undefined | Better HN

0 pointsafpx1y ago0 comments

To be clear, I'm not a republican or a conservative. If it matters, I'm a modern liberal (i.e. what existed before progressivism but after classical liberalism). I'm just trying to distill what I believe the right says and what I observe. Also, this is my take on modern American conservatism, in general - individual cases vary.

First, if you look up progressive academic theorists [1] you will see that they are largely inspired by Marxist philosophy either directly or indirectly. The right are diametrically opposed to Marxism because it relies on an assumption that Man can rise above his Animal instincts. But, man can't, even with best intentions (i.e. ethics professors do not behave more ethically than non-ethicists) [2][3].

There is a belief by the right that the great majority of people working in government and government related industries (e.g. NGOs) have come out of liberal arts programs that were inspired by the academics listed. They also believe that progressive ideology has steeped into the sciences.

I believe the right's goal is total dismantling of the executive branch. The point is really to destroy any power that the executive has down to the bare minimum so that the risk of a king is eliminated. It's interesting that they put a group of potential tyrants in charge of all of this - it's almost as if they want to show everyone how bad of an idea it is for the president to have so much control.

They generally believe that differing cultures are a good thing but because of Human nature integration cannot work. Therefore, in a state system, they believe one should be allowed to move to the state of their choice and enjoy whatever culture they want given the constraints of the constitution.

Furthermore, they believe the constitution is the only way for lasting peace. It sets the bare minimum for a social contract that works across cultures and people. It gives a framework where people can be culturally different but equal. And, they hope to expand the US to other countries voluntarily (we hope) so that those countries may also share in its glory.

[1] Achille Mbembe, Angela Davis, bell hooks, Cheryl Harris, Cornel West, David Graeber, Derrick Bell, Edward Said, Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, Gayatri Spivak, Gayle Rubin, Herbert Marcuse, Homi Bhabha, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Kimberlé Crenshaw, Mari Matsuda, Mariame Kaba, Michel Foucault, Nancy Fraser, Naomi Klein, Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, Patricia Hill Collins, Peggy McIntosh, Richard Delgado, Robin DiAngelo, Robin D.G. Kelley, Ruth Wilson Gilmore, Simone de Beauvoir, Thomas Piketty, Frantz Fanon, Pierre Clastres, Antonio Gramsci, Jacques Derrida, Roland Barthes, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Marcel Mauss, Sherry Ortner, Ferdinand de Saussure, Louis Althusser, Gilles Deleuze, David Harvey, Murray Bookchin, Cedric Robinson, C.L.R. James, Paulo Freire

[2] Schwitzgebel & Rust (2014), etc.

[3] This is also why many Christians align with conservative thinking because in Christianity Jesus is the only Good thing of this world, and every person is equally sinful.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

eesmith1y ago· 2 in thread

> they are largely inspired by Marxist philosophy either directly or indirectly

As I wrote, Marx's critical analysis of capitalism touched on many social topics. You should not be surprised that his work had merit in later social research. You should not be surprised that others who criticize capitalism have overlapping beliefs.

Though do note that "Marxist philosophy", quoting the Wikipedia entry for Marxism, has "branches and schools of thought, and as a result, there is no single, definitive "Marxist theory".

Just like there isn't a single, definitive "liberalism."

> The right are diametrically opposed to Marxism because it relies on an assumption that Man can rise above his Animal instincts.

I ... what? I have no idea what that means. Where does Marx talk about that? How does that have anything to do with class struggle?

> but because of Human nature integration cannot work

What?!?!? English, Welsh, and Scottish cannot integrate? What about Presbyterians and Anglican? Men and women? People with blue eyes and people with brown eyes? Bourgeoisie and proletariat? Gen X and Gen Y?

What does it mean to not integrate when there are different classes in a shared society? They certainly aren't calling for the abolition of class distinction, which is Marx's Communist solution.

> so that the risk of a king is eliminated

Right, so Communism? Otherwise, when there is a power vacuum, something fills it, and without the consent of the people, that's a king, dictator, strongman, or the like.

As it stand, it looks more like the dismantling of the legislative and judicial branches, with all power in the executive.

> given the constraints of the constitution.

I'm pretty convinced the current government does not at all feel itself constrained by the constitution.

> they hope to expand the US to other countries voluntarily

History shows the US has a long history of not expanding voluntarily. What's changed? How has this new right de-fanged itself from the tendencies of the old right, like Andrew Jackson, that they seem to admire so much?

Many Christians also align with liberal and even radical thinking. Integration is possible because everyone is a child of God, and "When God’s people are in need, be ready to help them. Always be eager to practice hospitality.” ... “The foreigner who resides with you must be to you like a native citizen among you; so you must love him as yourself, because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God.”

afpxOP1y ago

I don't know, man. You'll have to go talk to some of them to get a better answer. This is my distilling of 8 years of conversations with average, everyday conservatives as I tried to figure out what they were even talking about. Interestingly, the all seem to have a strong intuition of what they want but seem to stumble on articulating it, they get frustrated, and lash out. I had to do a lot of socratic method and ask a lot of questions to come to these conclusions.

However, you are right about Marxism in that it influences a lot of things. Ironically, the accelerationist movement also even has influence from Marx. A lot whom I talked to have disdain for "academia" - I do know that.

I'm guessing here (and a lot of this is guess work) - that integration is difficult because they view "social control" as impossible outside of a cultural context. That is, within a culture, everyone learns all of the subtle rules and order of things - things that you can't codify in law. But, integration requires a lot of frontal lobe activity which is difficult to maintain and is fragile when it fails.

gom_jabbar1y ago

Correct - Nick Land, often regarded as the father of Accelerationism, affirms Marx's fundamental insight that "the means of production socially impose themselves as an effective imperative" [0], though his interpretation aligns itself with capital and its autonomization:

"Right-wing Marxism, aligned with the autonomization of capital [...], has been an unoccupied position. The signature of its proponents would be a defense of capital accumulation as an end-in-itself, counter-subordinating nature and society as a means." [0]

[0] https://retrochronic.com/#right-on-the-money-2

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse