You must log in or # to comment.
truly be like that.
Don’t think about dissenting even a bit, you will immediately get a ban from a community you’ve never been to. Big brother is watching you, comrade 🫡
Remember how Snowden is still wanted by the U.S. for exposing the NSA and it literally changed nothing other than we now know we’re being spied on and it doesn’t matter because no one in America gives a shit about having rights?
Cool. So cool. Cool and good. Loving it.
How do you help a society that refuses to help itself? I don’t feel like we, as a country, deserve anything good at this point.
Nah bruv, this is bullshit. I’m straight up a centrist. It’s just that anyone who isn’t goose-stepping fascist swine is “leftist” these days. Shit has just moved so far right, it’s fucking insane. Back in the day, repubs would agree with me about minding your own fucking business and let people live the way they fucking want. They’d agree with me that you need to pay for shit, instead of just charging it to your kids. Which also means you need to prioritize shit, and it better nothing be for fucking moneybags over there. Bring back fucking Eisenhower-era taxes, FFS. Those cunts used to believe in free speech and freedom FROM religion. There used to be some common ground. These days? Fuckem. They can all choke to death.
Anti-Conservative
There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
it’s a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason “the law” doesn’t protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than “anti-conservatism”.
I will concede that this clarification makes sense if one regards capitalism and conservatism as de facto interchangeable.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
So as someone who doesn’t actually want to address the systemic mass inequalities, because it might require something other than voting, got it.
What a vapid and obtuse thing to say.
What other actions do you want me to take, other than organizing and voting?
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
On the latter, I am not a combat veteran. I wouldn’t know where to begin, and I’m not inclined to throw my life away easily.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.
Start by being honest with yourself about what the problem is. That’s why I raise the point that the political economy is at fault and won’t be fixed by simply purging the people you see as engaging in wrongthink. Personally I organize with like-minded people and do direct actions.
The original work you quote talked a tough game:
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh.
which you immediately walked back:
within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.
If you really think that out-groups should not be getting ruled over by in-groups, then you really need to recognize that US hegemony has been the most powerful ‘in-group’ in history. Workers in America get paid more not because their work is more valuable but because money can flow freely over borders while people cannot. Labor aristocrats are the workers who are given a small share of the spoils from the rest of the world in exchange for their political inaction. Capitalism is wildly authoritarian and much of what you take for granted as ‘constraints of US political discourse’ are predicated on the US’s hegemonic role within that system.
This entire line of argument seems like you’re trying to pose as if you’re maximally defiant against the status quo, but you also want to continue being anti-communist.
Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.
Revolutionary organizing has been far more effective, historically speaking.
Also, those who insist on political purity tests reveal themselves to be temporarily-inconvenienced-dictators-in-waiting.
I hope this isn’t about leftists refusing to support biden/kamala in the US.
You didn’t have to support them. You just had to use your brain and choose the lesser of two evils. Like which one of these people is more likely to illegally deport me for exercising my first amendment rights? I think you’ll find the answer to that question soon.
The problem with “lesser of two evils” was that it traps you in short-term thinking.
In 2020, the lesser of two evils would have actually been Donald Trump. Looking back with 20/20 vision, it’s unambiguously clear that between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, voting for Donald Trump in 2020 would have been, on the whole, a better outcome for the country. Voting lesser of two evils in the short term gave us the worst long-term outcome.
How can this be? Because Biden winning in 2020 guaranteed that Trump would win in 2024. Biden was never going to hold Trump accountable. He was never going to push through meaningful reforms that could prevent a second Trump term. Every vote for Biden in 2020 was a vote for a Trump 2024 presidency. And I knew this at the time, and held my nose and voted for Biden anyway.
And Trump winning in 2024 is far worse for the country than Trump winning an election in 2020. The first Trump term was incredibly disorganized. They didn’t know how to govern. They had four years out of power to figure out what went wrong and how to do it right a second time. If Trump had won in 2020, then he wouldn’t have come in on a second wave, with complete control of government and Project 2024 and its organization behind him. Trump in 2024 is vastly, vastly more dangerous than a second Trump term in 2020 would have been.
