anon_
6d ago
I agree but I also endorse /u/maiqthetrue below that there is some kind of equivocation here.
There is also something else here -- the leftist version doesn't always actually explain quotidian things like how the food is grown when no one choses to be a farmer than wakes up at 5AM and works for 12H a day.
anon_
6d ago
Sure. I think the question there is about whether the vision for where the individual tradcon fits into their hypothetical future lines up with reality.
anon_
6d ago
I mean, the left and the right are huge spaces. I think some of the right wants to greatly change society, especially along gender lines. Some doesn't and just wants a nicer economy, less crime and fair college admissions.
anon_
6d ago
The would-be commune dweller is funny because leading discussion groups and making clothes out of scraps is no more plausible as a career after the revolution than it is before. If it's not profitable to do under a capitalist system them it's not practical to do under a communist system.
Sadly this is not true. The profitability of making clothes out of scraps depends the opportunity cost of that labor to do something else useful. If Communism destroys all other productive activity, it will render that profitable. Of course, the other way to say that is "your labor will be so worthless that mending socks will be net positive".
Being a warlord is a real job, it's just that you chose for some reason to compare a regular person making clothes out of scraps with a highly-exclusive job reserved for social elites.
I think the mockery of the leftists is that "person that doesn't have to do hard labor but can futz about in the garden, sew embroidery and teach the children for an hour in the afternoon" is an aristocratic/elite position.
"Under an authoritarian system I would be one of the dictator's goons enforcing his will on the people and exploiting his power to enrich myself," may not be a very moral stance, but no one can say that it's not a tried-and-true strategy for getting ahead.
That can't work for everyone. And there is quite a bit of intra-goon competition there too. It's a very slippery post.
anon_
6d ago
If you actually look at the ideas, the reactionary thesis is that most people do not desire to participate in politics and that the job of a respectable aristocracy is to fulfill this demand.
Right, and to the extent that Communists believe they will be governed by enlightened and benevolent socialist rulers, reactionaries believe they will be governed by respectable and benevolent aristocrats. Neither has a desire to participate in politics assuming that those with power will simply do it correctly.
The reality for the poor reactionary is that he's more likely to get a venal, greedy or scheming lord as he is to get a benevolent one, and he'll quickly remember why everyone got so sick of it and overthrew them.
It's not meant to be a contradiction, it's meant to underscore that one's assessment of a system has to take into account what one believes that one's role in that system would be.
That is -- we agree that this is the same system. But the people daydreaming about destroying capitalism and replacing it with (whatever) are imagining a small slice of it. They imagine the commune but not the forced labor. They imagine the social order but don't imagine that they would ever see the sharp end of the stick.
More options
Context Copy link