Sisera: So what does that mean then? You believe rich people are inherently oppressors who don’t deserve rights but then White men are okay?
Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all. Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors.
Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies. Most of them are oppressors, of course. Don’t you even understand class politics or the nature of capitalism at all.
Those rich people who are pursuing their economic self interests in the class war, well of course they are our oppressors. The oppressors of me and mine anyway. I suppose they see us as oppressors. Marxist theory doesn’t say that anyway. It just says that when the rich pursue their self interests in the class war, everyone who’s not rich gets fucked. You want to call that oppression? You are welcome to. If you side with the rich, you are an idiot. Why would you side with your class enemies?
The rich are our class enemies. Does that mean they oppress us? I dunno. When they’re in power, they screw us over. All of the rich hate democracy, lie like rugs, and support violence, murder, terror, genocide, coups, and dictatorships anywhere the people take power.
Personally, I think all conservatives and reactionaries are pure filth. I wish they would all drop dead tomorrow. That way they would be where they belong: in graves. They’re nothing but pure garbage. Show me a reactionary or conservative anywhere on Earth that’s actually a human and not a lying, sadistic, murderous piece of scum. There aren’t any!
In a democratic society, of course the rich get their rights, but they abuse the fuck out of them, and anytime they people take power, the rich start using violence, coups, death squads, rioting, judicial and legislative coups, etc. to get their way. We let the rich take power all the time. They won’t let us take power at all. I’m glad the Chinese Communists took away the rights of the reactionaries.
Look what would happen if they had rights? See Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Honduras, Haiti, Brazil, Paraguay, Colombia, Nicaragua, Indonesia, Philippines? That’s what happens when you give the rich and the reactionaries any rights at all. Right now they would be burning China to the ground like they are doing to Venezuela and Nicaragua because they are furious that a people’s government got put in.
If that’s the way they are always, always, always going to act, why give them rights? So they can destroy your country and take down any democratically elected government they don’t believe in?
They try to destroy by antidemocratic means any people’s or popular government any time it gets in.
And when they take power themselves, they usually put in a dictatorship.
This is what happens if they don’t get their way and the people elect a democratically elected people’s government:
Attempted coups by street violence: Nicaragua, Ukraine, Syria, and Thailand.
Attempted coups by economic warfare: Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Nicaragua.
Coups by legislative means: Paraguay and Brazil.
Attempted legislative coup: Venezuela.
Coups by judicial means: Brazil.
Coups by direct overthrow of the state: Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, and Egypt.
Attempted coups by direct overthrow of the state: Ecuador and Bolivia.
Coup by insurgency: Haiti.
Attempted coup by insurgency: Syria.
Coups by direct invasion: Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Panama, Libya, and Grenada.
This is what happens every time they get into power, especially if they take over a people’s government:
Right-wing death squad authoritarian regime installed: Honduras*, El Salvador, Argentina, Brazil*, Guatemala*, Chile, Philippines*, Uruguay, Bolivia, Indonesia*, and Ukraine*.
No I don’t have a problem taking away rights from reactionary fucks! Why should we give them rights? Give me one reason! One! One reason!
9 thoughts on “Should the Rich and the Reactionaries Be Given Rights?”
Okay here is one reason. Some reactionaries and conservatives (like me) are intelligent and well meaning. We just disagree with you about some things that reasonable people have always disagreed about. If we don’t have the right to publicly express our reasons for disagreement the quality of discourse suffers, and there is a risk that leftist extremists will oppress everyone else. As actually happened in many leftist regimes where we were denied rights. If you believe in democracy this should be a real concern.
One could also argue that we have certain rights that must be respected just because we are also members of society who have to bear its burdens, or just because even right wingers have the inherent rights of other people. But maybe those other reasons wouldn’t mean much to you?
Yeah but see you support coups. You support coups of all sorts. You oppose and hate democracy.
See, you support the opposition in Venezuela, right? You support the opposition in Nicaragua, right? You support the coups in Paraguay, Chile, Venezuela, Honduras, Brazil, right?
You support the rightwing death squad dictatorships everywhere on Earth, right?
I am willing to give you rights here because you are not that dangerous YET, but in a lot of countries I think you need to have your rights curtailed because 0% of you support democracy and you all support antidemocratic means of overthrowing any government you don’t like.
I mean why should people like you be given rights in Latin America where people like you have zero respect for democracy and try to overthrow every government you don’t like by antidemocratic means.
I am not advocating taking away your rights simply because you promote conservatism or even reaction. I want to take your rights away because your hatred for democracy is a menace.
Tell me what you advocate. You hate democracy right? You want to dismantle it every time it goes against you, right?
Where were you denied your rights? Give me some non-Communist examples.
The CIA’s coups have been out of control for decades, agreed.
But you support minority rule governments in the Middle East (Saddam Hussein, certainly and possibly Assad who is at least an ethnic minority. Hezbollah operated for years in a largely Christian country, etc.) because the alternative would mean Americans die in terror attacks from those countries becoming terror bases.
I don’t know that you could argue any Latin American oligarchy was more brutal than Saddam Hussein.
