• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Is Being Anti-War a Left Wing Position?

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
985
503
540
An interesting spinoff mainly between @DunDunDunpachi and @Rentahamster was threatening to derail another thread, but I think it's worth its own discussion. The context is that Tulsi Gabbard was attacked as being Right Wing because of her anti-war foreign policies, which is clown world material. I'll give it a little historical and theoretical analysis, though.

In theory, it's left wing to apply a Marx-inspired class analysis. The implication for war is that wars are a distraction. The real struggle should be the struggle of the proletariat to throw off their oppressors. When nations get their working-class people to go fight working-class people from another country, they are being fooled into working against their own interest. Nationalism should be replaced by class-consciousness, and countries shouldn't fight other countries. This seems to be a lot of the historical theoretical underpinnings of left wing opposition to war. The left shifted that same style of analysis to race and gender. The same result holds, though. We shouldn't go to war as a nation against other nations. Instead, as Muhammed Ali famously said, "The Viet-Cong never called me a n****er."

In practice, though, the left wing has often been persuaded to go to war, in a variety of ways. FDR led the US into WWII, seemingly out of personal disgust towards Hitler, hatred of Nazism, and sympathy towards Churchill and Stalin (He intentionally provoked Japan to attack the the US to get the public behind the war). Truman, who reversed FDR's friendly relationship with Stalin, started the Cold War and US involvement in the Korean War. JFK and LBJ started and escalated the war in Vietnam as a continuation of the Cold War. Bill Clinton led US intervention in smaller conflicts like Bosnia and Somalia, partly out of humanitarian reasons (rumored to also be distractions from his personal scandals). Obama wound down the war in Iraq but escalated the war in Afghanistan, and allowed Hillary Clinton to lead the intervention that destroyed Libya. In each of those cases, not only did the left wing champion the war, but their leadership also kept left wing anti-war voices quiet (The Vietnam War is the exception; anti-war leftists were virtually MIA during Obama's presidency).

In theory, the right wing is believed to be more pro-war. They tend to be more nationalistic, as opposed to viewing the world through race/class/gender. Nationalism is easy to invoke when there is an enemy to make people hate and fear. The large corporations of the military-industrial complex exert influence in a variety of ways, from campaign contributions to friendly think tanks, that often are more pronounced on the right. There is also the complicated issue of many Christians - most of whom vote Republican - believing strongly in siding with Israel, which makes them amenable to those who want wars that are perceived to be in Israels' interests. Israel would be threatened by having strong and united potential enemies around them; they are less threatened by Iraq and Syria now that they are warn-torn wastelands, and a war with Iran would do the same to them.

In practice, though, there have long been strong anti war voices on the right. What's now called the "Old Right" - who opposed FDR, the New Deal, and getting involved in WWII - were largely swept away after Pearl Harbor. The right might have gone back towards an "isolationist" foreign policy once WWII ended, but the were convinced through the efforts of people like William F. Buckley that they needed to fight the Cold War against communism first. Once communism was defeated, then they could enjoy peace and freedom. Of course, once the Cold War ended, it took about 5 minutes to start looking for other threats. 9/11, like Pearl Harbor before it, silenced most anti-war voices for awhile. But as the War on Terror drags on, and the costs mount, public opposition to war is getting stronger. This is particularly true among the libertarian wing. Ron Paul inspired many people on the right to be completely against interventionist foreign policy.

Much of this right wing opposition to war was personified in the great Justin Raimondo, who just passed away. He co-founded antiwar.com, which is still going strong to this day. He was inspired by the Old Right, became a libertarian, and focused his efforts on the Republican and Libertarian parties, but was also published in left-wing Mother Jones. Justin Raimondo was also the biographer of Murray Rothbard, another libertarian who reached out to both left and right to find allies in opposing war. And that leads us to Tom Woods, a sort of protege of Rothbard, who co-edited "We Who Dared Say No to War: American Antiwar Writing from 1812 to Now" along with left wing anti-war professor Murray Polsner.

