which wouldn’t contradict the definitions from the past because capitalism is a hierarchical system, and Marxism seeks to abolish class hierarchy. So the core sentiment is still right

If you look at it from a purely market/economic focused lens then yes you’re right wing if you are pro capitalism.

I do think that the main problem here is that The typical/normalised American classification of what left and right wing is less economical which don’t really make sense to begin with. It’s basically progressive social ideas vs conservative social ideas with similar economics - that’s it. In Turkey left wing is considered secular nationalist kemalism and right wing is neo Ottoman Islamism. Which is similar. But imo from a market perspective both of these sides are just the left and the right within the right wing. And I think it’s not one way without the another if you really push socially progressive ideas then it would lead to leftist economics and vice versa

Andre Jaquet

1y

great response
first of all, just because your economically right leaning does not mean you are overall right leaning though. you would be ECONOMICALLY, the left right spectrum covers more than that
secondly yes the right is more associated with capitalism and the left is more associated with other things because generally the left is moreso about equality, which to the extreme of that is communism.
BUT theres levels to this because its a SPECTRUM, you can think socialism is not the answer nor communism, but also believe that theres a lot of limits on capitalism aswell and not just fully buy into an extreme form of it, right, but its not simply a thing of "well i dont think the us should become socialist or communist" = you are right wing. u can believe restricted capitalism will have the best outcome. as you said by the way, you dont necessarily have to be anti capitalist you can be critical of capitalism. someone can be critical of capitalisms flaws while also believing its still the best option of the three, that person wouldnt be right wing.
thirdly just because thats turkey's way of determining it, doesnt mean necessarily its the right one. I would disagree that your economic position solely is the determiner of where you are on that spectrum, its much more broad and less specific than that.

Andre Jaquet

1y

leftists think being a leftist = being left wing as if it isnt quite extreme on the spectrum. like bro, thats not what right and left wing means. by that logic, barely anyone ever has been left wing.
as if capitalism = right wing if ur a fan of capitalism ur right wing lmfao so silly
news flash most of the left wing historicallly doesnt support socialism in america yall r a minority of the population

xxxkiraxxx

1y

· edited

I’mma try to make you less confused.

The terms “left” and “right” come from the French Revolution (late 18th century). In the French National Assembly:

Those who sat on the left supported radical change, egalitarianism, and often opposed monarchy and privilege.

Those on the right supported the monarchy, tradition, and hierarchy.

Originally, it was more about social and political order than strict economics.

BUT

When it comes to modern usage (especially 19th century - 20th century and onward), especially with the rise of Marxism and capitalist-industrial societies, the left–right divide became heavily associated with economic positions:

Left (economically)

• Anti-capitalist or atleast critical of capitalism
• Supports redistribution, public ownership, welfare, labor rights
• Examples: socialism, communism, social democracy (centre left)

Right (economically)

• Pro-market, pro-capitalism
• Supports private property, deregulation, free trade
• Examples: classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism

So in modern politics, yes — the economic divide between pro-market and anti-market has become a core part of the left-right distinction.

Which wouldn’t contradict the definitions from the past because capitalism is a hierarchical system, and Marxism seeks to abolish class hierarchy. So the core sentiment is still right

If you look at it from a purely market/economic focused lens then yes you’re right wing if you are pro capitalism.

I do think that the main problem here is that The typical/normalised American classification of what left and right wing is less economical which don’t really make sense to begin with. It’s basically progressive social ideas vs conservative social ideas with similar economics - that’s it. In Turkey left wing is considered secular nationalist kemalism and right wing is neo Ottoman Islamism. Which is similar. But imo from a market perspective both of these sides are just the left and the right within the right wing. And I think it’s not one way without the another if you really push socially progressive ideas then it would lead to leftist economics and vice versa

xxxkiraxxx

1y

I think it goes hand by hand, a right wing economic system compliments and leads to these f***ed up social positions. Like @insertcoolnamehere said how can a system based on this class hierarchy lead to equality? What are the examples?

"Restricted capitalism" would be something like social democracy or the nordic model which I’d classify as the centre left to centre depending on the execution since it’s a mix of both economic system. I live in a social democracy btw and it also has its issues but that’s besides what we discuss here. I do think it’s better than what Americans have to deal with fs.

