#reactionary politics | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theculturedmarxist · 6 months

Text

[...]

A long time ago, while conducting research for my master’s thesis on how the economic reforms of [French President] Emmanuel Macron had closed the circle started by [François] Mitterrand, I came to realize that the old Thatcherite idea, “There is no society, only individuals with the freedom of choice,” had become so commonly accepted in contemporary society that both right– and left-wing neoliberals today feel no need to emphasize it.

Social surveys have also found a shocking lack of empathy and solidarity among communities in the U.S. and Western Europe, exactly at the time the dominant political narratives have begun to insist on inclusiveness and tolerance toward others. Subtle distinctions in definitions can often reveal commonly understood and yet unspoken differences between terms that we prefer to use: Inclusiveness does not necessary oblige solidarity or empathy, just as tolerance in the absolute sense means merely withholding action based on existing animosities, which are acknowledged by the very need for the usage of the term in question. Tolerance, indeed, does not have to mean understanding and accepting increasingly distant “others.”

A question must be asked: Are we now, through ideological terminology, searching for exactly those things that we are in fact missing in our social reality? The need to define ideological terms prompts this question in that it arises only when certain notions have left the sphere of unspoken social consensus—the very frame of political and social thought.

In his latest book, The exiled terms, Todor Kuljić, who is among the most internationally recognized Serbian sociologists of the previous and current century, explains how four decades of neoliberal reforms have influenced significant changes in the language we use to discuss ideology and politics, noting that all the terms previously connected to class inequalities, Marxist ideologies, and collective struggles of the working class have been systematically replaced with less critical, less “communist sounding” terms.

In sociology curricula, the terms “exploitation,” “revolution,” and even “humanism” have been almost completely forsaken, while we can see increased usage of words such as “transition,” “transformation,” and “social exclusion.” The term “transition,” a case in point, normalises poverty and corruption in countries that need to be convinced that they will be much better off when they adopt neoliberal economic models.

The famous comedian George Carlin put forward a notion that there is a cultural tradition in the United States of constantly inventing new terms, and “exiling” the old-fashioned terms, which derives from the constant need to make the brutalities of everyday life more easily accommodated. “Americans have trouble facing the truth,” Carlin once said, “so they invent a kind of soft language to protect themselves from it.” If poor people used to live in slums, to cite one of Carlin’s standup routines, “now ‘the economically disadvantaged’ occupy ‘substandard housing’ in ‘inner cities.’”

Anthropological studies have shown that this tendency has certain connections with the totemistic belief of the earliest human societies that, by changing the way we verbally identify a certain aspect of reality we can change the reality itself. It appears that this has never been more relevant than in the case of the modern culture of political correctness, which proposes that we accept social problems as consequences of our subconscious thoughts and/or individual actions, and try to solve them by changing the language we use to define them—while never searching for their material causes.

Professor Jordan Peterson has claimed that modern-day political culture developed in a manner in which the previously presumed need for objectivity was replaced with subjective feelings and perceptions, while the very understanding of material reality has been, through relativization, reduced to little more than an inconvenience that can be regulated by state legislation and group stigmatization. On the other hand, Slavoj Žižek holds that it is precisely the abandonment of the collective (ideas) for the individual (interests) that has led our increasingly globalized political culture down this path. The neoliberal, postmodern left has merely followed the neoliberal right of the eighties in the project of eliminating undesirable terminology related to physical, class, and social reality—depending on the preference of each—from the common frames of political debate, since a consensus on understanding material reality is the first and necessary condition of the collective political struggle.

Žižek also claims that the phenomenon of New Age leftists striving toward zealous political correctness merely contributes to depriving formal and informal human relationships of what is the very essence of humanity. This is because following the increasingly strict standards of Newspeak, as Orwell would put it, necessarily increases the distance between people by making them focus on their differences, thus continuously reinforcing the same barriers neoliberal leftists wish to break free of, while, at the same time, leaving them unable to overcome the tensions of every-day interactions through humor and other forms of releasing the burdening contents of the individual and collective subconscious.

Further, if we take into account the previously mentioned thesis of Professor Kuljić, we can also propose the question: To what extent is the modern neoliberal leftist obsession with political correctness a consequence of the absence of a language and terminology by which young people could articulate the actual causes of their fear and anger and the need to express political radicalism? Of course, leftists of this persuasion remain thoroughly within the existing frame of the globally dominant ideology and never challenge the economic and political system.

At the same time, neoliberal right-wing policies continue to insist on the previously discussed narrative of personal responsibility—or, rather, personal “guilt”—not for the problems of cultural inequalities, which their leftist counterparts remain unable to relate to their actual causes in material reality, but rather for the position of the individual in the new economic order. Now in social media we witness the rise of an entire generation of young conservatives who present success and failure in life—mostly defined by the acquisition of wealth rather than personal happiness—as a consequence of individual decisions and actions, entirely decontextualized and removed from one’s personal circumstances, class background, and social context.