In the end, I don't think I could call being either for or against war a partisan issue. The public tends to oppose war, although most can be persuaded by propaganda or anger at an attack to go along for awhile. My sense is that anti-war voters helped push Trump over the top in the last election, since Hillary is an aggressive Hawk. If someone like Tulsi were nominated, she'd draw anti-war voters from the center and right and might have a stronger chance against Trump than anyone else. It doesn't follow, though, that she's right wing for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ornlu

juliotendo

Gold Member
Jan 5, 2019
1,030
1,838
535
Mexico
Being against war isn’t an issue of left or right. Wars are terrible but can sometimes be necessary given the circumstances.

There are just wars and unjust wars.

The Second World War was a just and necessary war.

The Vietnam war was an unjust war and unnecessary.

It all depends.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panda1 and bad guy

monegames

Member
Sep 26, 2014
2,175
1,742
530
It isn't left or right. But even Vox claims it is conservative.

When Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) was first elected to Congress in 2012 amid an ocean of positive press, the Iraq War veteran seemed like a sure thing for a 2020 presidential run. But her 2020 campaign has, so far, been a nearly complete nonstarter — averaging under 1 percent in national polls.

That’s because the onetime progressive star has alienated many of her early supporters over her conservative stances on Islam and foreign wars.
 

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
5,449
3,922
735
I'll give you WW1, but when Nazi Germany started attacking neighboring countries and killing innocents by the millions, there's a clear justification to wage war against them and their allies.
It should have never gotten to that point in the first place. Germany should have been kept in check. I'm not wrong in calling it a senseless war.
 

DKehoe

Gold Member
Jun 19, 2007
5,008
706
1,235
Not really. War is more of a way for people to achieve what they want. It's the tool for people to achieve their ideology, not the ideology itself.

I guess you could argue that it's part of fascism and the strain of communism that advocates for permanent revolution. But those being opposite ends of the spectrum would suggest it's not tied to one particular side.
 

Riven326

Member
Mar 25, 2019
806
743
310
United States
It should have never gotten to that point in the first place. Germany should have been kept in check. I'm not wrong in calling it a senseless war.
The war happened because of the other countries trying to keep Germany in check.

No, OP. Well, there was a time when it was a left wing policy. Perception maybe. During the Bush years. Not so much these days. More of a right wing position now. Excluding Bolton and others.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
17,828
4,051
695
Brampton, Ontario
I'll give you WW1, but when Nazi Germany started attacking neighboring countries and killing innocents by the millions, there's a clear justification to wage war against them and their allies.
We should have also declared war on the Soviets.

They had the first alliance with Nazi Germany and they too were invading and killing innocents by the millions.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,926
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
Religious pacifism has been a thing in the West for centuries. Often, the established government would persecute and kill Christians who went against the king's rally for war.

Cyprian of Carthage, Hippolytus of Rome, William Lloyd Garrison, Ammon Hennacy, Menno Simmons, Charles Spurgeon, George Fox, and Leo Tolstoy (most people only recognize the final name) all spoke up against the use of military force in the name of Christian morality long before hippies and journalists protested Vietnam atrocities.

The Molokans, the Quakers, the Anabaptists, the Mennonites... the list goes on of Christian groups who openly spoke out against war, often to their harm.

@Rentahamster was unable to demonstrate that it was inherent to the Left in the other thread, and I'm sure they'll still be unable to demonstrate it in this thread. Perhaps all they need is some "deep introspection" to find an argument.
 

iamblades

Member
Mar 5, 2007
9,190
172
1,095
^^

It's progressive vs. conservative(in the Burkean sense of the word), not left vs right in this particular area. The progressives were and are huge fans of war, as it was the best way to grow the state. Which is why being anti-war should be the number one priority of every libertarian.

Being anti-war is the default conservative position, and the American 'right'(remember that the current party polarization is a relatively recent phenomenon, so you had progressive republicans and conservative democrats) has tended to be anti war, with the notable exception of the neocons, who of course were progressives who lost their home after the leftist radicals took over their position(who were anti-war, but as you mentioned for other reasons, like viewing it as a distraction from the real issues, or just wishing for the other side to win :p).

Wilsonian/Rooseveltian progressivism has always been hawkish though, you could argue it was the central tenet of the ideology. Modern progressives may not see that they have much in common with racist white men like the early progressives, but if your ideology is based on the perfection of man and society into a utopian collective greater good, warfare is inevitable.