So you just value certain American interests that are different than his.
I think there is a problem for free speech with some Left regimes. The article discusses my issues with Vietnam’s suppression of leftwing protesters. But there are 1,000 protests a day in China. As long as the state is open to the needs and desires of the people, it should not be a problem. But even leftwing governments need a free press to guard against corruption, abuses of power, etc.
“An orginaztion of professional revolutionaries highly skilled in the art of combating the political police. (Lenin’s creation of the Communist party, “What is to be done”,1902).
PS… I think you’re hasty conflating reactionaries, conservatives and people who seek the interests of the rich. In fact conservatives have often been critical of capitalism and the elites. Right now any aware right winger understands that capitalists are totally against us; they obviously don’t want intact normal families, ethnic identity for the majority, healthy male identity, etc. They are on the side of the cultmarx left, not tradition.
Well if you can show me some conservatives like that, I might be ok with them. I support conservatives like Putin, Orban, Marie Le Pen, the Polish government. I support religious conservatives such as Muslims and conservative Christians. I might support some Libertarians.
Do these conservatives you talk about here support democracy and the peaceful road to power. Will they allow a leftwing government to take power and not try to overthrow it undemocratically.
The conservatives who are bad are economic conservatives, frankly, capitalists. I see why Stalin gave them bullets. Capitalists never support democracy. Any time a leftwing government comes in, capitalists try to overthrow it undemocratically.
And the rich never support democracy ever. They simply don’t believe in it. They know that allowed enough democracy, in general the masses will never support the economic project of the rich. Their solultion to that is oppose democracy itself.
If that is all your conservatism is, nationalism, traditionalism or social conservatism, you are ok with me. I think these type of conservatives are often ok with democracy too. I don’t see them using undemocratic means to overthrow the state anytime a government they don’t like comes in. They just suck it up and try to take power peacefully.
I will say that in general, reactionaries are completely opposed to democracy. Read the Wikipedia article to see that.
I should have specified that it’s economic conservatives that are the plague in general.
Thanks for your comment and welcome to the site. You have a home here with us.
Thanks Robert. I appreciate the site, and it’s nice to feel welcome.
Obviously one problem in discussing this is that terms like ‘left’ and ‘right’ or ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have been given all kinds of different meanings. If economic conservatism is identified with free market ideology then I’m pretty ambivalent about that, at best. And if it’s identified with support for whatever this internationalist economic system is that we have now, I’m against it. I find it very weird that people who are conservative about social and cultural issues often support “economic conservatism” of that kind. It’s so clear that these things are incompatible! Anyway I certainly have no problem with socialism per se. I would only disagree with certain versions, or cases where I believe socialism ends up being destructive of healthy families and cultures (in much the same way that capitalism can be).
As for democracy I’m not sure what I think about it. I think I’m a reactionary to the extent that I don’t believe that democracy, or any other specific system or procedure, is always good or always essential to a good society. My sense is that some democracies or kinds of democracy are fine, while others are really bad. It all depends on some many factors aside from the system or procedure itself. I do want a society where the interests of most people, including the poor, are taken into account fairly. But I don’t see any reason why that could never happen in a non-democratic state. Or, more precisely, for anything that’s good about some democracies, I don’t see why certain non-democratic regimes couldn’t also have those good things; it would all depend on other factors such as the culture and history of the people, their typical behavior and beliefs, etc. So I guess I’d support coups against democratic regimes in some cases–though things would have to be pretty bad–and also against non-democratic regimes in some cases. I don’t think coups are always bad. (In fact, that’s one thing that seems silly about a lot of rigid ‘conservative’ ideology–the wish to preserve order and the status quo no matter how terrible it’s become…)
You say the rich don’t support democracy. I wonder if that’s true. Maybe they don’t support the ideal of democracy, for the reasons you mentioned. But, again, bearing in mind the looseness of terminology here, they sure do seem to support systems that we normally call “democratic”. Is the US a democracy in your view? Are England or Ireland or Canada democracies? If so, then I don’t agree that the rich never want democracy. My sense is that they long ago figured out how to manipulate these kinds of systems to get the results they want. They manage the perceptions and values of the masses so that they always end up “freely choosing” the same garbage that the elites wanted all along. A good question is whether this is an inevitable feature of democracy. (I don’t know the answer.) It could be that in any feasible form of democracy, no matter how close it gets to the ideal, you end up with powerful interests rigging the process to maximize their own wealth and power. And I don’t like that, because I want the interests of ordinary people to be taken into account. Ironically, then, I’m skeptical about many forms of democracy because I think the masses deserve to have a say.
So I’d be against democracy in cases where ‘democratic’ systems are hijacked by elites and used against the people. That’s what’s happening in most of the western world, I’d say. Not to say I’d support a coup in this situation–and certainly not if the point of the coup was to install an even more extreme form of exploitation. But I’m not entirely sure what to say about democracy. I think the reactionary critique has merit. (But then, don’t communists also criticize democracy for roughly similar reasons?)
Yes, of course, and that explains why Cuba is not democratic. Also, it explains, the opposite – why Pinochet’s Chile was not democratic.