But “lesser of two evils” is meant to be a thought-terminating command. We’re not supposed to ask what lesser evil we’re supposed to consider. Are we only supposed to look at the immediate evil, or the long-term evil? Because by default, just using “lesser of two evils” simply causes you to myopically focus on only the election in front of you.
Again, lesser of two evils gave us this outcome. We would have been far, far better off now if the liberal third of voters in 2020 just refused to vote for Biden. Because again, a Biden victory in 2020 guaranteed a Trump victory in 2024. And Trump in 2024 is a lot worse than Trump in 2020 would have been.
Before reflexively recommending people vote for lesser of two evils, you should first ask, “have my previous judgments of the lesser evil actually been correct?”
Or maybe support someone who isn’t one of the two evils
Our (U.S.A.) best option for that in recent history was Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election.
Thats still one of the two parties
Bernie is certainly a diamond in the rough - but don’t ignore that rough.
He is an independent as a Senator. But you’re correct in that he ran as a Democrat in 2016.
I keep doing this hoping the centrists will get the message and enact PR or else risk losing to the Big Bad which threatens us all. But so far I’ve been disappointed…
I only have my one measly little vote. They determine the entire platform and what policies get proposed. It’s so unfair. I just want to vote for the representative who actually represents me without risking fucking feudalism. I’m not even asking for direct democracy here…
Here you are protecting conservatives that have a vested interest in the genocide of palestinians.
Dude, I’m just waiting for this actual genocide to happen so we can stop talking about it. Anyone who’s wage a genocide for 100 years and not accomplished the goal of genocide…… I’m guessing in 100 years your brain dead grandchildren’s will still be crying about “genocide”. After 200 years of being waging a genocide against a non peer neighbor at what point do we decide it’s just a war used by the people in power to stay in power.
You will never get me to Care about that fucking conflict because I’ve been watching it happen for 30 fucking years. You’ve been watching it for a year.
Here you are protecting conservatives by attacking and dividing the liberals. Focusing on a country you’ve never been within 2,000 miles of while the conservatives turn us into Palestine. Enjoy bitching while you can. We’ve already seen the pro Palestine kids are the first ones on the to go list. So the conservatives are actually helping us here in the long run. Enemy of my enemy is my friend type shit.
a vote is an offering of “support” by it’s very nature.
While I am totally in the “bind all and protect all” camp and really against the “in group protect, out group rules” and I think conservatism is often in practice “protect me and rule others”, I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
I think fundamentally the hierarchy in right wing politics imply an in/out group. But just like conservatism is a form of right wing political views, so you could argue that the hierarchical political views are a Form of “in group protect, out group bind”.
Whatever you want to call it, is part of conservatism, I believe. But I don’t like to call it conservatism, so it feels like we are defining two related but different things with the same name, which will be confusing and could be used by e.g. “progressive” capitalists to claim that they aren’t conservative and therefore not “in group protect, out group bind”.
I am not sure if I agree with it being called conservatism.
Yes, Wilhoit, if I’m understanding his treatise correctly, addressed this point:
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
The corollary label could be “Anti-Establishment”. Perhaps, “Anti-Authoritarian”.
I don’t know what the best term is, but I fairly certain conservatism is probably one of the worst. I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
I think tribalism and anti-tribalism would be a better starting point while that was a meaning already too.
On this, I agree.
However, I propose that the “Anti-Conservative” label, with all of its flaws, has more utility in presenting its economic and political implications within the admittedly linguistically absurd political discourse in my country (U.S.A.).
I think, there, we have a disagreement. To me, it would sound like you reject the republicans specifically in a us political discussion, a position that I wouldn’t be interested exploring, because of how strong the tribalism in us politics is. I would just assume that you are supporting the democrats. While with the understanding of the conversation, I would assume you aren’t supportive of any of the us political party and vote for the least bad option.