Even the explicitly marxist societies, which as you mentioned viewed war as a distraction from the issues of the working class were some of history's worst war mongers in practice, because under such an ideology any disagreement can only be remedied by war.
 
Last edited:

Bolivar687

Member
Jun 13, 2014
4,553
1,969
535
USA
I think what's happening here specifically is that withdrawl from foreign engagements is lambasted as reactionary isolationism. Since Syria is a proxy battleground for Russia and Iran, leaving Syria is construed as Trump placating Putin. Tulsi spent time on the ground there, met with Assad, and came to the conclusion that the rebels we were supporting verge too close to terror and Islamism. This is one of the main reasons she gets labeled as a Putin Puppet.

When I was younger, we were told that Intervention was a conservative issue and all my Democratic icons were simply tricked into the Iraq authorization of force. In reality, when you surveil history as @AaronB did in the OP, foreign intervention was dictated by bipartisan junta.

There's a lot more to be said about that but I'm interested in hearing what @appaws has to say about it from the paleo perspective. I've recently been studying American conservatism's history over the last few decades and it's interesting seeing what different factions advocated, which ones have been vindicated and which ones are fighting for their survival after their own disastrous decisionmaking.
 
Last edited:

Tajaz2426

Member
Jan 20, 2017
247
19
270
Beaufort, SC
It should be a moral issue, not a political one. I served in Iraq and Afghanistan and I have always been against war, unless their is no option and people are suffering needlessly. Combat is ugly, friends lose their lives, you come home racked with guilt, broken down mentally and physically, then you do it all over again. There is a price to be paid when it comes to war, not just on the men and women who fight it, but society changes right along with them. We should never rush into taking lives, they are a very special commodity.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
985
503
540
I think what's happening here specifically is that withdrawl from foreign engagements is lambasted as reactionary isolationism. Since Syria is a proxy battleground for Russia and Iran, leaving Syria is construed as Trump placating Putin. Tulsi spent time on the ground there, met with Assad, and came to the conclusion that the rebels we were supporting verge too close to terror and Islamism. This is one of the main reasons she gets labeled as a Putin Puppet.

When I was younger, we were told that Intervention was a conservative issue and all my Democratic icons were simply tricked into the Iraq authorization of force. In reality, when you surveil history as @AaronB did in the OP, foreign intervention was dictated by bipartisan junta.

There's a lot more to be said about that but I'm interested in hearing what @appaws has to say about it from the paleo perspective. I've recently been studying American conservatism's history over the last few decades and it's interesting seeing what different factions advocated, which ones have been vindicated and which ones are fighting for their survival after their own disastrous decisionmaking.
^^

It's progressive vs. conservative(in the Burkean sense of the word), not left vs right in this particular area. The progressives were and are huge fans of war, as it was the best way to grow the state. Which is why being anti-war should be the number one priority of every libertarian.

Being anti-war is the default conservative position, and the American 'right'(remember that the current party polarization is a relatively recent phenomenon, so you had progressive republicans and conservative democrats) has tended to be anti war, with the notable exception of the neocons, who of course were progressives who lost their home after the leftist radicals took over their position(who were anti-war, but as you mentioned for other reasons, like viewing it as a distraction from the real issues, or just wishing for the other side to win :p).

Wilsonian/Rooseveltian progressivism has always been hawkish though, you could argue it was the central tenet of the ideology. Modern progressives may not see that they have much in common with racist white men like the early progressives, but if your ideology is based on the perfection of man and society into a utopian collective greater good, warfare is inevitable.

Even the explicitly marxist societies, which as you mentioned viewed war as a distraction from the issues of the working class were some of history's worst war mongers in practice, because under such an ideology any disagreement can only be remedied by war.
I didn't go as far back as World War I (the OP is already pushing into tl;dr territory), but one of the best articles I've ever read is "World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals" by Murray Rothbard. He makes a strong case that the progressive movement wasn't ended by World War I - it became the establishment bureaucracy. The war was an opportunity to regulate the economy, end laissez-faire, institute revolutionary social reforms, and generally use the power of the federal government to achieve all their domestic social aims. Progressives who opposed the war were a tiny minority.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Bolivar687

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
4,446
260
380
UK
There are multiple reasons to be for and against war that arise from both political/philosophical worldviews.

