[Ummon]

It seems like anything associated with the future and to some extent science, mathematics, and technology in recent years has become something very scary that the right is afraid of. When we speak about the future we often speak about technologies that could help us to overcome the "inherent" limits set by nature. Robots, Artificial Intelligence, Genetically engineering organisms, Drones, Quantum Computers, biohacking, holograms, etc all seem to be "too much" for some to handle so "the future" seems to be more and more associate with the left and the right sees it as something scary. Meanwhile, the right tends to glorify the past, he "good old days", golden ages, the high culture of civilizations past and we mere mortals living in this present age are a "lesser" people than those great giants on whose shoulders we stand. How and why did this narrative start? What is the meaning of it? Other thoughts?

[Hong Wu]

Technologies aren't liberal or conservative. The association is purely temporal, there was less technology in the past, the past is sometimes "conserved", therefore technology must be liberal or anti-conservative. I think it's a shallow analysis.

What happened is that traditional structures hated to work (I've posted on this), partly because of this they established hierarchies. Eventually the traditional structures embraced work as a virtue, which itself transitioned into intellectuals who support communism and so-on even though their ancestors clearly weren't laborers and despite the fact that they clearly hate working too. But even liberalism and communism are just steps along the way.

To stay on topic, traditional people were usually "socially conservative" but they didn't like working either, so what threat exactly is automation to us? You imagine it's a threat because you confused one of the interim forms (pro-work social conservatism) for the original state. This is a common mistake, most people either overvalue partying or they overvalue work, the former is liberal and the latter is conservative.

[Potemkin]

Thanks for clearing that up for us, Rainbow Crow. It's all so obvious now!

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It seems like anything associated with the future and to some extent science, mathematics, and technology in recent years has become something very scary that the right is afraid of. When we speak about the future we often speak about technologies that could help us to overcome the "inherent" limits set by nature. Robots, Artificial Intelligence, Genetically engineering organisms, Drones, Quantum Computers, biohacking, holograms, etc all seem to be "too much" for some to handle so "the future" seems to be more and more associate with the left and the right sees it as something scary. Meanwhile, the right tends to glorify the past, he "good old days", golden ages, the high culture of civilizations past and we mere mortals living in this present age are a "lesser" people than those great giants on whose shoulders we stand. How and why did this narrative start? What is the meaning of it? Other thoughts?

Let me guess. You consider yourself a liberal.

[The Immortal Goon]

With translating the "liberal," and "conservative," There is going to be a certain tendency to always fear change amonst the reactionary and to measure progress amongst the conservative. This is true in technology as well.

I often look at the youth and what they're willing to put of themselves online and think of Robbespierre boasting of a future republic where everyone's public mask will be removed and we will see and accept each other. Technology represents such changes and is often feared as a result...

Retorting to some fatuous bourgeois professor, a German Cadet, Engels wrote: is it not natural that youth should predominate in our Party, the revolutionary party? We are the party of the future, and the future belongs to the youth. We are a party of innovators, and it is always the youth that most eagerly follows the innovators. We are a party that is waging a self-sacrificing struggle against the old rottenness, and youth is always the first to undertake a self-sacrificing struggle.

No, let us leave it to the Cadets to collect the “tired” old men of thirty, revolutionaries who have “grown wise”, and renegades from Social-Democracy. We shall, always be a party of the youth of the advanced class!

[Rich]

To stay on topic, traditional people were usually "socially conservative" but they didn't like working either, so what threat exactly is automation to us? You imagine it's a threat because you confused one of the interim forms (pro-work social conservatism) for the original state. This is a common mistake, most people either overvalue partying or they overvalue work, the former is liberal and the latter is conservative.

Most hard core Liberals strike me as very hard working. Communists often included amongst the Liberals tend to be very hard working. Its because of their hard work that small minorities of Communists were able to impose their vision on the unsuspecting majority. Lenin was famous for being a workaholic.

Stalin was alos known for being a dedicated worker, however his opponents questioned whether he ever did any useful work, that he spent his hours scheming and building his own power base at the expense of the party the State and the country. And here's the rub, there is no agreement on what is useful work. And what is valued work or status work varies over time. Military aristocracies naturally gave status to military work, but even for the elite, warfare still required dedication and discipline and application. Laxity could be fatal. The fact is that in the richest countries only a minority now engage in physical labour.

[Hong Wu]

Most hard core Liberals strike me as very hard working. Communists often included amongst the Liberals tend to be very hard working. Its because of their hard work that small minorities of Communists were able to impose their vision on the unsuspecting majority. Lenin was famous for being a workaholic.

Stalin was alos known for being a dedicated worker, however his opponents questioned whether he ever did any useful work, that he spent his hours scheming and building his own power base at the expense of the party the State and the country. And here's the rub, there is no agreement on what is useful work. And what is valued work or status work varies over time. Military aristocracies naturally gave status to military work, but even for the elite, warfare still required dedication and discipline and application. Laxity could be fatal. The fact is that in the richest countries only a minority now engage in physical labour.

It's true that some liberals are workaholics but I think that socially they value partying, almost religiously, and that even the workaholics among liberals also value partying like this. The conservatives on the other hand value work religiously and don't value partying. It is just my observation, neither approach seems balanced or advisable to me.

It is sort of like the "middle path" in Buddhism. In Buddha's time there were extreme forms of religious devotion and asceticism which are mostly gone today (so people don't understand what the middle path was even referring to) but I think many of us would benefit from acknowledging a middle between valuing working or partying too much. Neither one is the meaning of life.

[Ummon]

Let me guess. You consider yourself a liberal.

It's that I have no choice because regardless of what I choose to do conservatives will label me as liberal.

