this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
163 points (94.5% liked)

World News

32311 readers
989 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Snowpix@yiffit.net 48 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Who downvoted this? Conservatism has always been an ideology that's opposed to progress, democracy and freedom. It holds back society to preserve tradition and "family values" while promoting xenophobia, bigotry, and unquestioned submission to authority. The most conservative states in the United States are also some of the poorest, with the lowest standards of living, and also the most backwards. It isn't much different in other countries. The Nazis were conservative. Islamic countries with Sharia Law are conservative. And right now, American Conservatives are trying to implement a Christian-flavoured Sharia Law.

[–] RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

~~Conservatism~~ Capitalism has always been an ideology that's opposed to progress, democracy and freedom.

There you go, I fixed that for you.

All political entities serve the needs of capital first and foremost in a capitalist system, people are only a secondary...if that.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Speaking as a Marxist, this is false. Capitalism was once the historical progressive force against feudalism. This was already waning two centuries ago, but it was not always true.

Glad another Marxist said it. The problem isn't that capitalism was always the wrong choice, it's that we're clinging to it long beyond its best before date.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

And now it's rapidly turning back into feudalism, while the masses clap and cheer.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure but did capitlism really defeat feudalism? Seems like the other side of the same coin.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

Yes, it did, though vestiges still remain. That's what the French Revolution overwhelmingly was, the bourgeoisie claiming power over the old feudal nobility and the monarchy (as anything but a figurehead). Also the American revolution and many others.

They resemble each other because they are in all cases the "owning class" claiming the seat as the "ruling class", just as the slaveholders of classical antiquity and the patriarchs of pre-historical agrarian/pastoral societies.

It's kind of a tangent, but in explaining the concept of equality, Lenin discusses some of the differences between feudalism and liberal capitalism in a letter here.

There are places such as Thailand and Bhutan where the struggle is still alive between the two modes of production, but those are the very rare exceptions to the global order of liberal capitalism (in various forms) vs whatever you want to call the theocratic capitalism of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. vs the state socialism of the PRC, Cuba, etc.

[–] cyd@vlemmy.net -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This isn't true, though; politics is in the driver's seat, and capital is at the mercy of government. We can see this even in the US where the Biden administration is pushing decoupling/deglobalization for geopolitical and domestic reasons, to the discomfort of US-based multinationals. On the other side of the aisle, the business-friendly cosmopolitan arm of the Republican party has lost ground to the Trumpian populist wing. You see a similar story elsewhere in the world. In the case of Russia, a lot of people thought that Putin was a tool of the oligarchs, so you can change his behavior by putting pressure on the oligarchs. Surprise, it turned out that the oligarchs have to do what Putin tells them, not the other way round.

[–] RedCanasta@lemmy.fmhy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, are the democrats not friendly with ANY big businesses? Is the extreme right wing of US conservatives not motivated by money (Donald Trump is often thought of as a successful venture capitalist, the amount of money funneled out during his presidency, etc...)?

Russia is one of the most inequal countries in the world in terms of wealth distribution, and for decades now oligarchs in Russia have gone hand in hand with the state in eroding any form of democracy and exploiting what freedom those citizens do have.

So, can you really say democracy can exist with money?

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

This is ridiculous. "Politics" cannot be in the driver's seat because "politics" is not an entity. Domestic capital legally falls under the jurisdiction of the government, but that does not mean that it is actually at the mercy of the government. Capital since before the country was even founded has owned the vast majority of politicians and dictated the way that the government is organized and the laws it passes. That's why people without land couldn't even vote at first and why we still retain a senate, which is 100% just a body for checking the power of people who do not own land versus those who own a lot of land.

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Genuine question re: US conservative states, what came first, poverty or conservativism? As in, what caused the other? If not a little of column A and B...

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 year ago

That's an easy one, conservatism came first because it preceded the founding of the US and was championed by many in the Continental Congress.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 year ago

When you start talking about "always", you're going to need to apply way more rigor. Conservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in reaction to the emergence of liberalism in the age of European enlightenment. Conservatism champions the idea that order tends towards chaos, that order is required for society to function and that chaos destroys everything, that some individuals are more worthy than others by virtue of their birth and hierarchical position, etc. In the 1700s, Tories we're conservative.

But what we call conservatives in the USA are liberals, and they always have been. Liberal philosophy posits that individual liberty is more important than strict hierarchical order, that society should be organized to limit the power of the state over individual freedoms, etc. Capitalism and market systems are liberal constructions.

Liberalism, however, is still historically situated and emerges during the age of discovery. As such, it is not a moral movement but rather an political one. Specifically, it emerged as the merchant class needed a way to undermine the authority of the nobility. Liberalism birthed all of the bourgeois revolutions across Europe and European holdings. Every tri-color flag came out of this movement. But liberalism couldn't undermine the entirety of merchant dominance, which means it had to be compatible with slavery, misogyny, racism, genocide, and settler colonialism.

This, liberal philosophers struggled with systems of science and systems of morality that allowed for these things to occur. Race science is a liberal cobstruct. Eugenics is a liberal construct. The belief that black people aren't fully human is a liberal construct. The idea that white people must civilize the savages is a liberal construct. The Berlin Conference, the professional police force, the state police force, all liberal constructs.

When Haiti was liberated through the successful slave revolt, it was the French monarchy that determined every single person on Haiti that was a newly freed slaves represented a loss of wealth for French slave holders, and they levied a debt on Haiti to recoup the cost of freedom. The liberal capitalist world acknowledged the debt and required Haiti acknowledge it in order to be recognized. This is a liberal financial construction the remains in the hands of liberal democracies to this day, draining Haiti of it's wealth.

The Nazis, are not Conservatives. They are Liberals. Fascism arises from liberal democracies. It uses specific liberal systems to grow and develop. It is essentially the violence of liberal capitalism turned against liberal capitalists. Prior to the rise of European fascism, the things we attribute to the Nazis are just things that the Europeans had been doing to brown and black people all over the world. There's a reason the Third Reich studied US settler colonialism systems and industrialized them. There's a reason why US capitalists, liberals of the highest order who believed in the individual right to private property and access to free markets, supported the Third Reich.

You can't just go around saying everything bad is conservative and everything good is liberal/progressive. It's a dogmatic approach to political and historical analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberalism was a progressive step from mysticism. Conservatism was a reaction to liberalism. And most the ills of the modern era are traceable to liberal philosophy, not conservative. In the USA, we redefined conservative to mean liberal and we redefined liberal to mean liberal progressive. Maintenance of market systems is a liberal project. Maintenance of representative democracy is a liberal project. Eugenics was a liberal project and the US engaged in it through the 1970s and we still have after effects of race science in our discourse. All liberal.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There are a lot of conservatives here thanks to Reddit. Tankie hysteria allows them to speak in parallel to the radlibs and anarcho-bidenists without too much dispute, so they have blended in. Funny how that works.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What in the world is an anarcho-bidenist?

[–] Nyefan@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

God, I'm far too online.

It's Vaush shit.

Vaush claims the anarchist label (in contravention of any evidence that he practices anarchist principals in his daily life), he simped hard for Biden during the 2020 election, and disingenuous Marxists use that as a box to stick practicing anarchists in.