Given that war is a universal constant in every civilisation and culture that's existed, and even practiced by chimpanzees, it's safe to say it's a natural behavior for our species, and like so many things we do naturally that have massively negative consequences if you're trying to have a successful and stable civilisation, morals and cultural norms arise to manage and mitigate it. It should be no surprise the support of war really is a 'it depends on the circumstances' type of stance for pretty much every political viewpoint.
 

Teslerum

Member
Nov 29, 2018
437
573
320
It should have never gotten to that point in the first place. Germany should have been kept in check. I'm not wrong in calling it a senseless war.
... bit off topic but what does *kept in check* here mean?

Because all the other countries keeping germany *in check* and treating them like dogshit (especially france) post WW1 was what lead to Hitlers election in the first place.

On Topic: War in general is unjust and shouldn't happen. But, we need to make a distinction here about getting involved in a war and starting one. Not the same thing.
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,815
5,786
570
i want to say it is a left wing position to be anti-war but there is a lot of confusion between "left wing" and "liberal". in the US "liberal" is the mainstream Dem party, which has pursued war with just as much fervor as the right.

there is a reason mainstream media is promoting a specific idea of left wing. all Dem candidates have pledged free health care for illegal immigrants yet there are really only very few anti war candidates. even though the Iraq War had the largest mass protests in history, our leaders ignored it entirely. they don't want anti-war to be in ANY political wing.

in the current clown world climate of reactionary politics, "the left" is just defined as "anti-Trump", so if Trump becomes anti-war, they become pro, as we already have seen several times.
 

dionysus

Yaldog
May 12, 2007
6,538
401
1,250
Texaa
It isn't left or right. Certain ideologies may have an affinity towards being pro-war or anti-war, in practice the practitioners of the ideologies are rarely intellectually consistent. You would think being Nationalist would make one warlike, but Trump's brand of nationalism is not (at least compared to the Democrat platform and Neo-Con/Bush foreign policy. I realize compared to other countries' Overton windows Trump would still be wildly interventionist.) Socialists should also ideologically be more pacifist, but in practice Socialist governments are highly interventionist.

In the US, whichever party in power tends to be pro-interventionist, and the minority party tends to call for restraint., ideology doesn't come into it. Since 9/11 though, pretty much all parties have been interventionist with people just arguing around the unimportant details. Take Syria for example, almost no politicians opposed intervention in Syria. The arguments were over which piece-of-shit terrorist group we should be supporting and how many fictitious boots on the ground the government would acknowledge. (We always had boots on the ground, it was more an argument over would we acknowledge or it keep up the fiction that they were trainers and not directly involved in fighting.)
 
Last edited:

Solaris

formerly Virex
Jan 26, 2018
1,827
3,518
750
South Africa
Being anti-war isn't left or right thing. Being anti-war is common sense. But too many people seems to be lacking that on the left and right.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: #Phonepunk#

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
139
134
475
If the winners of WW1 didn't make bad decisions about how they handled WW1 we might not have had a WW2.


If you are for humanity you should be against war. We look to certain events of WW2 and we say it was right and just. What was good about the Dresden firebombings or the rape of Berlin? There is no war without war crimes. It is only the victor after the fact that gets to rewrite history so that they did nothing wrong, and the other side was only monsters.


Being anti-war is a dangerous position to the establishment. It is through war that they reshape the world to be a more globalist place. Pro-war may have once been a rightwing position when it was thought that through selective wars we could further our own interests and make the a world stable place and free for capitalism/democracy. I think that's not the case anymore, and that it is in fact a left wing position. Every time they topple a government they create chaos, and more refugees, and while doing so they get to send a lot of our "toxic males" off to die, and a few of the "toxic women" too. After all who would join a right wing organization like the military other than those that are toxic?


War also has the benefit of being a form of population control. If you are worried about overpopulation you should love war. In fact lets have a war with China no Nukes, let's do something like the D Day invasion on some beach in China, have hundreds of thousands of 18 year old boys and girls running at machine gun nests.


If you are leftwing or rightwing you should be against war. Lately it seems like the left is more excited about war than the right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teslerum

Rudelord

Member
Jun 11, 2013
463
223
470
No sane person wants war; but to prevent war you have to have such a big stick that nobody wants to face the consequences of getting whacked by it.
 