[AuRomin]

They are both the past. Liberalism is masked conservatism, and they can easily become indistinguishable in the right circumstances. What is the future? I think we all know. classless society

[Kaiserschmarrn]

It's that I have no choice because regardless of what I choose to do conservatives will label me as liberal.

You identify as liberal because conservatives tell you to do so?

I'm conservative and I'm hereby removing the spell that conservatives have cast over you. Make you own choice!

So, do you identify as liberal or conservative?

What is the future? I think we all know. classless society

When I read stuff like this, I often wonder what the difference between religion and communism is.

[Potemkin]

When I read stuff like this, I often wonder what the difference between religion and communism is.

Religion is the fantasy version of communism.

[Rich]

When I read stuff like this, I often wonder what the difference between religion and communism is.

Religion is the fantasy version of communism.

So communism is Daenerys Targaryen without her Dragons?

The truth is Communism has many features of religion. It has much of the same magical thinking but this is obscured behind sudo scientific bluster. The key feature of Communism is that it is anti democratic. The great lie of Communism is Capitalism. Communism has created an imaginary Satan from which it poses as the Saviour. Britain does not have the same political- economy as it did in 1848. It is not the same system. No one agrees on what capitalism is and what it isn't. Its just a propagandist term. There's not even agreement on whether the Soviet union was capitalist. The British SWP believe the SU was Capitalist after 1928. But there were Left Communists who believed that the Soviet union was Capitalist up until 1928 and then ceased to be capitalist after. Capitalism is just a grab bag term for chucking together what ever group of societies you want. Except Libertarians have chosen to make the term a badge of honour and use the same no true Scotsman trick for Capitalism as a lot of Commies.

Communists seek to put complete power into the hand of a Communist priesthood. Communism is religion but just without Dragons and Elves. Note Libertarians also seek to abolish democracy but they want to deliver complete power to the corporations and rich individuals.

[Ummon]

So, do you identify as liberal or conservative?

There is an element among conservatives that will always treat me as a second class citizen for several reasons. Conservative institutions tend to protect these individuals so if I were to be a part of conservative social networks there would be no way for me to be an equal member in the network. Liberal networks are looser and less cohesive and tend not to protect their members, but they don't actively harm me for being a part of their network either. Let me put forth two future scenarios for you. I am working 10 years down the line at an IT company I could do so in a liberal state or in a conservative one. Where would a half-hispanic, non-christian, that believes in global warming be more actively accepted... nay, not just accepted, but welcomed and perhaps in time given opportunities to rise to position of trust? In a conservative network such as texas where there are many whites who actively discriminate against hispanics because of proximity to the border or perhaps somewhere else like colordo that has a mixture of liberals and conservatives and is probably socially more permissive and doesn't care about such things? Where could I marry and have a family without having to worry if my wife will make racist comments behind my back or in front of my face (like I saw with some of my uncles) or if your children will be beat up or otherwise discriminated against at a certain school district. That is why I am a liberal.

[Paradigm]

"Liberalism" is a bourgeois ideology that emerged in the wake of what is broadly called "modernity." If we substitute the term "progressive," we might have a more robust topic for discussion. Progressivism and radicalism seek to transform society in ways that they believe will contribute to greater human flourishing, generally according to some principle of fairness or equality. Conservatism, on the other hand, seeks to preserve some kind of order, viewing social change with suspicion, and preferring the comfort of familiarity. So we can speak of novelty and transformation vs conservation and tradition, but we should avoid reifying these things into such metaphysical categories as "future" and "past."

[Kaiserschmarrn]

There is an element among conservatives that will always treat me as a second class citizen for several reasons. Conservative institutions tend to protect these individuals so if I were to be a part of conservative social networks there would be no way for me to be an equal member in the network. Liberal networks are looser and less cohesive and tend not to protect their members, but they don't actively harm me for being a part of their network either. Let me put forth two future scenarios for you. I am working 10 years down the line at an IT company I could do so in a liberal state or in a conservative one. Where would a half-hispanic, non-christian, that believes in global warming be more actively accepted... nay, not just accepted, but welcomed and perhaps in time given opportunities to rise to position of trust? In a conservative network such as texas where there are many whites who actively discriminate against hispanics because of proximity to the border or perhaps somewhere else like colordo that has a mixture of liberals and conservatives and is probably socially more permissive and doesn't care about such things? Where could I marry and have a family without having to worry if my wife will make racist comments behind my back or in front of my face (like I saw with some of my uncles) or if your children will be beat up or otherwise discriminated against at a certain school district. That is why I am a liberal.

While I understand what you are saying, I don't really "get it". I've met my share of sexists, but they are not going to define my world view. As you might have guessed, I don't think much of identity politics, and what you describe above sounds a lot like your identity as half-hispanic trumps everything else.

Obviously, I can't speak to your personal experience with conservatives and liberals, but how you describe them here and in your OP has nothing to do with reality as I see it. There are people who oppose scientific/technological progress on both sides and usually the opposition is restricted to a subset of technology/science, however most people welcome it overall, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

As for conservative networks and organisations protecting theirs and discriminating others, you've clearly never been on the wrong side of liberal networks and organisations (which would indicate that you are a liberal after all).

Religion is the fantasy version of communism.

That's actually not far off the mark, I think.

[marjy]

[Religion is the fantasy version of communism.

That's actually not far off the Marx, I think.

[Potemkin]

That's actually not far off the Marx, I think.

[Ummon]

I can't speak to your personal experience with conservatives and liberals, but how you describe them here and in your OP has nothing to do with reality as I see it.

In my experience conservatism does not have much to do with reality as it is.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

In my experience conservatism does not have much to do with reality as it is.

I think everybody has realized by now that you don't like conservatives. You associate all kinds of negatives with them as the out-group, and all kinds of positives with liberals, which is the group you identify with. Colour me surprised!

[Paradigm]

Delete