• NeilBrü@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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”.

      • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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”.

        • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.).

            • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              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.

              • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                😅 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?

                • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  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.

                  • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 month ago

                    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.

    • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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”.

      • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Diva (she/her)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

          • NeilBrü@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.