AaronB

Member
May 5, 2013
985
503
540
No sane person wants war; but to prevent war you have to have such a big stick that nobody wants to face the consequences of getting whacked by it.
That's a theory. It carries its own problems, though. For one thing, the people selling the sticks want you to keep buying as many as possible, so they tend to advocate hitting people with sticks.
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
139
134
475
No sane person wants war; but to prevent war you have to have such a big stick that nobody wants to face the consequences of getting whacked by it.
The US has an ocean between us and most other countries. We aren't going to be invaded by Canada or Mexico, and we could ensure that our troops won't be attacked by returning them to the US, where they could do a good job of preparing for an actual attack that will probably never come. I think we would be pretty safe if we and our intelligence agencies weren't constantly butting into everyone elses business. It's also kinda funny that we can accept a lot of immigrants from foreign countries that are our competitors economically, and who we worry we might someday be at war with. Don't you find that weird?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Off Duty Ninja

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,815
5,786
570
No sane person wants war; but to prevent war you have to have such a big stick that nobody wants to face the consequences of getting whacked by it.
this is the same "logic" that led to The Cold War, millions of deaths around the globe, propping up dictators, proxy wars, destabilizing already messy regions, as well as the dropping of a combined 7,000 nuclear bombs on the planet by both Russia and the USA (don't worry, we were just testing them! they probably didn't do anything to the atmosphere!).

this is the "Fear will keep the local system in line" way of thinking. horrible rationalizing of pre emptive strikes and stuff. no thanks.
 
Last edited:

Teletraan1

Member
May 17, 2012
5,951
2,443
670
Canada
"I am morally superior" is a left wing position delusion so they can take whatever suits that narrative to be a left wing position and apply the opposite to be the position of the opposition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zangiefy360

Zangiefy360

Member
Aug 30, 2018
824
1,372
375
They've been coasting on this reputation since the Vietnam war.

I think they are opportunistically anti-war. The big difference is they want Republican presidents to go to war as a mistake that costs them politically, while Republicans want war when it's a Republican president because they trust the war won't be fought with their arms tied behind their back.
 

Yoshi

Gold Member
May 4, 2005
14,023
2,548
1,570
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Pacifism is a position very common among lefties and I would say it is reasonable to call it a left-wing position. It is not an opinion exclusive to left-wingers though, e.g. in Germany we have a prominent right winger named Jürgen Todenhöfer (who even is on the right wing of the conservative party, so pretty staunchly right), who is a very strong proponent of pacifism.
 

Ogbert

Member
Feb 21, 2018
971
1,809
385
Pacifism is a position very common among lefties and I would say it is reasonable to call it a left-wing position.
On the subject of pacifism, here's what George Orwell had to say about it:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China.
Does a pretty good job of describing a certain left wing version of 'pacifism' i.e. Corbyn.

That said, anti-war is probably best described as a left wing movement, or at least a more 'vocal' element of the left. But there's a strong tradition of isolationism in right-wing politics too and classical liberalism.

I consider myself conservative and am entirely anti-war unless there is a clear and immediate danger to our country.
 

Teslerum

Member
Nov 29, 2018
437
573
320
By taking out Hitler early. Or around the time the Reinchstag Fire went down.
That would have done shit though to calm the situation, if not aggrevate it. We may have still ended up with a war. Sure, there may have been less atrocoties commited, but the whole thing was once again fucked up directly after WW1 not later.

I know movies, stories and whatnot always make it seem easy with No Hitler = No war.
But thats bullshit, that doesn't remove the shitshow that was the weimarer republik, that doesn't remove the megainflation, that doesn't remove france invading and occuping the ruhrgebiet from history...

For short that doesn't remove the reasons that the nazis could get into power in the first place.

Germany was suffocated to reach that point. Piling on that would have done nothing but harden the germans even more.
 

Whataburger

Milk Connoisseur
Feb 2, 2018
5,449
3,922
735
that doesn't remove france invading and occuping the ruhrgebiet from history...
Perhaps I'm remembering things wrong but weren't they there because of WWI? Because reparations? Demilitarization? Some good that did.
 
Mar 18, 2018
1,685
1,157
375
It is neither a right or left position. It is a position of self serving interventionism by a military industrial complex who have bought their way into the pockets of our political establishment when used so whimsically.