In other words, I wouldn’t want to explore your political position if you use that term as I would assume I understood. Consequently I would misunderstand your position. And I think others would do the same.
If someone would identify as a conservative, they wouldn’t take you seriously anymore, as they would understand it that you reject them, even tho in practice they would agree with you on a lot of stuff and you aren’t necessarily rejecting them.
😅 My apologies, I’ve been re-reading this reply many times and I’m not following your argument against the utility of using the “Anti-Conservative” label for myself if someone asks what is my political position (within the United States)?
Is your thesis that “Anti-conservative” is not specific enough?
My apologies!
For a conservative™ (the way most people use the word), hearing “anti-conservative”, probably makes them reject you immediately as from their pov, you reject them.
For a left wing person, hearing “anti-conservative” probably makes them assume that you talk about conservative™ and not conservative as you mean it.
So in both cases, you don’t have the conversation that you want if you want to promote your political stance, as you kinda encourage them to not engage with your political stance.
I’m so tired of the labels, I just want things to be better for everyone
Don’t worry anytime you have a slightly different opinion they’ll force the label on you then insult you for the label they applied.
By far the worst trait on the left by a mile.
Not this lifetime buddy.
Better could be just one step, it might feel hurceulian but we can start with just the little steps.
so you’re with the no labels party then, Joe Manchins party?
/s
deleted by creator
You are a leftist.
I just think the GOP needs to burn.
We are not the same.
Stop calling them the GOP or Republicans
They’re NAZIS.
They have Nazi goals, Nazi tactics, Nazi personnel, Nazi legislation, Nazi ideology, Nazi violence.
They are NAZIS.
This is completely untrue.
The GOP was taken over by racist southern dixiecrats.
Dixiecrats inspired Hitler and the nazis, he wrote about them as the model Germany must follow in mein kampf, and the Nuremberg Laws are just Jim crow without the one drop rule.
The south are worse than nazis, they literally inspired them, without southern racists we wouldn’t have had nazis.
What you are describing are conservatives.
You’re admitting outright that the GOP are Nazis. You said yourself the party was taken over by them.
TRUMP IS A NAZI.
THE GOP ARE NAZIS.
It is ABSOLUTELY true.
Now post a pic of your Confederate flag for us all.
There used to be conservatives who weren’t nazis.
They were taken over by southern dixiecrats who are far worse.
But Trump is from that wing.
And don’t you ever, ever associate me with Confederate scum.
The whole southern filth needed to be rounded up and put down after the war ended, letting them continue is what destroyed this country, you idiot.
Why not use them interchangeably
Okay but it’s time to normalize calling them what they are like they try to do with their ridiculous “Marxist” slurs
I’m torn between that and making the word Republican synonymous with Nazi so the party falls or at least has to rebrand.
Biden bragged about being friends with republicans.
Later he said that the “MAGA republicans” were a problem.
Upon his Harris’s defeat it was obvious that it was ALL republicans.
They’re Nazis. No other term applies any more
You make a really good point.
Do you advocate for the status quo? Because that’s what it sounds like
No.
I advocate for removing the southern racist conservatives (aka the christofascist dixiecrats) by any and all means necessary.
Once they are neutralized I advocate for a more balanced status quo, closer to northern European social democracy.
But mostly, the south has to burn. They are the cancer destroying this country.
I advocate for a reasonable debate, a fair fight, not corporatism.
I know that makes me literally worse than zionist super-Hitler to the tankies.
Removed by mod
Hohoho!, so you’re a leftist then! You do know that status quo is over there on the left yes? Though framing your enemy as the people in the south is self defeating. You want a class warfare not a geo locational line in the sand.
No I’m a me.
Fuck all your labels and causes.
Rightists won’t be happy till we’re all slaves.
Leftists will never, ever be happy and the more they win the more chaotic things will get as the internal politics of leftism is broken as well.
I ally with leftists to destroy the right when they are clearly out of control.
We are not the same.
Removed by mod
I actually said both should wipe each other out and leave us in peace, read that thread closer.
