Can a Conservative and a Socialist Agree? Against Dogmatic Certainty (2)

[@louismoench3554]

fantastic channel

[@robertflury3349]

I really appreciate the way you contrasted these two, something to keep in the toolbox. I just read an interview of Mouffe. She had a great quote "Fundamentally, liberals are trying to build a political philosophy without politics" She calla for a brand of left-wing populism. So would you ever cover a right-wing populist?

[@maurinacademy]

Would you count Alain de Benoist in that category? If so, yeah. Also, check out my playlist Beyond the Liberal Frame--there's a good amount of content in there that pulls from a critique of liberalism from the right. kzbin.info/aero/PLsLkfggTCOx-NVTYGnDY7h1uonlApwaFQ

[@groupchat2554]

A political philosophy without politics is exactly what the Right has built for the left to run as politics. Its a great concept like that toy push mower with the balls that make a popping sound. Hahaha The Left is almost completely and doomed theres not even a base of literature that the left can run accept maybe the Constitution. This makes you wander if the Left has always been the om shoulder of the right as a confidant to the King. I say yes yes that makes sense.

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I'm pretty sure lots of Orthodox Marxists will claim Bernstein is misrepresenting Marx, but regardless as someone who is a open minded socialist and a third worldist one at that, I do find much value in Bernstein's criticism of Marx and Engels. I think the division between reform and revolution is ironically an undialectical false dichotomy, and ironically leaves much of the "material" circumstances of first world nations untouched. Marx was clearly wrong in his prediction about socialism coming about in the developed industrial world (he appeared to change his mind a bit towards the end of his life) but regardless, its 100% clear historically that its reformism and gradualism that has won out in the developed world. So Bernstein is partially correct, however the revolutionary potential is all in the third world. And that's also historically born out by the facts. I also appreciate his comments about how "material conditions" should include al that is relevant to the human condition, including the much maligned "ideas" . At the very least, geography, demographics and cliodynamic Turchinesque secular cycles and inter-elite competition/overproduction should also be taken into account. Possible genetic differences between populations (not a fan of scientific racism, but there still remains a possibility for a nontrivial kernel of truth), religious and cultural differences and things like the balance of resources and carrying capacity of the land. Marx for al his brilliance, seemed almost promethean in his disregard for environmental and Malthusian concerns (Malthus was partially wrong, but partially right too). I personally think that socialism cannot succeed (at least in highly and moderately religious countries) without some kind of meta-religious system like Hegelianism adopted as the core doctrine above and beyond Marxist historicism, "materialism", and class/econ reductionism. People need meaning, they need answers and in times of great upheaval and change, they often do fall back on things like nationality, race and religion. Ironically, what may help socialism actually come about is a return to metaphysics but of a rigorous and "scientific" sort.

[@ErikaBell_Z]

As a conservative socialist, I say yes without a doubt, I have conservative social views but economically my ideal is the Soviet Union.

[@ashdkajbusvwjsizh5187]

I literally admire our types comrade i am a conservative anarchist :D

[@hansfrankfurter2903]

I am left on both social and economic views. I also favor a USSR like econ system. Although I do have some anomalous views which can be considered "conservative" . For example I am against conceiving children outside of wedlock. I think having children outside of marriage should be illegal (maybe in the future , if Engels was right about the family, this would be overturned but not any time soon). I also think that 3rd trimester abortions to be questionable. I think certain trade in hardcore drugs should be banned but decriminalized for use. I believe in population control a la China. I think there should be a program for voluntary but incentivized eugenics (esp anti-dysgenics). I think democracy only makes sense in direct local circumstances where it scales well, like work-place democracy, neighborhoods, small towns, municipal elections, but not on anything statewide or country level where it should be replaced with test-passing meritocracy plus an element of weighted voting and draw by lots. Many would consider that to be a peculiar form of right wing technocracy. I also don't buy into excessive LGBT ideology, where even kids can "transition" and biological men can fight women in sports, I think that's crazy. I also don't buy the infinite spectrum between man and woman. One of my most "right wing" view, is the fact that I believe that HBD exists at least on the individual level. Its pretty clear that certain human beings are just smarter than others, and its not entirely environmentally explainable. That may not have much political weight, save for the fact that we can't spend infinite energy trying to make ppl equal in outcome, we can make them as much as possible equal in opportunity and ameliorate any inequality through socialist policies . Radical inequality won't happen without a state of post-scarcity like Marx predicted, and that won't happen until hundreds of years into the future. Perhaps my most loathsome "right wing" view, is that while I don't necessarily buy into the whole genetic IQ differences between groups, I do think there is something to be said for at the very least something quite "substantially" different going on with sub-Saharan Africans in terms of things like temperament, conscientiousness and possibly IQ as well. I could be wrong obviously, but given that the science is agnostic I don't think as I do with other populations that the mass disparities displayed by sub-Saharan are fully explainable by "oppression" or environment. Again not much political weight here, except for infinite energy need not be spent on trying to fix things that are unfixable, insofar as they are. We can "close the gap" but only to a certain extent. I obviously don't believe this because it brings me joy, I find it disheartening, but I do think observation seems to force me to at least consider it. In my eyes, extreme leftist politics are about compassion and progress, not about denying reality because it makes you feel better. With that said, I'm extremely left on almost everything else.