War is something we shouldn’t cheer for especially when the fucks doing it won’t be carrying out their partisan power fantasy by serving.
 
Last edited:

Cosmogony

Member
Jul 11, 2018
856
1,297
380
No.
It tends to be a left-wing position, but not exclusively.

Libertarians and, from there, all the way up to anarcho-capitalists, usually oppose war just as fiercely. ,
 

IKSTUGA

Member
Jan 9, 2019
166
117
215
It's not exclusively left-wing, but I do tend to associate right wing more with military spending and action. Personally, I'm super anti war and on the right. I'm also anti-gun, but that's fairly normal position in Europe.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
264
239
255
Does "left wing" and "right wing" even mean anything in this context? You could easily be a Left-Wing Hawk and be pro-intervention to "help the oppressed peoples of the world". Or you could be a Right-Wing Dove and be anti-intervention to "focus on strengthening our own economy".

In my opinion Left/Right Wing is terribly outdated at this point, and not useful for discourse. It means too many different things to different people.
 

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,815
5,786
570
guess it really is a bipartisan issue.

would make sense to me. most people serving in the US military are from rural Republican areas, yet that is where you also see a lot of anti-war veterans. these are people with their skin in the game who have been ignored for decades.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
12,249
21,926
1,185
USA
dunpachi.com
guess it really is a bipartisan issue.

would make sense to me. most people serving in the US military are from rural Republican areas, yet that is where you also see a lot of anti-war veterans. these are people with their skin in the game who have been ignored for decades.
The globalists become anti-interventionists. :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Hey, if even they smell change in the air, it's time to pay attention.

Then again, Soros and Koch may simply be co-opting a valid movement like they've done with the Justice Democrats and Tea Party Republicans (respectively).
 

dragonfart28

Gab Ambassador
Jun 12, 2009
4,688
444
1,025
I can see how pro war can be left wing because you are imposing authority and anti war is right wing because you are opposing authority.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
4,815
5,786
570
it's all a power grab that can be spun in any way. a giant country like the US toppling a democratically elected (but bad) leader can be spun as "standing up to authoritarians" despite it being entirely the opposite.
 

DryvBy

Member
May 10, 2009
10,747
1,009
1,300
USA
www.youtube.com
Lol, are you kidding? I've been right wing all my life and I'm anti-war. I've always been. I also understand sometimes it's a necessity that's unfortunate.

But if you think the left is anti-war, find the protestors in the street under Obama vs Bush. The new left has a problem with values and have replaced them with politics.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
718
984
395
Depends on what portion of the left wing and right wing ideologies you're referring to.

For example, right now war is a capitalist tool so neoliberals love it because it reactivates the weapon industry and with it a lot of other industries hence the economy gets dynamic with armed conflicts. Couple that with a country like the US which has a huuuuge army and weapons industry so they need to keep that working non stop 24/7 and justify the expenses otherwise you have a lot of people out of work and an economy in shambles. So in that way, and from the left-right US perspective, there's no clear division between rightwing and leftwing support to war. The establishment republicans and the establishment democrats will both be pro war and conflict because they benefit the establishment through it.

On the other hand I can see a more ideological stance for and against war on both sides. The left ideological stance against war has roots in pacifism and anti-nationalism while the right's ideological roots against war comes from the more libertarian rightwing position of being against anything the curtails personal freedom and realization and which increases the power of the state over individuals which war definitely does. The pro war positions from the left comes from the perceived necessity of the use of force to incite revolution against or authoritarian control over the capitalist and corporate system while the pro war position on the conservative right would come from also a need to keep authoritarian and ideological control against any threat towards the capitalist and conservative value system.
 

MrRogers

Member
Feb 25, 2018
189
284
300
Nope, many political ideologies are warmongers. In the modern context, globalist countries/governments, are the agitators for modern conflict, and have been since WW2 ended, were as nationalism tended to be the primary agitator beforehand. I personally believe in national isolationism on the military front, just one with a big stick that will clobber anyone that attacks it. So basically every war fought since ww2 except afghanistan, was bullshit. But afghanistan was completely fked up as well, so better to stay out of it all.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,525
1,060
1,195
Taylorsville, Ky!
I think what's happening here specifically is that withdrawl from foreign engagements is lambasted as reactionary isolationism. Since Syria is a proxy battleground for Russia and Iran, leaving Syria is construed as Trump placating Putin. Tulsi spent time on the ground there, met with Assad, and came to the conclusion that the rebels we were supporting verge too close to terror and Islamism. This is one of the main reasons she gets labeled as a Putin Puppet.

