You're viewing a single thread.
they are selfish.
That's where all of those symptoms stem from.
selfish greed.
MAGA is popular for the same reason other nationalist, fascist movements have risen over the course of modern history: as a response to Capitalist decay. MAGA isn't popular for genetic reasons, intellectual inferiority, or other reasons like that, but as a common class interest. All of the descriptors in the OP are consequences of the driving factor of class interests, not the drivers themselves.
Fascism is most often represented as an alliance between the Petite Bourgeoisie and Bourgeoisie proper, driven by the Petite Bourgeoisie, as monopolization of Capital results in competition becoming more and more difficult, and the Petite Bourgeoisie faces Proletarianization. To prevent the Petite Bourgeoisie from joining the Proletariat in solidarity, the Bourgeoisie proper turns their hatred against the Proletariat and Lumpenproletariat.
What does this all mean, in practical, American terms? Small business owners, landlords, ie the "middle class," is shrinking in power, so the Small Business Owners are aligning with billionaires like Musk and Bezos against immigrants, workers, unhoused peopled, gender/sexual minorities, women, ethnic minorities, and more.
How do we fix this? Grow the Petite Bourgeoisie and restore their position? Absolutely not! That's when fascism is established. Trying to "turn the clock back to the good old days" results in dramatic reductions in worker rights and a solidification of power.
What we need to do is establish Socialism. A victory of the Proletariat, a folding of the large monopolist syndicates into the public sector so they can be centrally planned for the public good, rather than privately planned for profit, is the way forward. This is the way to escape fascism's rise. This is the way to defeat MAGA.
I recommend reading the book Blackshirts and Reds, fascism's irrationality has rational, material origins, that can be understood and defeated, and it isn't in the "marketplace of ideas."
That's a modern take that doesn't really hold up to any scrutiny since there was conservatism before capitalism.
It's a convenient rallying cry of people who prefer socialism as they understand it, but the direct comparison doesn't hold any historical water.
mega fits into capitalism and socialist. I think they're such broad concepts, but definitely not the instigating concepts of fascism are conservatism.
I remember that book, it's older right? I read it in college or high school at some point.
Conservativism isn't the same as fascism. Reactionary movements have existed in every form of Class Society, when Capitalism overtook Feudalism it was the holdover Monarchist movements. It isn't a "convenient rallying cry," but an analysis of reactionary vs progressive social movements driven by class interests.
mega fits into capitalism and socialist
I have no idea what this means. Why do you think MAGA is Socialist?
I remember that book, it's older right? I read it in college or high school at some point.
Written in the 90s, you should revisit it.
"Reactionary movements have existed in every form of Class Society, when Capitalism overtook Feudalism it was the holdover Monarchist movements."
and before class society!
"an analysis of reactionary vs progressive social movements driven by class interests. "
blaming capitalism for literally everything, especially in a meme, is simple aggressive fomenting.
superficial demonization encourages a riot, not a movement, although it's easy to confuse the two when your blood is pumping and everyone around you is screaming the same facile slogan.
and before class society!
What "reactionary" movements existed in tribal societies devoid of distinct classes?
blaming capitalism for literally everything, especially in a meme, is simple aggressive fomenting.
I blame Capitalism for Capitalism's issues, not literally everything.
superficial demonization encourages a riot, not a movement, although it's easy to confuse the two when your blood is pumping and everyone around you is screaming the same facile slogan.
I have no idea what point you're actually making.
"What "reactionary" movements existed in tribal societies devoid of distinct classes?"
tribal societies specifically?
exactly how far are you narrowing societies you want examples of reactionary movements in down to?
like you want a specific century and a specific type of society? instead of just any non-capitalist society?
how are you defining capitalism?
are you ignoring the contemporary Amish and other people who oppose change out of principle for no capitalist reason?
"I blame Capitalism for Capitalism's issues, not literally everything. "
you're lumping conservative human behavior that exists independent of capitalism with actual examples of direct capitalist problems like mortgage crises.
your brush is too broad.
