this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
717 points (94.8% liked)

Political Memes

8111 readers
2943 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.

it's a nice sentiment, but you really need to have criticisms of the political economy if you want to address the root cause. the reason "the law" doesn't protect everyone is because the law is set up to prioritize the will of people with money and property over everyone else. I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than "anti-conservatism".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I think the more common through-line is anti-capitalism rather than "anti-conservatism".

I will concede that this clarification makes sense if one regards capitalism and conservatism as de facto interchangeable.

Personally, I like the "Anti-Conservative" label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Personally, I like the “Anti-Conservative” label as defined by Wilhoit because it more accurately describes my own political position within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

So as someone who doesn't actually want to address the systemic mass inequalities, because it might require something other than voting, got it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

What a vapid and obtuse thing to say.

What other actions do you want me to take, other than organizing and voting?

Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.

On the latter, I am not a combat veteran. I wouldn't know where to begin, and I'm not inclined to throw my life away easily.

Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Shall I run for office? Shall I take up arms against the government? Should I abandon my family to do those things? I will have to in order to be remotely successful at either.

Start by being honest with yourself about what the problem is. That's why I raise the point that the political economy is at fault and won't be fixed by simply purging the people you see as engaging in wrongthink. Personally I organize with like-minded people and do direct actions.

The original work you quote talked a tough game:

Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whatever-the-fuck-kind-of-stupid-noise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.

No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh.

which you immediately walked back:

within the specific constraints of voting and engaging in political discourse as a U.S. citizen.

If you really think that out-groups should not be getting ruled over by in-groups, then you really need to recognize that US hegemony has been the most powerful 'in-group' in history. Workers in America get paid more not because their work is more valuable but because money can flow freely over borders while people cannot. Labor aristocrats are the workers who are given a small share of the spoils from the rest of the world in exchange for their political inaction. Capitalism is wildly authoritarian and much of what you take for granted as 'constraints of US political discourse' are predicated on the US's hegemonic role within that system.

This entire line of argument seems like you're trying to pose as if you're maximally defiant against the status quo, but you also want to continue being anti-communist.

Furthermore, I believe wildcat strikes would be far more effective at dismantling the machinery of disenfranchisement, subjugation and oppression than armed revolution.

Revolutionary organizing has been far more effective, historically speaking.