When I was younger, we were told that Intervention was a conservative issue and all my Democratic icons were simply tricked into the Iraq authorization of force. In reality, when you surveil history as @AaronB did in the OP, foreign intervention was dictated by bipartisan junta.

There's a lot more to be said about that but I'm interested in hearing what @appaws has to say about it from the paleo perspective. I've recently been studying American conservatism's history over the last few decades and it's interesting seeing what different factions advocated, which ones have been vindicated and which ones are fighting for their survival after their own disastrous decisionmaking.
I am definitely anti-war, but I am very much for having a robust and capable military.
Pacifism is a position very common among lefties and I would say it is reasonable to call it a left-wing position. It is not an opinion exclusive to left-wingers though, e.g. in Germany we have a prominent right winger named Jürgen Todenhöfer (who even is on the right wing of the conservative party, so pretty staunchly right), who is a very strong proponent of pacifism.
Sorry it took me so long to respond to this, as I have been on vacation and usually slow time at work is my GAF reading and shitposting time.

I have been a paleocon since I was 18. I worked for Buchanan for President and got my first subscription to Chronicles Magazine at that time. This was in the era after the first Gulf War, when that was not a popular position. I also read Sam Francis and believed what he said about the middle of the country, the working class, being open to an anti-interventionist message as long as it wasn't linked to a far left social agenda. I was so happy to watch Trump demolish the Zionist shills in the GOP primaries, he was like a crude, but popular and energetic version of Buchanan.

ConnorDuffy, that is the standard paleocon position. We should have the strongest military in the world, but need to use it only for defense.

Yoshi throwing in the word "pacifism" muddles things up. Paleocons are not pacificsts. Come break into my house and find out what a "pacifist" I am. I will shoot your fucking face off. Attack America, actual America not some puppet regime or illegitimate area we are occupying, and I will be in favor of removing your nation from the human race, permanently. But if you leave us alone, we should be friends and trading partners with everybody.

We have never had a "justifiable" war. But I will be honest, of course the wars of conquest of our continent, like against the Indians, or James K. Polk destroying Mexico and taking everything of any value from them. Those I would have supported. Maybe 1812, since the Brits were actually impressing American sailors, although that probably could have been handled diplomatically. But every other war, where we have sent our men to die on other continents, was bullshit.

Look at the great warmongers of history...FDR and Wilson, who purposely got us into the two most destructive wars in history, which we had no reason to be a part of. Liberals both. They believe in the state, and in using state power to impose progressive values, so you think that stops at our borders? Please. Was it Bismarck who said "war is the health of the state," or was that Napoleon. I can't remember. Anyway, he was right and that is why every actual leftist has a war monger inside him, because ultimately they believe that there are universal values that must be imposed.

The Cold War era, with militaristic "conservatives" and pacifistic "liberals" was an anomaly. Liberals were only pacifistic in the Cold War because they liked the particular enemy of that time. Look at the Roosevelt administration, fooled by every Stalinist "5 year plan" update and riddled with KGB agents. "Conservatives" were only cold warriors because the enemy happened to be Marxists. And they were overwhelmed by the lies of the Neoconservative cabal who used the Cold War as a front for a whole different agenda. Even Buchanan fell for it to an extent and was a big war monger in the Reagan and Nixon administrations.

Things are back into their regular channels now, with leftists yelling about Russia and middle America shooting down neoconservative plots to intervene in Syria. Justin Raimondo, a gay libertarian (RIP) tried to reach out to the anti-war left and even antifa types, and was rebuffed. Leftists hate to admit this, they think of themselves as rebels against some corporate/governmental/war machine. But they are actually the servants of it now, and they are paid in the constant drum beat of corporate sponsored social leftism, as long as they keep quiet about neoliberalism and internationalism their soma will be lots of corporate advertising with mixed-race couples, rainbow flags, and transsexuals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AaronB