"I have no idea what point you're actually making. "
yelling "socialism is the best and capitalism causes all the problems" at the people yelling "capitalism is the best and socialism causes all the problems" isn't exactly dignifying your stance with a sense of legitimacy.
tribal societies specifically?
Yes, after tribal societies came the first class-based societies. You said reactionary movements predate class society, tell me.
how are you defining capitalism?
An economic mode of production centered around commodity production through competing Capitalists in markets who employ wage-labor, seeking greater and greater accumulation. This process is only a few hundred years old.
are you ignoring the contemporary Amish and other people who oppose change out of principle for no capitalist reason?
The Amish participate in Capitalism. Culture is a reflection of the Mode of Production.
you're lumping conservative human behavior that exists independent of capitalism with actual examples of direct capitalist problems like mortgage crises.
I am speaking of class interests.
yelling "socialism is the best and capitalism causes all the problems" at the people yelling "capitalism is the best and socialism causes all the problems" isn't exactly dignifying your stance with a sense of legitimacy.
Where are you seeing this?
"Yes, after tribal societies came the first class-based societies."
if you ignore the coexistence of tribal societies and class societies, i guess.
okay.
tribal societies with conservatives(you call them reactionaries):
I can't think of any tribal society without conservatives in them.
maybe I'll just find specific examples for you?
there's that famous uncontacted Island tribe, sentinalese, who kills anyone who attempts to contact them, that's pretty reactionary.
I guess we can look at Australian aborigines, they are at least 30,000 years old.
If you didn't follow the traditions and tried to change their cultural habits, you were banished or put to death for your disrespect of tradition in aboriginal culture.
and native American culture.
and...
That's the same with almost every tribal society I can remember.
maybe not the Jain?
are you using some weird gotcha definition for reactionary and that's why you're pretending not to know about conservative backlash against change in tribal societies?
"The Amish participate in Capitalism. Culture is a reflection of the Mode of Production."
completely irrelevant. we're talking about why they are reactionary.
they are not reactionary because of capitalism.
The Amish are reactionary for cultural and religious reasons entirely unrelated to capitalism.
there are several societies like that existing right now that resist change and have reactionary movements that have nothing to do with capitalism.
conservatism is a very human trait, irrespective of your economic infrastructure.
"Where are you seeing this?"
in your comments and the memes you are defending.
tribal societies with conservatives(you call them reactionaries):
BEEP! Wrong. Conservativism is not the same as beimg reactionary, though similar.
there's that famous uncontacted Island tribe, sentinalese, who kills anyone who attempts to contact them, that's pretty reactionary.
That's not what reactionary means. Reactionary refers to trying to turn the clock back to an earlier point in economic development.
are you using some weird gotcha definition for reactionary and that's why you're pretending not to know about conservative backlash against change in tribal societies?
I am using the correct definition.
completely irrelevant. we're talking about why they are reactionary.
You just explained precisely why it's relevant.
there are several societies like that existing right now that resist change and have reactionary movements that have nothing to do with capitalism.
Never said reactionary movements are only due to Capitalism.
in your comments and the memes you are defending.
Quote me.
conservatives and reactionaries are the same unless you want to pretend they're different with a special definition that is slightly inaccurate.
since you were playing around, I figured you would be using a made-up gotcha definition.
which is fine, I definitely was waiting for you to take off the mask.
"Reactionary refers to trying to turn the clock back to an earlier point in economic development. "
I asked you for your special definition, you didn't give one.
so yes, if you change the definition now, then the answer will be different.
"I am using the correct definition."
you're using a make-believe special definition for you. sure.
"Never said reactionary movements are only due to Capitalism."
Cool, nobody said you did.
"Quote me. "
done. 4 times in this comment alone.
Lots of them are, but it's stupid comments like this which make me shake my head. The left will lose 2024 with their fake moral superiority and fail to understand what happened.
Again.
get your maga out of here.
*The left will lose 2024 with their fake moral superiority..."
it is not a fake moral superiority, the left has a practical moral superiority demonstrated by material policy that positively affects the lives of people.
