this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2024
1259 points (97.8% liked)
Facepalm
2609 readers
2 users here now
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Conservatives conserve capitalism, which needs social hierarchies to function. Conservatives conserve the class war. Oppressors / Oppressed. If you’re not an oppressor, you’re being oppressed. Historical Materialism:
They conserve a lot of things. Choosing one that you think is bad as an example is reasonable, but it doesn't really make a point.
It's arguable (but not something I agree with) that you simply don't understand that capitalism is, because no one person is able to fully comprehend all of the unintended consequences of a system. It may be that in fact the only human compatible system that doesn't immediately decay. (Again - Obviously, I don't believe this)
A theoretical argument for this (that I don't necessarily agree with) could be that because we are hierarchical creatures, it's the only way to reasonably integrate this, via a system of social classes. But the system would have to be sufficiently performant for the lowest class, otherwise it would collapse. So perhaps the only evil in capitalism, is the manipulation and dishonesty towards the lower classes, to accept something that is not performant for them. Perhaps if the system was policed with honesty, then it might allow an interation of the system to be discovered that does not fundamentally abuse its constituents. Perhaps even, if the classes simply represented different subcultures but were fundamentally equal in the eyes of the social system?
Enough with the theoretical, the point is nuance is essential. The more we dispense with it, the more embedded, violent and dysfunctional everything becomes.
Undoing mistreatment by mistreating the mistreaters doesn't exactly set a precedent for a mistreatment free future, does it?
What good things do conservatives "conserve"?
What is "good" is subjective to the individual. A conservative doesn't necessarily conserve good ideas, often simply preferring the status quo due to its stability. On the other hand, a liberal doesn't always want good reforms
They said language. This is what they want to conserve.
I'm not sure you are asking an actual question but an example might be language, or attempting to preserve the existing culture. This is a noble effort, but often falls short in reality because it becomes too inhibiting or unreflective of the state of play for everyone.
What part of egalitarianism advocates for mistreating people?
Conserving the wealth inequality. Conserving the status quo. Conserving the social stratification. What is the superstructure that defines these structures?
Rosa Luxemburg answered this question 125 years ago.
Thank you for linking the Wikipedia article on egalitarianism, I hope someone younger finds it useful.
Egalitarianism is a wonderful thing. But unfortunately, it has nothing to do with what the original post was addressing. Treating everyone right of you as "them" and lumping them all into the same, dehumanised category of being inferior, stupid and wrong is the opposite of egalitarian thought.
I already addressed the status quo/inequality in my original reply. You are currently doing the broken record thing of repeating the same point again as if it needs to be said. Yes, conservativism maintains a lot of bad things! We have already discussed this.
Luxemburg, was proven wrong by history.
Just a whole lot of nothing.
Because older people don’t need equal rights?
You veered from the original post. Not me.
Is Nazi apologia, and dangerous.
Just because someone doesn’t cowtow to your circular logic doesn’t mean they are wrong.
One. Give me one example of how capitalism has been reformed— and lasted.
Marx and the Impossibility to reform Capitalist Society
Because younger people will be the audience for a high school wikipedia article link. While I'm sure it's reflexive for some to check the basics on Wikipedia, others thankfully may not be in that particular educational stage, as this discussion wouldn't be valid otherwise.
My comment on it's relevance stands, I don't think I veered at all.
I'm depressed to see that you invoked Godwins law with such enthusiasm. Please don't ever reference nazi apologia to me in the same breath as justification for dehumanising others. It's in acutely poor taste and education.
There is nothing circular about my logic that I can see, and youve not highlighted any. I've accused you of speaking the same rhetoric despite it being addressed which might qualify?
Luxemburg is proven wrong by there never being a revolution, the reformation and lasting are a separate discussion.
I waited 2 days for that ? Disappointed. You don’t impress me with your veiled social dominance.
Then my goal has been achieved. Thanks for the discussion.