1d ago

Welcome to Lemmy

271 comments

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.
Frank Wilhoit, American Composer, 2018
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.
  
  Ah, I think I understand your point better now; thanks.
  Though it's also highly debatable, I still think that my old self-imposed label of "anti-authoritarian democratic market-socialist" would turn off more people than "anti-conservative".
  At this rate, I should opt for "anti-technofeudalist" in a nod to Yannis Varoufakis if I'm going to piss people off anyway in the U.S.A.
  Luckily for me, my wife is Dutch. Therefore, I split my time between the Netherlands and the U.S., so strangers asking about my political persuasion is an exceedingly rare event, at least when I'm in Europa.
- 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
  
  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…
  
  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.

271 comments

Anti-Conservative