You must log in or register to comment.
I just want people to have food, shelter and healthcare at an affordable price.
Ugh George Soros poisoned Progressivism!
By “affordable” I’m assuming you mean free. Always wanting a handout, of course.
I just want untaxed inheritance, corporate welfare on top of more tax breaks for me and all my friends, unregulated surveillance and data collection of the plebs so I can continue to make even more money (untaxed obvs), exclusive and elite private universities, and a justice system where I can live free of consequence and purchase a judge at a reasonable price because I believe in being fiscally conservative.
Food, shelter, and healthcare are things I’ve just never had to think about really. Although, I would also prefer that if too many people are worrying about those things in my immediate vicinity, they be shuffled around or forcibly moved to a different vicinity.
That way I don’t have to start thinking too much. It’s really unfair when that happens, because it starts to make me feel all kinds of uncomfortable. Uncomfortable is not something I’m used to feeling, and since I don’t like to think about things, I never stop and think about why somebody else being uncomfortable would also make me feel so uncomfortable.
Logically, the solution is to just put those people somewhere not visible to me, and then complain about what society is “turning into these days” when they slip through the privilege perimeter.
Some call this “Leftist extremism”. =/
Like … all people?
Every single one
Seems reasonable.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here you are protecting conservatives that have a vested interest in the genocide of palestinians.
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.
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.
Get your finger out of the trigger guard.
To be fair, if you saw the movie, he was definitely ready to pull that trigger within the next milliseconds. But yeah shouldn’t be pointing in the air without any trigger discipline
yeah I’m a centrist:
Where is the bubble that says “imperialism by Russia is fine”?
Ahh yes, the “left party”
I agree we need a third party where leftist policies are allowed to exist
You need a different electoral system then
We could put the dems in the same circle with the left if we paid them enough. Have we tried that yet? Everyone empty your pockets on the table here and lets count.
I hope they all vote for Democrats though, in places where FPTP voting is still used
Btw what’s up with all these states up and banning Ranked Choice Voting? Most of them in the past 1-2 years too. I’m not exactly sure of the context, like if there was a bill or a referendum, but with a referendum I would have expected it to say “rejected”/“not adopted”, instead of “banned”. Definitely seems like RCV needs to be really fought for, and seems like the major parties are afraid of it.
Yeahhhh, I hate to break it to you but…there’s a lot of them that do not vote blue especially when it counts.
Hillary lost because the DNC ran a corrupt campaign where they ignored the will of their voters.
Kamala lost because the DNC ran a corrupt campaign where they ignored the will of their voters.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
what if im pro imperialist but anti capitalist?
Removed by mod
Fuck you?
Trolls usually vote for Republicans
Remember, Republicans are the proletariat, at least at the bottom, and they are the reactionary forces that you eventually will need to adopt if you would want to see a better day. They are the reactionary elements of capitalism in crisis. They are those that were left to their own devices to fester in agony due to liberalism.
Then you’re neither a leftist nor a Democrat.
The leftist thing depends on if imperialism in their eyes brings about egalitarianism.
The old “let’s put socialism in the name” trick
Like the CCP? At least rhetorically.
I’m so tired of the labels, I just want things to be better for everyone
so you’re with the no labels party then, Joe Manchins party?
/s
Not this lifetime buddy.
Better could be just one step, it might feel hurceulian but we can start with just the little steps.
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.
Syndicalist
Who composes the syndicate?
Labor. Nobody else is entitled to that which they create.
Personally I don’t hate a system of Soviets bound by basic principles of individual rights. But radical unions seizing the means of production and the reins of government and creating a system where workers coops are the default form of businesses and there are strict rules for contractors is the system I find is the best combination of acceptable and possible
Every hired worker is required to have equity in the business as part of their compensation.
The Orions.
Aliens from a star that forms the constellation?
The anti right wing/trump kind.
You are a leftist.
I just think the GOP needs to burn.
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
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.
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
You clearly didnt read the thread, I said both should wipe each other out and leave us in peace, which is the opposite of zionism.
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.
