this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
804 points (95.0% liked)

Political Memes

8330 readers
2026 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (31 children)

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.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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".

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NeilBru@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Diva@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (29 replies)