I didn’t say that turkey’s way of determining it is right But you didn’t read it correctly it’s okay. I meant that it’s similar to how Americans view it and that they both make it illogical or more wishy washy imo by putting economics in the background and social positions in the front. This is just about everyday convos & how media describes these positions tho cause academics do know how to differentiate fs.

But I generally think it’s better to say "I’m a socialist, I’m libertarian, I’m a social democrat" than just basic left & right talk. The ladder Leads to s*** like this in the thread lol.

If you wanna learn more about socialist s*** just ask us we can recommend you some books.

Andre Jaquet

1y

ah my bad for misreading.
yea thats very fair points, real s***. Im just saying though that again whether you think one leads to the other right, at the end of the day IF we are to adopt and classify people as right or left wing, usually we use left and right wing to determine a persons whole position right, its loaded. So we generally can say "oh im economically right leaning" but if they are left wing on literally everything else, we wouldnt generally classify them as right wing. And as you said, there are ways you can be pro a dif form of capitalism, and still be economically center left.
thats essentially all i was saying. saying someone is right wing esp in america is not just saying someone is economically right leaning, it comes with a whole lot of other stuff. to be right wing as a whole you need to be right wing socially aswell. left wing is a very broad group of people
id say most people on the left wing, are socially left wing but economically around the center, usually center left or center.
I also agree its not the best way to accurately describe yourself lol but thats also why using just whether someone is economically center, center left, or center right to say whether they r right wing as a whole kinda contradicts the whole use people usually use that spectrum for. if your right wing that means you are more right wign than left, in economics and social issues etc etc. we dont determine whether someone is left or right wing purely based on their economic position unless it is to an extreme, most left wing people are socially left wing and either center or left center or in some cases right center in their economic views.
you may believe that that system leads to f***ed up s***, but others would argue it doesnt, if you believe that isnt the case thats a dif of opinion whether you disagree or not you agree your focus is progress and equality.
someone can believe in regulated capitalism, there isnt necessarily economic equality obviously but people can meet their basic needs if they work and that they have things such as equal rights, they are treated equally. there will always be some level of equality and someone thats more against socialism would argue that the level of equality that socialism strives for leads to everyone being equally lower, and that some level of inequality is necessary for exceptionalism. their priority is still equality socially, equality in terms of rights, and that everyone is atleast equal in terms of being able to sustain themselves, but that inequality to an extent is necessary for multiple things even outside of just peoples conditions, but perhaps for the sustainability of the country or market, the production of art, etc. you can disagree of course and you probably will, im not here to convicne you of capitalism, but the values of: we want the bottom line to be taken care of, we want social equality, we want equality and we oppose certain socail hierarchies. you can either oppose hierarchy as a whole, icnluding any level of it economically, or you can oppose that there isnt enough equality of opportunity for marginalized people. that would be a center left view where yes you say inequality is an inveitability for society to prosper, but that there are limits to how much that inequality should be. one could argue inequality is inevitable but we have systems in place we should use to stave off inequality that is too extreme, with welfare social programs etc etc.

so yea as a left winger economically you could say you want total equality economically yes but you could also still accept some level of inequality while advocating for systems to make that inequality reasonable and not leave people starving while still contributing. canada is generally considered a capitalist country with a mixed economy for example. most of the businesses are privately owned, class definetely exists, it operates in international trade and investment, market forces say how much s*** costs, but they have social programs to provide guardrails and are socially left wing. its still capitalist though. theres still a level of inequality. you can advocate for that stuff in the us, but still think there isnt a problem with it staying capitalist. that wouldnt make you right wing. you still think it should be a capitalist country. to tie it to the og post, you can also still like buying expensive s***, consuming, and the idea of having wealth, that doesnt make you right wing. it cant be either your left wing for preaching totally equality on everything or your right wing for preaching any level of inequality, which i think you probably agree with me on. its more nuanced than that, and its an imbalanced view on things to say otherwise.

also for what @Synopsis said yes conservatism means "uphold" but also if you had a socialist system in place of course you would want to maintain that status quo left wing doesnt mean just break anything thats there, its just "we can improve things, we should look to the future to make things better" whether thats socially or economically. liberalism in the us is usually social liberalism, which focuses more on a mixed economy, welfare, social justice, etc, to be integrated into the capitalist USA, unlike classical liberals. most of the "liberals" in the us, are that .cuz usually when europe refers to liberalism, its closer to classical liberalism.
BUT we will argue that part all day because even poli sci majors will f***ing debate it endlessly, so i dont really care to die on the liberal hill lol