Unlike the previous authors of the self-help books from the early eighties, these new “life coaches” of the internet are heavily engaged in the relativization of ethics, with some going as far as to conclude that those who stay employed in times of low wages and worsening labor conditions, instead of risking their financial existence with private business gambles, have no one but themselves to blame for being exploited. Thus, in a perverted sense of logical framing, they arrive very close to an argument used by ancient Greek philosophers to justify slavery: “An Athenian would rather kill himself than become a slave.”

Neoliberal leftists legitimize the unfair treatment of others for personal gain with the condition that you address respectfully the same people whom you are exploiting—and, as well, disregard solidarity as the core value of the left. Contrarily, the neoliberal right wing insists that participation in the hierarchy of social and economic power is a goal necessary to achieve and a matter of personal choice, and not at all of social reality. It is as though they, the neoliberal right wing, have forgotten with how much effort traditional conservatives tried to uphold the principles of ethics—even if many of those principles were not part of the initial humanist–Enlightenment agenda, or universal values as Immanuel Kant would define them, but served only to preserve position and ensure reproduction of the upper classes—as though there truly was no society anymore.

Not even the Prussian militarists of the old German Empire ever went so far as to assert openly that there is no common good, not even a universal moral code, and that, rather, you should seek to enrich yourself at the expense of others just to prove your own capabilities to a society you don’t even believe in anymore. But modern-day conservatives have crossed this line by seducing today’s ever more fearful youth with the promises that, if they prove capable enough, they can assume the role of the oppressor themselves and exploit the weak, who deserve their fate for failing to seize the “boundless opportunities” of some neoliberal economic paradise.

Thus, prevalent neoliberal left– and right-wing ideologies have not just disregarded, fragmented, or redefined traditionally universalist principles of ethics; they have also forsaken many “core values”—an emphasis on collective solidarity or personal liberty, common wellbeing, or individual morality—which defined the differences between the significant left– and right-wing ideologies of the previous two centuries. Even more important, humanity has been almost completely exiled from the sphere of ideological priorities—in favor of politically correct formality in the case of the New Age left, or, in the case of the New Age right, in favor of a convenient indifference to social problems. The value of humanity, in the sense in which it was understood during the course of the 20th century, will therefore have a hard time finding its way back into the ideological frames of the new world order.

Luka Filipović, among the youngest Serbians ever to earn his doctorate, holds a Ph.D. awarded by the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Belgrade. He has published numerous articles regarding the history of labor movements, communist parties, neoliberal economic reforms, and political turmoil of the late 20th century in Europe and Serbia. His book, Eurokomunizam i Jugoslavija 1968-1980,(Eurocommunism and Yugoslavia 1968–1980), is published this month by the Institute for Contemporary History in Belgrade, where Filipović currently conducts his research.

#neoliberalism #reactionary ideology #reactionary politics #society

19 notes · View notes

nando161mando · 7 months

Text

15 notes · View notes

if-you-fan-a-fire · 2 years

Photo

“CLASS OF SISSY BOYS WOULD BE PRODUCED,” Weekly British Whig (Kingston). May 10, 1922. Page 17. ---- If We Wipe Out Militia Training, Says Gen. A. E. Ross, Kingston. ---- Ottawa, May 11 - In discussing the militia estimates in the Commons, Brig.-General A. E. Ross, (Cons., Kingston) said it was rather interesting to see that estimates which were whittled down to the lowest figure could be still further reduced. He asked who the people- were who objected to militia training. There were those who had an aversion to what they called "brass hats." Then there were the uplifters. who said we should treat all men as brothers, forgetting that brothers. sometimes quarelled. Others took the ground that there were signs of lasting peace, and cited the disarmament conference in support of this contention.

General Ross emphasized the value of training. As a Canadian example of the value of training, he said that a week's winter training in Canada, with its experience of operations under low temperatures, had provided a method by which it had been possible to wipe out the malady known as trench feet.

"If we wipe out militia training and cadet training and all kinds of training," remarked. General Ross, in conclusion, "we shall produce a class of sissy boys, fanatics in dancing, and not the good old class of boys who made the British Empire what it is."

#kingston ontario #canadian veterans #militia myth #military cadets #sissy boys #history of masculinities #canada in the british empire #reactionary politics #military discipline #effeminate men #disciplining youth #house of commons #member of parliament #parliament of canada

21 notes · View notes

progressivemillennial · 5 months

Text

#politics #us politics #progressive #lgbtqia #lgbtq community #lgbtq #lgbt #queer #queercoded dividual #reactionary politics #queerphobia #homophobia #bigotry

7 notes · View notes

beepboopiloveyou · 6 months

Note

when you say "far left," what do you mean?

