Maybe it's not Capitalism or Liberalism

[Speaker to Animals]

You are mistaken about the right looking backwards for answers.

The left lost the battle and a new right is forming that looks towards the future.

You can see here how the civic nationalist narrative failed, and nobody defending it can actually do so through argument. Virtue signaling and marginalization don't work. You lose the debate when you cannot even bring an argument.

Maybe it's not really a new right, but the real right returning to life.

[DrYouth]

You lose the debate when you cannot even bring an argument.

Last time I checked this wasn't a debate.
I don't see a proposition.
In the OP I was encouraging a discussion of thoughts and ideas.

What were yours?

[Speaker to Animals]

Oh, yes, it's a debate. You yourself can see well enough that we are witnessing the end of liberalism even if you don't want to admit as much. The debate is over what comes next and how we ought to respond to this event.

Furthermore, there was never any need to differentiate the two. Capitalism stems from liberalism.

I think most people are unable to appreciate the enormity of the paradigm shift that is coming. The war is over what comes next.

[Fife]

[DrYouth]

The war is over what comes next.

Alright lets put it out there.

What are the possibilities, according to the right, about what comes next?

[SuburbanFarmer]

That is laugh-out-loud fucking funny, right thur.

[Speaker to Animals]

The war is over what comes next.

Alright lets put it out there.

What are the possibilities, according to the right, about what comes next?

According to whom? There are lots of ideas swirling around. Nobody can see the future. The battle, essentially, is between a coalition on the new right (and this thing is very broad with some conflicting ideas under one tent) and really neo-Marxism. Liberalism is as dead as conservatism at this point. If the Marxists win, then Marx will be proved correct that if you give capitalists enough rope they will hang themselves. Marxists have become so powerful precisely because globalist have supported them for their own reasons. Globalism is essentially the latest model of neo-liberalism (probably the last). Without resistance from the new right, the globalists (capitalists) would eventually get snuffed by their own Marxist pets.

[Speaker to Animals]

The big problem with your OP is that you set capitalism and liberalism as two opposing ideologies when, in fact, they are basically the same thing. Capitalism is the preferred economic model of liberalism. Liberalism invented capitalism. Liberalism is just the Enlightenment ideals as they have evolved over the course of several centuries. Liberalism prefers a capitalistic economy of some kind, some form of democratic government, and some level of liberalization of freedoms (what we call human rights such as freedom of speech, etc). For a long, long time here in America, the battle between what we called left and right was essentially a battle between two groups over who was more liberal than the other.

I am trying to paint liberalism here in a way that proponents see it. Just to be charitable, these people generally see it as equivalent to maximizing freedom and opportunities for all participants in society.

The battles we had between the turn of the twentieth century and very recently involved fights over which aspects of liberalism should be maximized and which should not be maximized. Democrats wanted to liberalize one set of things (morals) whereas republicans wanted to liberalize another set of things (economics). The reason libertarians, in my opinion, are just apex liberals is that they seek to maximize the entire Enlightenment program no matter the damage to society.

But you saw this thing begin to unravel on the so-called left pretty early. They were always enamored with Marxism. It slowly crept into their entire political discourse over the generations. By the 1960s, cultural marxism was the main avenue with which the political insurgents infiltrated the democratic party without having to openly fly their colors. Now most democrats subscribe to cultural marxism even though they don't want to publicly identify as marxists (though that's exactly what they are now). You saw the split in the democratic primary when the larger voting bloc realized they were played by the liberals and the entire process was rigged for Hillary Clinton from the start. Go watch the video of all of them walking out of the convention in disgust. That was huge and few people realize how monumental that moment will be remembered when that same voting bloc tries to take over the DNC or forms their own party somehow at some point in the future. The liberals are actually the minority of the democratic voting base, though they still maintain a grip on the power structure of the party. It cannot possibly last.

[DrYouth]

The big problem with your OP is that you set capitalism and liberalism as two opposing ideologies when, in fact, they are basically the same thing. Capitalism is the preferred economic model of liberalism. Liberalism invented capitalism. Liberalism is just the Enlightenment ideals as they have evolved over the course of several centuries. Liberalism prefers a capitalistic economy of some kind, some form of democratic government, and some level of liberalization of freedoms (what we call human rights such as freedom of speech, etc). For a long, long time here in America, the battle between what we called left and right was essentially a battle between two groups over who was more liberal than the other.

I am trying to paint liberalism here in a way that proponents see it. Just to be charitable, these people generally see it as equivalent to maximizing freedom and opportunities for all participants in society.

The battles we had between the turn of the twentieth century and very recently involved fights over which aspects of liberalism should be maximized and which should not be maximized. Democrats wanted to liberalize one set of things (morals) whereas republicans wanted to liberalize another set of things (economics). The reason libertarians, in my opinion, are just apex liberals is that they seek to maximize the entire Enlightenment program no matter the damage to society.

But you saw this thing begin to unravel on the so-called left pretty early. They were always enamored with Marxism. It slowly crept into their entire political discourse over the generations. By the 1960s, cultural marxism was the main avenue with which the political insurgents infiltrated the democratic party without having to openly fly their colors. Now most democrats subscribe to cultural marxism even though they don't want to publicly identify as marxists (though that's exactly what they are now). You saw the split in the democratic primary when the larger voting bloc realized they were played by the liberals and the entire process was rigged for Hillary Clinton from the start. Go watch the video of all of them walking out of the convention in disgust. That was huge and few people realize how monumental that moment will be remembered when that same voting bloc tries to take over the DNC or forms their own party somehow at some point in the future. The liberals are actually the minority of the democratic voting base, though they still maintain a grip on the power structure of the party. It cannot possibly last.

I followed the first three paragraphs of that post perfectly and agree with them completely.

You lost me when you started with Marxism. I have to admit I still don't understand this cultural Marxism thing.

I agree again that there was a reaction to Hillary Clinton being rigged by the power elite. (But are you saying this is about Cultural Marxism?)

I googled Cultural Marxism and I got this.

Cultural Marxism generally refers to one of two things:
1.First — extremely rarely — "Cultural Marxism" refers to the general application of the Frankfurt School's Marxist ideology to the social sciences.
2.Second — in common usage in the wild — "Cultural Marxism" is a snarl word used to paint anyone with progressive tendencies as a secret Communist. The term alludes to a conspiracy theory in which sinister left-wingers have infiltrated media, academia, and science and are engaged in a decades-long plot to undermine Western culture. Some variants of the conspiracy alleges that basically all of modern social liberalism is, in fact, a Communist front group.

This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that the Frankfurt School wasn't just an arcane strain of academic criticism.[note 1] Instead, the Frankfurt School was behind an ongoing Marxist plot to destroy the capitalist West from within, spreading its tentacles throughout academia and indoctrinating students to hate patriotism & freedom. Thus, rock'n'roll, Sixties counterculture, the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, homosexuality,[1] modern feminism, and in general all the "decay" in the West since the 1950s are allegedly products of the Frankfurt school.[2] It's also the work of the Jews.[3][4]

[StCapps]

Look at the bias in that definition, clearly a cultural marxist wrote the definition and is attempting to demonize anyone using the term. Altering the definition of terms to fit a political agenda, that's google these days. Cultural marxism is simply marxism applied to cultural issues rather than economic issues. It's not hard to understand at all, google are a bunch of faggots.