Andre Jaquet

1y

ah my bad for misreading.
yea thats very fair points, real s***. Im just saying though that again whether you think one leads to the other right, at the end of the day IF we are to adopt and classify people as right or left wing, usually we use left and right wing to determine a persons whole position right, its loaded. So we generally can say "oh im economically right leaning" but if they are left wing on literally everything else, we wouldnt generally classify them as right wing. And as you said, there are ways you can be pro a dif form of capitalism, and still be economically center left.
thats essentially all i was saying. saying someone is right wing esp in america is not just saying someone is economically right leaning, it comes with a whole lot of other stuff. to be right wing as a whole you need to be right wing socially aswell. left wing is a very broad group of people
id say most people on the left wing, are socially left wing but economically around the center, usually center left or center.
I also agree its not the best way to accurately describe yourself lol but thats also why using just whether someone is economically center, center left, or center right to say whether they r right wing as a whole kinda contradicts the whole use people usually use that spectrum for. if your right wing that means you are more right wign than left, in economics and social issues etc etc. we dont determine whether someone is left or right wing purely based on their economic position unless it is to an extreme, most left wing people are socially left wing and either center or left center or in some cases right center in their economic views.
you may believe that that system leads to f***ed up s***, but others would argue it doesnt, if you believe that isnt the case thats a dif of opinion whether you disagree or not you agree your focus is progress and equality.
someone can believe in regulated capitalism, there isnt necessarily economic equality obviously but people can meet their basic needs if they work and that they have things such as equal rights, they are treated equally. there will always be some level of equality and someone thats more against socialism would argue that the level of equality that socialism strives for leads to everyone being equally lower, and that some level of inequality is necessary for exceptionalism. their priority is still equality socially, equality in terms of rights, and that everyone is atleast equal in terms of being able to sustain themselves, but that inequality to an extent is necessary for multiple things even outside of just peoples conditions, but perhaps for the sustainability of the country or market, the production of art, etc. you can disagree of course and you probably will, im not here to convicne you of capitalism, but the values of: we want the bottom line to be taken care of, we want social equality, we want equality and we oppose certain socail hierarchies. you can either oppose hierarchy as a whole, icnluding any level of it economically, or you can oppose that there isnt enough equality of opportunity for marginalized people. that would be a center left view where yes you say inequality is an inveitability for society to prosper, but that there are limits to how much that inequality should be. one could argue inequality is inevitable but we have systems in place we should use to stave off inequality that is too extreme, with welfare social programs etc etc.

so yea as a left winger economically you could say you want total equality economically yes but you could also still accept some level of inequality while advocating for systems to make that inequality reasonable and not leave people starving while still contributing. canada is generally considered a capitalist country with a mixed economy for example. most of the businesses are privately owned, class definetely exists, it operates in international trade and investment, market forces say how much s*** costs, but they have social programs to provide guardrails and are socially left wing. its still capitalist though. theres still a level of inequality. you can advocate for that stuff in the us, but still think there isnt a problem with it staying capitalist. that wouldnt make you right wing. you still think it should be a capitalist country. to tie it to the og post, you can also still like buying expensive s***, consuming, and the idea of having wealth, that doesnt make you right wing. it cant be either your left wing for preaching totally equality on everything or your right wing for preaching any level of inequality, which i think you probably agree with me on. its more nuanced than that, and its an imbalanced view on things to say otherwise.

also for what @Synopsis said yes conservatism means "uphold" but also if you had a socialist system in place of course you would want to maintain that status quo left wing doesnt mean just break anything thats there, its just "we can improve things, we should look to the future to make things better" whether thats socially or economically. liberalism in the us is usually social liberalism, which focuses more on a mixed economy, welfare, social justice, etc, to be integrated into the capitalist USA, unlike classical liberals. most of the "liberals" in the us, are that .cuz usually when europe refers to liberalism, its closer to classical liberalism.
BUT we will argue that part all day because even poli sci majors will f***ing debate it endlessly, so i dont really care to die on the liberal hill lol