Well? Did you study up in communist theory, or are you content always getting dunked on?
Also, please link us the thread where Cowbee “ignored your best points” so we can take a look at it. I’m curious to see what you’re talking about. I suspect you’re lying.
Sigh, Cowbee painstakingly engaged with you, displayed patience and empathy and kindness, and this is the route you went. Reading your comments, you’re completely and utterly clueless. You would do well to stop throwing mud at people who take time to help you parse your scattered “ideology” and instead do some reading and shut the fuck up.
As stated earlier, my best points were essentially ignored. If that’s what ‘getting dunked on’ means, I’m beyond fine with it lol
I don’t know how this is mud throwing when he describes himself as an optimist and at the same time was the ‘clueless one’ on what a moderately conservative communist stands for.
I love your take though, especially the ‘parse your scattered ideology’ bit, that was hilarious. I believe Cowbee has been clued in on my perspective despite my own cluelessness haha
I read through your thread with Cowbee that chloroken had listed and am still confused what you mean by a moderately conservative communist means. Can you elaborate why you choose to describe a communist, essentially a person who wants to bring change, as conservative, which means to oppose change?
The thread already highlights this, but the target of the change dictates the label.
You are assuming capitalism is the steady baseline and communism is the disruption. But in reality, global capital is the true revolutionary force. It constantly tears apart the planet, destroying ecosystems just to keep expanding. It is insanely radical.
So if capital is the radical disruption, then what does it mean to be a conservative? ‘oppose change’ certainly doesn’t cover it or much of anything at all. It means you want to conserve the basic conditions of life against this chaos. I am a communist because it takes a radical break to stop capital, but I am a conservative because the whole point is to defend the physical world from its destructive progress. Communist means, conservative ends.
I feel like your true definition of ‘change’ means ‘movement toward liberation’ if you could only be more specific. If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense, but it is also the only sane and radical thing to do. You need a revolutionary tool (communism) to apply the brakes, but the goal is ultimately conservative (keeping the train from crashing).
Conservative doesn’t mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn’t change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.
If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense
Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.
Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static “status quo.” It isn’t. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if “conservative” means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.
The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine’s current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine’s operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.
I think you’re conflating ecological conservation and political conservatism. This seems like an argument that wouldn’t exist in a language that created a meaningful distinction between the two.
An individual that is protecting the rights of capital to cause rapid ecological damage, is doing so by seeking to preserve the power of private capital.
A leftist seeking to abolish the power of capital to conserve the environment is the radical in that case.
Communism through conservatism as I think you are describing it isn’t wrong, but it is at the very least confusing due to the clashing definitions of radical, conservative, and the targets of both changes and preservation of the structures.
You are absolutely right that the terms clash and it makes for a confusing label to those on both sides i think. I do prefer to keep using it though because I think that naturally pre-occuring confusion points to something important about the situation. I realize now my earlier framing of communist means and conservative ends was backwards i guess. Since global capital is the true radical force destroying our social fabric, merely conserving the present is not enough. We actually need the conservative discipline of a strong state to impose order and push us forward into a truly emancipatory communist future. I am still unsure if this is the best way to articulate it, but does it make more sense? I feel like I just sound like cowbee now, but I also never felt I disagreed with him in much of anything substantial to begin with
Well? Did you study up in communist theory, or are you content always getting dunked on?
Also, please link us the thread where Cowbee “ignored your best points” so we can take a look at it. I’m curious to see what you’re talking about. I suspect you’re lying.
Edit: https://lemmy.world/comment/23871382
Sigh, Cowbee painstakingly engaged with you, displayed patience and empathy and kindness, and this is the route you went. Reading your comments, you’re completely and utterly clueless. You would do well to stop throwing mud at people who take time to help you parse your scattered “ideology” and instead do some reading and shut the fuck up.
As stated earlier, my best points were essentially ignored. If that’s what ‘getting dunked on’ means, I’m beyond fine with it lol
I don’t know how this is mud throwing when he describes himself as an optimist and at the same time was the ‘clueless one’ on what a moderately conservative communist stands for.
I love your take though, especially the ‘parse your scattered ideology’ bit, that was hilarious. I believe Cowbee has been clued in on my perspective despite my own cluelessness haha
Thank you for linking the comment thread for me.
I read through your thread with Cowbee that chloroken had listed and am still confused what you mean by a moderately conservative communist means. Can you elaborate why you choose to describe a communist, essentially a person who wants to bring change, as conservative, which means to oppose change?
The thread already highlights this, but the target of the change dictates the label.
You are assuming capitalism is the steady baseline and communism is the disruption. But in reality, global capital is the true revolutionary force. It constantly tears apart the planet, destroying ecosystems just to keep expanding. It is insanely radical.
So if capital is the radical disruption, then what does it mean to be a conservative? ‘oppose change’ certainly doesn’t cover it or much of anything at all. It means you want to conserve the basic conditions of life against this chaos. I am a communist because it takes a radical break to stop capital, but I am a conservative because the whole point is to defend the physical world from its destructive progress. Communist means, conservative ends.
I feel like your true definition of ‘change’ means ‘movement toward liberation’ if you could only be more specific. If a train is heading towards a cliff, hitting the brakes is conservative in the literal sense, but it is also the only sane and radical thing to do. You need a revolutionary tool (communism) to apply the brakes, but the goal is ultimately conservative (keeping the train from crashing).
Conservative doesn’t mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn’t change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.
Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.
Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static “status quo.” It isn’t. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if “conservative” means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.
The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine’s current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine’s operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.
You’re playing on semantics
I think you’re conflating ecological conservation and political conservatism. This seems like an argument that wouldn’t exist in a language that created a meaningful distinction between the two.
An individual that is protecting the rights of capital to cause rapid ecological damage, is doing so by seeking to preserve the power of private capital.
A leftist seeking to abolish the power of capital to conserve the environment is the radical in that case.
Communism through conservatism as I think you are describing it isn’t wrong, but it is at the very least confusing due to the clashing definitions of radical, conservative, and the targets of both changes and preservation of the structures.
Once again for the sake of clarity
Ecologic conservation, cultural/sociatal conservation ≠ economic conservatism.
Sticking the terms together is kinda just confusing
You are absolutely right that the terms clash and it makes for a confusing label to those on both sides i think. I do prefer to keep using it though because I think that naturally pre-occuring confusion points to something important about the situation. I realize now my earlier framing of communist means and conservative ends was backwards i guess. Since global capital is the true radical force destroying our social fabric, merely conserving the present is not enough. We actually need the conservative discipline of a strong state to impose order and push us forward into a truly emancipatory communist future. I am still unsure if this is the best way to articulate it, but does it make more sense? I feel like I just sound like cowbee now, but I also never felt I disagreed with him in much of anything substantial to begin with