The left beat you in 2020 because of their tangible moral superiority by providing civil protections and material assets for the rights of the electorate.
conservatives are legally trying and succeeding in stealing the rights, liberties and property of Americans.
Americans don't like that, and voted to the left.
they're fighting back by prosecuting and removing the selfish conservatives who are harming people, and are creating laws and funds protecting everyone,
civil rights are not a "fake" moral superiority, they are a tangible moral superiority effected through practical, respectful policy.
Call me a white winger again and I'm flying to america cunt. Im gonna beat you up you hear me you stupid twat. Fuck you. I hope your mum gets cancer, retard. I'm challenge you to a duel, you hear me?
The yanks care a lot about THEIR civil rights and legality as long as there's no money to be made. When it comes to bombing civilians from other country, well, tough shit.
Logged into the wrong account? Hard to keep track, eh?
What? I don't really have an account I only create a few throwaways when I want to puke on yanks. Dirty race they are.
The smug feeling of moral superiority and the continuous willingness to correct the other's behaviour is THE reason why people can't stand "left/wokism/whatever". Continously pointing out on fake "offensive words" just to show off how morally superior they are.
That how it looks from outside.
(For context i am not American and don't guve a fuck about orange man neither for so called "christian values" so don't try to paint me as a conservative MAGA supporter.)
"moral superiority and the continuous willingness to correct the other's behaviour"
it is tangible practical moral superiority coming from the protection and support of civil rights and liberty.
rather than taking away employee rights, the left is giving employees rights.
rather than taking away minority rights, the left is legally protecting minority rights.
those are not imaginary feelings, those are practical and effective policies.
"The smug feeling of moral superiority and the continuous willingness to correct the other's behaviour is THE reason why people can't stand "left/wokism/whatever". Continously pointing out on fake "offensive words" just to show off how morally superior they are. "
this is largely your imagination and pointed conservative media and a poor excuse for selfish people to continue abusing vulnerable people for their own gain.
offensive words are not fake, and there's nothing wrong with being considerate toward everyone.
the fact that you don't understand haven't considered the difference between protected civil liberties and imaginary fake word hunts from the left (that are actually perpetrated by conservatives banning books from libraries) demonstrates exactly how successful the conservative media you consume is.
consider what you're saying, consider the information around you.
anybody accusing the left of instigating moral panics while the right is literally banning books in libraries over words that they don't like or understand clearly doesn't have even the most tenuous comprehension of what is really happening.
rather than taking away employee rights, the left is giving employees rights.
Good, that's not what I am talking about
rather than taking away minority rights, the left is legally protecting minority rights.
Good, that's not what i am talking about neither
. those are practical and effective policies.
Cool I agree!
this is largely your imagination and pointed conservative media and a poor excuse for selfish people to continue abusing vulnerable people for their own gain.
Oh wait, so telling someone "your fears/points you makes, it's just your imagination" is a valid argument now? lol
the fact that you don’t understand haven’t considered the difference between protected civil liberties and imaginary fake word hunts ... the conservative media you consume is.
Well you didn't even bother to check if we are talking about the same points. Good on you I guess. You also somehow deduced I consume conservative medias, that's some skill!
consider what you’re saying, consider the information around you.
Consider what you are saying, consider the information about you.
... right is literally banning books in libraries over words...
Banning books is dumb, I don't know what makes you say I d support it. It never occured to me to ban a book, and I am not planning or supporting anyone who does.
Again 95% of your comment is completely beside the point, because you somehow assumed my view points without ever considering I actually have similar views, I just don't subscribe to every other random bullshit "the left" (whatever that means, because I don't consider myself "right" neither) does.
nobody's throwing you in jail for being the public bigot you aspire to. use all the slurs you want.
people are, however, murdering trans people and banning books. in the real world.
have fun cradling your make believies.
So you think that being an asshole and holding the country hostage is a reasonable response to being scolded? Like a literal fucking toddler?
Sorry I don't know what you refer to