Removed by mod
Here in the USA you’ll get lumped in with us just the same.
deleted by creator
The kind that got chucked off reddit for being mean to Trump, Musk and Netanyahu.
marxist leninist
Have you tried like not being one
I used to be a neoliberal.
There is an in-between.
Me too. Join a lefty instance so you can choose when you deal with .worlds reddit-lite crap and not be force fed it.
The type that really like logistics, respects anarchists, and wants universal militia.
not one
a rare sighting on lemmy
Somewhat yeah, but I think there are a few others, just mostly not people who are that vocal about it
Yeah I’m not really either but you just get attacked so I tend to stay out of politics here
Other day I tried explaining to lemmy why it’s disrespectful to hang a LGBT flag on the side of a mountain and just got a bunch of hatred lol
I’m sorry about that you got attacked. Also I’m not trying to restart it, and not trying to attack. I am genuinely curious what’s disrespectful
I think protesting is great but not on El capitan in Yosemite. That’s just plain white people behaviour. It’s not just a rock, it’s an incredibly sacred place that has a great significance in human history and it transcends religions
I’m a pantheist and I just personally find it super offensive which is why I bothered getting into it I guess. I know the demographic here doesn’t actually go outside or have a love for the mountains so I knew it would be a losing battle but damn man there’s just no fucking respect for nature anymore
Mother Nature is literally going to make us extinct in the near future due to how we treated her yet white people still treat it like Disneyland
think protesting is great but not on El capitan in Yosemite. That’s just plain white people behaviour. It’s not just a rock, it’s an incredibly sacred place that has a great significance in human history and it transcends religions
That’s totally fair. I didn’t here anything about it so didn’t know the situation at all. Yea that can be kinda disrespectful.
I know the demographic here doesn’t actually go outside or have a love for the mountains so I knew it would be a losing battle but damn man there’s just no fucking respect for nature anymore
XD yea fair. My philosophy is very much human supremacist. Maybe some animals. But I don’t really care about nature other than it its useful and valued by people. But its also fair to have a different position.
Same. Only been here a few days. yeah, my comments will get downloaded to hell, but so far the responses are somewhat civil. It’s a step up from what im used to! I also like how very downvoted comments arent automatically buried.
only if you go to .ml and hexbear instances. or if you go on politics.
.ml users love telling people “kys” and actually threaten you with death for not sharing their opinions. Also they will judge you according to your nationality and then deny being racist. At least that was my experience. Although i’m sure it’s not all .ml users, just a very radicalized minority.
“Ally? That’s a funny way to spell FASCIST!”
-the American left during the 24’ election
Yeaahh, american left needs to learn how to accept an imperfect ally.
*Doesn’t vote to enable fascism.
Your parties are seriously a mess, though. Sorry to say. Yes, come the vote under a FPTP duopoly I agree maximum impact is to vote for the lesser of the two, but I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
I honestly don’t think much is going to change for you guys if all you do is vote.
As an American, I agree. That said, I find it hard to do more due to my situation.
But, voting is the beginning of political engagement, not the end. It’s probably time for a general strike, but even failing that, finding primary challengers (or being one), drafting voter initiatives and gathering signatures for all of the above, communicating with your representatives, legal protest. It’s also possible to work outside or even against the system, founding or being active in non-governmental community organizations, illegal protest, sabotage.
Even if we had a “perfect” voting system (Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem aside), there are going to be times when the majority compromise is just wrong, and “getting political” is how you change/survive that.
(I’m all for voting system improvements. I’m a big fan of Condorcet methods, and I’d like to see more direct democracy. We could even adapt a system like Debian’s “default option” of “more discussion” so that issues could remain open while a quorum was gathered / the voters suitably engaged to decide one way or another.)
That was a great breakdown of a continuum of ways to be politically active all the way from voting to increasingly pointed forms of direct action.
It would make a great post. Maybe even an infographic.
“You leftists sure are a contentious people”
A libertarian myself thanks for asking.
You know those means of production?
Well I have an idea…