Here in the USA you’ll get lumped in with us just the same.
marxist-linuxist
Social-Debianist
Arch Communist
Gentoo-manist
Debian-syndicalist
Fedoralism-Maoism
Manjaro-syndicalist
Nixos-georgist (?)
The fundamental objective of leftism is the dispersion of sociopolitical power as widely and evenly as possible, with an ideal (neither realized or considered possible) in which each person has no more and no less power than any other.
The internet is going to ruin leftism just like it did atheism. Bet.
Finally, yes, someone actually knows the actual definition of the word.
leftism
What does this mean? It sounds like you’ve described utopian egalitarianism, which is certainly not common in all ‘left-wing’ ideologies.
Considering the right side of the court was aligned with the king and the left side was opposed, its essential to what is leftism.
Many despots assert left-wing alignment that their rule is democratic no matter how autocratic it actually is, so a lot of confusion has been sewn.
Really good film. He nailed his role. So much so it was a little scary how good he was.
You could hear a pin drop in the theatre when this scene dropped, it was just too real.
Jesse Plemons needs more lead roles. He reminds me of Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
If they hadn’t done “east west” instead of some other cardinal directions, it would probably be prophetic
The moment I heard “alliance between California and Texas” I was detached from the movie. That is literally the least likely alliance I could think of
The point of the film is to show how horrible war is in a context Americans can relate to. If they made a more realistic alliance, down some sort of real life right / left politics the message would be lost and it would be held up as some sort of propaganda film by one side of politics with the other side using it to justify why they’re correct.
So, yes the “alliance between the California and Texas” is a very deliberate choice.
Also the idea of the two most economically independent and arguably most “separatist” US states forming an alliance in a modern civil war is really not the stretch that most Americans with their ideology blinders on might feel it is. Two large polities that wish to be sovereign lean on each other to support their parallel ends? That’s actually tenable world-building, I think.
I believe in the lore, California and Texas both secede from the Union following an unpopular president getting a third term. The rest of the Gulf states secede as the Florida Alliance, and the Northwest secede in some other alliance not directly named but usually listed as Western Forces.
It was a bit much to work with, but once I realized that the civil war itself and the whys weren’t what the movie was about, I went with it. This scene was the most disturbing of them all. Maybe because it’s not that hard to imagine some people going this far. I’m sure there’s some veterans of various conflicts that would agree and saw it happen.
There are pluralities of leftist in Texas, and wrongists in California. There would probably be two alliances between them, one on each side.
This scene really got to me, this was the first time I really felt how awful war is
What’s the film?
The movie is called Civil War
Never ask a Lemming what kind of leftist they are, or what is the best Linux distro.
Well, um, whatever kind you use and whatever kind you are, of course.
That’s your favorite distro of linux now, but what previous operating system do you come from?
What if he’s a Gentoo user? He’ll mock me for using Archlinux, I’ve got to play this hand carefully so as to not blow my cover. There’s always the chance he’s a Mint user and I have nothing to worry about, but then, he could be one of those users that says ricing is a waste of time, who uses his OS professionally, but then, he might be a Fedora user… how do I approach this issue without seeming like a pleb?! Based Stallman, help me!
NixOS
How about that vaporwave aesthetic of Garuda Dr460nized edition?
LFS
Windows 2000. I feel like that’s reasonable. It was honestly pretty solid kit.
What kind of leftist are you and what is the best Linux distro?
anarcho-communist, arch
Post-left anarchist, Arch obv
I don’t use Arch but that wasn’t the question
I also don’t use Devuan but said Devuan is the best distro
Socialist, Guix
Hanna Montana is the best distro
Dishonor upon you and your family!
Huh, they’ll name Linux distros anything these days…
That is just the english translation, the distro is maintained and developed by Klingons and it invades off the tongue far more naturally in Klingon.
ancom, devuan
Dictionary Anarchist - BotaOS(the name I give when I recompile a kernel on anything that I am running for more than a few weeks).
Currently based on Pop.
Me: a disillusioned Liberal who runs Fedora, because I’m a basic bıtch and I ain’t got time for this shit anymore.
Fedora is the Todd Howard meme of Linux: it just works