I mean when you're so far in a group's ideology that you're stuck in an echo chamber and immediately mark people as "the other side" when their opinion differs from yours.

When there's so much dogma inherent to your group, you have to blindly accept it or you will be questioned as "not on our side."

When you start throwing away the principles that you supposedly had when you started, as long as the bad things are being done to "the other side."

I've become severely disillusioned with the far left, because they've gone mask off in "othering" certain groups (like right now with Jewish People). I still don't think they're as bad in their cause as the far right, but I do somewhat believe that horseshoe theory is valid. A lot of the studies on that link tried to use polling to disprove it, but what's interesting is that I personally think leftists more commonly lie and virtue signal if they believe their public persona is being checked.

To clarify, because you're already trying to "other" me I'm sure, I consider myself leftist, progressive, pro-choice, anti-capitalist, pro-social safety nets, pro-freedoms, etc.

#rant post #rant #politics #reactionary politics

7 notes · View notes

allthecanadianpolitics · 7 months

Text

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe has announced his government’s intent to pass legislation invoking the notwithstanding clause aimed at his province’s high-school pronoun policy.

The notwithstanding clause is a constitutional tool that allows federal, provincial, and territorial legislatures to temporarily suspend certain Charter rights for a period of up to five years. If used, Saskatchewan joins a growing list of provinces that are resorting to the notwithstanding clause as a tool of first resort before courts have a chance to determine whether the action is constitutional or not. [...]

Saskatchewan’s use will not be the first time a minority population is targeted through the notwithstanding clause – Bill 21 in Quebec targets people in select public-service jobs who wear religious symbols. Saskatchewan’s approach is aimed at a minority youth population unable to vote. This application of the notwithstanding clause reveals more than ever a fundamental flaw in its design. By making elections the main accountability tool, the drafters abandoned the disenfranchised. People without the right to vote, whether new immigrants or youth, are left to the will of their fellow citizens, who are often apathetic or self-interested. [...]

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

#cdnpoli #Scott Moe #Saskatchewan #provincial vs federal #reactionary politics #transphobia #racism #islamophobia #non-withstanding clause

539 notes · View notes

genuinely-bad-posts · 1 year

Text

This post is Genuinely Bad!

#bad post #homophobia #transphobia #reactionary politics #queue

17 notes · View notes

scouse1g · 8 months

Text

I love how tradcaths hate Pope Francis for being more liberal. Like, isn't he supposed to be God's representative on earth? I guess you think you know better than God? Lmao

#reactionaries #reactionary politics #pope francis #catholic #catholicism #trad catholic #traditionalismiscodeforfascism #leftism #liberalism #socialism #communism #anarchism #marxism #anticapitalism #antifacist #antifa

4 notes · View notes

leresq · 10 months

Text

what do you call this

#far right #reactionary politics #cringe #profile picture #pfp #left #left wing #transphobic #homophobia #mysogyny #fatphobia #anti woke

4 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 9 months

Text

"Attack on American Free Enterprise System"

That about adding Regan's inauguration got me to thinking. I wonder of there's a correlation between the recipients of The Powell Memo and financial contributors to Ronald Reagan's election campaign.

On August 23, 1971, less than two months before he was nominated to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. mailed a confidential memorandum to his friend Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chair of the Education Committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The memo was titled Attack On American Free Enterprise System and outlined ways in which business should defend and counter attack against a "broad attack" from "disquieting voices."

Initially the memo was viewed, and praised, by only a select few within the Chamber. That all changed on September 28 & 29, 1972, when the leaked document was the topic of negative treatment in syndicated newspaper columnist Jack Anderson's Washington Merry Go Round. With quotations from the document now public, the Chamber published it in full in Washington Report, the Chamber's newsletter. An off-print of the memo was made available to anyone requesting it from the Chamber.

Interest in the memorandum was revived in the early 1990s. The Alliance for Justice's 1993 report, Justice for Sale, mentions it prominently. The case for the memo being a seminal document in the neoconservative movement in the U.S. was made in 2000 with the publication of John B. Judis’s The Paradox of American Democracy. The Internet became a medium for access to the memo and for posting articles about it. Mediatransparency.org was one of the first World Wide Web sites to feature the memo, as was the official site of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today the memo is both credited as having "changed America" and scorned as being "far out of touch with the concerns and structures of the current right."

Whatever it's influence, it has been and remains today the single most requested document in the Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Papers. On the fortieth anniversary of its creation, the Powell Archives has here assembled links to the memo and related documents from the Powell Papers. Lyman Johnson, Robert O. Bentley professor of law at Washington and Lee university School of Law, also wrote this piece in commemoration of this anniversary.

