Do you agree?

Do you agree?

I see a lot of theory parroting on Holla Forums and limited originality.

Ah, yes, the new and radical idea of maintaining private ownership of the means of production.

disrupt yourself

You're clearly unfamiliar with MacIntyre, a socialist who became some vague sort of communitarian.

I'm sceptical of basically anything MacIntyre says after reading After Virtue. He advocates for a kind of particularism that is essentially indistinguishable in practice from naive moral relativism, dressed up in fancy justifications.

reactionaries don't invent new arguments, they just rehash old arguments in inventive ways.

This is fairly true. The goal is to make communities or traditions with coherent moral frameworks, rather than to accept societies where almost everybody in them is an emotivist. It's very debatable whether such a thing would be worth it.

lol. reactionaries just keep their pseudo ideologies new names, they don't innovate. innovation and conservatism cancel each other as well.

also:
i hate Holla Forums threads. piss of to your own shithole with your circlejerk crap.

You may not like their stuff, but all of them had some novel ideas, at least in the present ideological sphere.

lol. reactionaries just keep giving their pseudo ideologies new names. the terms alone suggest that innovation and conservatism cancel each other as well.

also:
i hate Holla Forums threads. go back there with your trivial bullshit.

Maybe MacIntyre was better when he was a Marxist.


This. Fuck this Romantic bullshit.

He should google bookchin tbh

Name a new doctrine that conservatism has come up with in the last 25 years

Neocameralism

Neoreaction

How are these things new? Just because you put neo in front off old ideas doesn't make it new.

the neo- prefix indicates a rehash or revival of a past doctrine.

Cameralism and neocameralism are remarkably different, although you could call the latter a rehash of corporate structure.

Neocameralism is a collection of small countries, the size of city states, run as joint stock corporations. Neocameralist states are thus practically businesses trying to make as much money as possible, so they compete for productive citizens with plenty of income to tax. If a city state governs poorly, productive parts of the economy go elsewhere and shareholders make less money.

How is this different from An-Cap cancer?

It's a more practical conception of ancap cancer. Still pretty original, in my opinion.

Not really? It's just the same old idea of money being able to buy literally anything and everything applied to an ultimately unworkable "decentralized" model that will become centralized as soon as one person owns more then one city, and then you'll have a snowball effect of further consolidation and monopolization.

There are conceivable ways of preventing shareholders from owning any city, depending on the advantages of share ownership and the methods for exchanging shares.

If it's not new enough, what leftist ideology in the last 25 years is new enough?

Communalism and DemCon, and the only way to really prevent that sort of monopolization is through the use of a State or non-market power, something that wouldn't exist in Ancapistan

Isn't this basically a CURRENT YEAR argument though

It's simple, the state kills its shareholders.

Pretty sure reactionaries want to move the world back to an earlier 'golden age'.

No matter what guise you invent for it, its the same ideology underneath.

Neither of these are true.

testing

I would agree that the leftist innovators, radicals and "revolutionaries" of today do indeed call for the same old doctrine of societal change, whilst conservatives and reactionaries conceive of new and original schemes to maintain the current order.

Conservatives are conservatives no matter the country or ideology. USA is a good example of this.

hurrrHURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Neoreaction is the most cancerous ideology imaginable. It was literally invented by some autistic silicon valley idiot who was politically illiterate enough to claim the US was already communist.

Pretty much all right-wing ideological "innovations" of recent years are just libertarians realizing the only way to force their shitty system on people is through dictatorship. As they put it (without a hint of Irony) freedom and democracy are not compatible.

My idea is mainly that the old guards needs to be gulaged for new idealogies to be formed.

NRx is pretty insightful in its criticism of democracy, although it draws a lot from Carlyle and de Maistre. It made me more authoritarian, although it did not make me an ancap or an antihumanist accelerationist.

I think what he's saying is that the radicals and revolutionaries have found a concrete path forward, but the reactionaries are flailing around and constantly having to invent new crazy shit to justify not doing the right thing.

Either your transition is a nearly incomprehensible logistical nightmare or it takes you somewhere you don't want to go.