Your actual policy positions are bog-standard Fox News views.

My question was more along the lines of 'are you using your own personal definition' which that answer now clearly seems to be yes.

Is there any group or person of note, who agrees with how you define Political Parties, which would seem to make them all on the Right with none on the left?

I think most people see this as a spectrum question, meaning you should be able to align all parties from Left to Right on a spectrum and then find the midway point (centre) between them. Thus you then have parties to the left and right of that centre point.

Despite your personal definition would you agree to this in terms of Left to Right?


Progressives .............. Dem Party (sans Progressives) ........... GOP

Its not quite that straightforward because you have left/right within paradigms, and then left right between paradigms, If you are as left as can be but still be considered broadly a neo liberal, you are still to the right of Marxist because the marxist paradigm is to the left of the NL one.

Pretty much this. Luckbox seems to believe that leftism is intrinsically anti-government and intrinsically revolutionary. That isn't exactly a consensus definition.

It also gets more complicated when you try international comparisons.

So for example the democrats in USA have sometimes been pretty analogous with right wing parties in Europe, with the GOP of course being seen as being very hardcore right by European standards.

This is because the centre in Europe has/is been to the left of the centre in USA.

Marxists

Fed HONEYPOT!

I don't think it that more complex than i am saying as I am speaking broadly and not to exceptions and not saying in 'all areas'.

If a simply left right line graph plotting all major political parties and movements does not suffice think of using more this type of plotting where on the left side (upper and lower), generally would fall most or all of what constituted leftist ideology and the right side what constituted more 'right' ideology.






If Lucky and others were to help define the characteristics they would say go in to those left two boxes (upper and lower) I would bet Progressives, once plotted, would be closer to the left overall as compared to Republicans and thus more 'on the left' when it comes to the spectrum.

So is it fair to say you put marxist ideology on such a high pedestal that you think, it alone, controls the definition of what constitutes Left and Right, and all else is wrong by virtue of not being marxists?

Is this a fair definition in the way you view it?

'Marxism is correct because it is Marxist'.

I ask as your argument thus far has only been 'no one else is correct when it comes to defining this topic of left V right ideology, no individual, no nations, no theorists' and i cite what marxists think and say as the proof of that'.

In practice, Marxism hasn't been anti-state, and we have several historical examples of self-described Marxist states that have been hegemonic, concerned with projecting power, etc., in much the same way that Western democracies are.

1. I have never explicitly confirmed nor denied being Lagtight. But it ain't hard to figure it out.

2. I probably have in the past openly stated that I am a libertarian, but with caveats. Not sure why you find that befuddling.

Kewl.

Agreed. Looking forward to seeing your argument why it is oxymoronic.

I assume you understand that political terms like libertarian don't have a fixed, immutable definition.

Now you're just lying.

I want to know what the anarchists and libertarians think will happen to them after they remove the police and the systems that protect them

Do you guys really think you can just hire protective security and that will keep you safe? Honestly

there is no left in America. We had a president who ran on no war in Iraq/ Afghanistan and then that same guy became one of the largest warmonger era in recent American history.

America has the far right party and then the slightly lesser far right party

There cannot be a true left party in control when we have endless wars, systemic racism against brown people that use “drugs”. We are the most powerful country in the history or the world, yet we still have starving citizens and a population that the government doesn’t care enough about to give healthcare to

Wrt to empires ending, that’s a fallacy. The Roman empire( Catholic Church) and the British empire are still doing GREAT. Same thing for China. What a silly argument

As a consumer of both FoxNews and Luckbox, I can confidently say that Luckbox's policy-positions aren't "bog-standard" anything.

(I love your use of "bog-standard", though)

Libertarians believe in police. That's the main difference between the two.

And don't forget the Ottoman Empire.

Eh?

Lies are all clearly yours.

I'd imagine that we'd overwhelmingly likely still have all the computers in similar fashion if it weren't for Gates.

The caveat with capitalism is that it fuels an incentive to push innovation at a faster rate. That fuel could cause additonal unnessecary suffering because humans are greedy and envious people.

Capitalsim has the framework to improve the lives of everyone, its people that prevent that from happening in practice.

Combined lifetime I don't think I have watched 1 hour of Tucker. I keep telling myself I should actually take the time to at least watch/listen to his nightly monologue. But just haven't gotten that 'round to it' yet. If half the country really molds their political views on what he is saying, it would probably be prudent to know what that is.

No but they have some qualifying conditions or they become utterly meaningless, a term always has to sort by some degree, believing in the death penalty is such a condition.

Im always amazed by how many people are like I dont fox/fox talking head yet somehow manage to parrot their editorial line to a tea.

I guess dissemination into public discourse is the effect fox is looking for, but my suspicions always remain high.

Capitalism is people.

Capital is not a thing but a relationship between men mediated through things.

It's a giant shitload more than that.

Steve Bannon speaks to this in his podcast.

They prefer an anarchistic system as that is the ultimate way to protect the power of the elites against the changing tides of demographic and democratic changes that will continue to rebalance more power to those who historically have had less.

Bannon et al, cannot see any path, as they had in the past, where they continue to keep tight reign on the levers of power to their own benefit and thus want to smash the system while they hold the power balance and move to a Might Makes Right system.

Thus why they look to Putin and Viktor Orban as their guiding light leaders and increasingly members clamour for the Dictatorship over a Democracy in the US.

they hope the powers of a dictator will be used along side them and never against them, in crushing the rise of POC and other minority groups, rising power, to maintain the status quo, they see slipping.

Of course but that is one of its core foundational principles, the point is you cant take the person out of Capitalism.

Here is what you said:

When have I ever, ever, ever, ever claimed that I am not "IN ANY WAY a libertarian?" I've said the exact opposite about a gazillion times.

However, I do retract my claim that were are lying. I apologize for that. I sometimes forget that some people have comprehension issues. I will assume that is the case with you.