#powell memo #ronald reagan #reactionary politics #capitalism #class war

2 notes · View notes

ammunist · 10 months

Text

Individualism and Conservatism: Weimar to Present-Day America

There are many similarities and differences between the Weimar conservative and the modern conservative, but today I want to look specifically at their perspectives on individualism. What were the Nazis’ views of individualism? How was the individual defined, limited, and perceived? Most importantly, do these views carry into America’s modern day political sphere, and if so, how do they manifest in America’s seemingly individual-centered society?

This may be surprising for many who grew up with American conservatism, but conservatives in Weimar Germany were actually broadly opposed to individualism. According to point #10 of the Twenty-Five Points, the Nazis’ original platform of 1920, “The activities of the individual may not clash with the interests of the whole, but must proceed within the frame of the community and be for general good.” This may sound conducive to happiness and common good, but this entire quote is obviously very vague and subject to interpretation. What are the interests of the whole? How are the whole and the community defined and limited? How is general good measured in this framework? Of course, when the German Workers’ Party (which would later become the Nazi Party) drafted this, their interpretation of the community was exclusive to their conception of German citizens - Aryans. The interests of the whole and the general good referred to the interests and good of the German nation and culture exclusively. The individual is only permitted to act and exist within these narrow parameters. Not only does this exclude Jews, but enemies of the German nation and culture as well, including sexual deviants, communists, and other groups that were eventually persecuted by Nazis.

In other writings from this time, individualism is associated negatively with Jews and modernism. For example, in Struggle of the Age, Adolf Bartels claims that the modern art style of Expressionism, “in its Jewish disfigurement, elevates the puny individual to the measure of all things” (Weimar Republic Sourcebook p. 124) Not only is this sentence an expression of hatred for the elevation of the individual, it is an expression of hatred specifically for those who are unique, unfamiliar, and incomprehensible to nationalist conservatives of the time. This line also demonstrates conservatives’ discomfort with the idea that human experience is subjective; it undermines the principles of uniformity, authority, and objectivity that undergird their belief system. Furthermore, many other conservative groups, especially churches, railed against the individualism and egotism of modern (read: Jewish) life and called for a return to a time when God was the center of people’s lives (Weitz pp. 337-338).

To summarize, the admiration of the individual, in the eyes of Weimar conservatives, was broadly seen as an unsavory product of modern Jewish corruption of traditional German society. The individual was expected to be a part of and contribute to the preservation of the dominant German culture; one was free to act as long as they acted in service to the fatherland (which is a roundabout way of saying one isn’t truly free to act as they please).

Comparing this to the modern-day conservative and neo-fascist movement of America, we can notice differences and similarities. The rabid individualism so characteristic of American culture and history cannot be ignored, and that was certainly lacking in Weimar conservative circles. But is it truly individualism or just a facade? (As a side note, there is certainly a conversation to be had here about propaganda, but we won’t get into that today.) Though many conservatives (especially libertarians) constantly use terms like “individual liberty” in their rhetoric, they advocate for policies that fundamentally restrict these liberties. For instance, gender-affirming care bans prevent individuals from seeking specific kinds of treatment. Forbidding drag in public restricts the right of the individual, cis or trans, to present as they like. Banning abortions and restricting birth control take bodily autonomy away from the individual and give it to the government. Allowing people to refuse service to LGBTQ+ people for “religious reasons” reduces the liberty of those seeking services.

All of these policies, overwhelmingly supported and implemented by modern conservatives, run directly counter to their supposed veneration of individual rights. Modern conservatives and Weimar conservatives do have one thing in common then, and that is their de facto dislike of individual freedom. As much as modern conservatives claim to love the individual, they only actually support individual freedom so long as it is defined as the freedom of an individual to act on dominant nationalist, Christian, capitalist, exclusionary, traditionalist values. In the eyes of a conservative, people who do not conform to those values, who appreciate the uniqueness and subjectivity of the individual, and who recognize the variability of humanity and malleable nature of culture are not deserving of individual freedom and must be regulated by the government. Modern conservatives permit individual liberty primarily when it restricts the freedom of undesirable individuals and simultaneously upholds the values of the dominant culture. As previously mentioned in the section on Weimar, this is because individual diversity and subjectivity conflict with the conservative craving for uniformity, authority, and objectivity.

Sources:

The Weimar Republic Sourcebook edited by Anton Kaes, Martin Jay, and Edward Dimendberg

Weimar Germany: Promise and Tragedy by Eric D. Weitz

#weimar germany #individualism #politics #fascism #antifascism #analysis #capitalism #antisemitism #freedom #anarchism #socialism #conservatism #reactionary politics #now i know what sam seder meant when he said that conservative libertarianism is inherently contradictory #ammunist original

2 notes · View notes