[@KenArkane]

Nowadays, socialists and conservatives could agree on the social and cultural externalities of neo-liberalism/global capitalism. But American conservatives are the main champions of neo-liberalism.

[@ErikaBell_Z]

And it's sad really. A lot of American conservatives have been brainwashed into supporting a system that supports hedonism and degeneracy. I get frustrated with other conservatives and other socialists (I'm a conservative communist, feel free to ask me any questions you may have) as neither understand they're supporting things that are destructive to a nation and anti-working class.

[@ozzy5146]

Conservatives want economic policies that "conserve" traditions. And not some willy nilly absolutist free trade. I'd say there are a lot of "progressives" that are the neoliberals. Look at big tech corporatism. Hardly "conservative".

[@ruinner]

Only if if they are socialist nationally

[@ruinner]

@Twenty Faces wrong

[@ErikaBell_Z]

Something like national bolshevism or juche perhaps? I guess I'm kind of a nazbol, a nationalist communist who is socially conservative but I think the stateless, classless society can only happen after every nation is ready for it. And nationalism to protect itself from liberalism is the key.

[@ErikaBell_Z]

@Twenty Faces It's both. The idea is to spread socialism while protecting your own nation and encouraging other nations that socialism spreads to do to so. The true state of communism can only happen when liberalism and the bourgeoisie are defeated, which can be sped up by combining nationalism and internationalism.

[@DanSme1]

No. Next question.

[@ErikaBell_Z]

@Will DeMarco True, I'm a conservative communist and it often confuses people who wonder how it's possible, but to me it's the only viewpoint that makes sense (it's ok if you disagree, that's just my perspective)

[@ErikaBell_Z]

@@alfred9916 Basically I'm economically far-left, socially right wing, and left-wing when it comes to foreign policy. I'm kind of the inverse of the standard American liberal. I get along with conservatives when we talk social issues but not economic issues, it's mixed with foreign policy (generally they agree with me about Obama's war crimes being reprehensible, but are more likely to defend Dubya's wars). Conversely, I get along good with socialists when we talk economics but when I start talking about social issues, it's a different story. In fact, on some social issues, I'm to the right of some Trump supporters.

[@ErikaBell_Z]

@@alfred9916 On the contrary, many Marxist societies have done a wonderful job of maintaining tradition. Belarus, the most socialist nation in Europe, is also one of the most conservative. Cuba, Vietnam, and China are fairly conservative, the DPRK is probably closest to what I have in mind. Socialism in the west has largely been a failure because a lot of western socialists have adopted the kinds of political correctness, identity politics, and degeneracy that has divided the working class. Just curious though, which traditional social ideas that I have do you think will be undermined by a Soviet-style economy?

[@ashdkajbusvwjsizh5187]

@@alfred9916 well whats wrong with conservative term or generally with the terms is it depends on what you want to conservate. A good educated soviet mom from 50's would be the exact definition of conservatism on the other hand from US wiew it seems such an absurdity. I am talking about the absurdities of the ideologies definition you know. Ideology is everywhere with same names but total different describtions. Thats why while in the West those nomenclatures seems odd (marginal kinda mixed confused) maybe it is a popular peoples front or a concencus in a nonwestern country.