Bourgeoise liberalism is destructive and nihilst

The bourgeoise left, i.e bourgeoise liberals who advocate an anti-traditional, anti-nationalist and anti-religious form of capitalism seem to be supporting globalization. Anti-tradition, anti-nationalism and anti-religious bourgeoise liberal positions are for the purposes of globalization, not Marxist ends of equality. In other words the bourgeoise left advocates mass-exploitation on an even greater scale than traditional conservatives and fascists. And whilst traditional conservatives are sneered at for being old fashioned dinosaurs, the bourgeoise left dress up an even more terrible mass-exploitation (globalization) than old fashioned conservatives are advocating with honeyed liberal phraseology such as "tolerance", "respect" that society is more "progressive" and multi cultural or modern. No, what's happening is that people are more tolerant and respectful of exploitation that is happening on an enormous scale. In an ironic twist of history, Communists or anyone interested in social justice and helping the working class, should have more in common with the Conservative Right than bourgeoise liberals because the Conservative Right actually stands against globalisation i.e mass exploitation. And capitalism is easier to oppose when it is at a national scale rather than capital being international. So I think it is perhaps a mistake for Communists to support globalisation because it supposedly creates a more "internationalist" culture.

If people are complaining (about thier culture), then they're just being douches. Usually they got a chip on their shoulder, cause they think they've been cheated out of something. Sure, I disagree with globalization, but it doesn't justify hatred. For example, everybody hasn't lost out, because of globalization. For instance, I know well educated people who clearly "lost out" cause of thier own bad decisions, yet scapegoat foreigners and "internationalism".

Ok, then why didn't the ancestors of the peoples of US, Canada, Australia, and South Africa just "leave the locals alone"? They didn't, and WNs have no apology for it, because they're whole philosophy is grounded on "might makes right" and "superiority".


Here's the problem: "The rich people drive the Mexicans in (by imposing free trade on them), and then (via conservative parties) want to build a wall to keep them out."

I'm not saying people should scapegoat foreigners or internationalism (there is no real internationalism in globalization).

But a skeptical attitude towards globalization i.e exploitation should be applauded by any rational human being more than the foul bourgeoise liberal endorsement and sickly praising of mass exploitation and globalization dressing it up with deceptive liberal phraseology. Because skepticism of globalization, whether they be fascist/traditional conservatives or Communists is skepticism of mass exploitation and the exploitation of the working class.

Traditional conservatism and Burkean ideology is a skeptical ideology. At least traditional conservatives, although they support capitalism, they are skeptical of the wealthy and extreme wealth. For example nationalism advocates the common good and those creaming off more than their fair share are not going a long with the common good. Traditional conservatism promotes skepticism of greed. Many traditional conservatives are religious, perhaps Christians, which says that greed is a sin.

Bourgeoise liberalism doesn't contain any skepticism because it rejects the old fashioned skeptical Burkean Tory philosophy whilst still desiring to be comfortably bourgeoise and rich. That is abhorrent. It advocates the continual exploitation of the working class without any sense of shame or skepticism.

There was a perverse moment on "question time", a political chat show a while ago where a British Indian wealthy man who had a knighthood for flogging beer who got extremely wealthy by flogging beer and exploiting workers declared how much he loved "immigration" and how great it was etc etc, declaring he was proud that he was "British" as well as "Indian". The audience clapped him more than a traditional conservative journalist who wrote for a right wing newspaper who was largely sneered at and treated poorly throughout the show. Aside from the fact it shows a lack of respect for healthy debate, the schiester from the East who had flogged Beer, exploited workers and clearly benefited from globalisation was coating mass exploitation with honeyed words like "respect" and "tolerance" and the presumably good intentioned audience fell for it. It's an example of the apparant power of political correctness when it is used by the liberal bourgeoise to justify mass exploitation.

That some bullshit right here.

Can you actually show us some evidence that would support that ridiculous thesis that conservatives oppose globalisation?

It seems to me that you mistake conservative opposition to multi-culturalism and some kind of cosmopolitanism for an opposition to gloibalisation. I'm not aware of any single conservative, apart from crypto-fascists who advocate one kind of autarky or another, that would oppose the liberalization of global capital flows in any meaningful way (and no, pre-election campaigns built on populism and denigration of rootless cosmopolitan capitalists outsourcing jobs cannot be taken to represent a meaningful opposition; show me a conservative government that made strides in the fight against the so called globalisation).

And even if this all was true, your undrlying method, or point, of searching for potential allies in the ranks of the conservative right (because that is the logical outcome of the insistence on proximity of values and so on), is outright suicidal in the last instance, and a recipe for opportunist degeneration in proletarian political groups, if not a means of progressive movement towards a kind of a national bolshevism.

But let me ask you this. When are you going to address the points made here with regard to intent and honesty, and their significance? You seem to be ranting on and on without actually making a counter-argument to what is being put forward here - in a nuthsell, that intent and honesty are completely worthless because we're not dealing with a politican's moral integrity, but with concrete, practical reality.

That was my first thought as well.
I think he must be talking about in theory rather than in practice. Ideologically conservatives tend to be the representation of the needs of the small capitalist. Foremost of which is protectionism and isolationism. So ideologically speaking yes conservatives would be against globalization. In practice though conservatives have long since dropped conservative economics favoring the neo-liberal line as that's what capital dictates.

A former Socialist Worker no less :lol:

Which would imply, in a true ironic twist, that graffic's initial position, that conservatives and nationalists are honestly advocating workers' interests, completely vacuous as we can see that this represents another kind of an ideological justification and mystification of the real, concrete practices which are supported. Much like the demonized liberals do.

It's evident that conservatives are opposed to globalisation.

Neo-liberals and free marketers are not ideological conservatives. You could call them "crypto fascists" but people who care about tradition, nationalism and cultural Christianity, i.e most conservatives to some degree and most conservative voters are opposed to globalisation. They are opposed to internationalism in theory and to mass-exploitation in theory. As someone pointed out above, ideological conservatism tends to represent the interests of the small capitalist and promote skepticism of "big" greedy capitalists and blatant exploitation. Bourgeoise liberalism uses vague liberal platitudes such as "tolerance" and "respect" to replace Burkean Tory skeptical philosophy to rather than promote skepticism of big business to discourage skepticism and promote mass exploitation and the international flow of capital.

Traditional ideological conservatism advocates skepticism and guilt about exploiting the working class. Bourgeoise liberalism still desires the comfortable bourgeoise life and to be rich whilst simultaneously attacking the values, customs and traditions that uphold the bourgeoise life and embody skepticism and guilt about exploitation. In other words, not only do bourgeoise liberals desire it both ways, they advocate a kind of fetish about exploitation.

I elaborated on my criticism. You simply fail to produce any evidence apart from your naive and uncritical acceptance of certain traits of a given ideology.
And even here you're blind to the real content of this supposed opposition, that being multi-culturalism at home and immigration (probably the only real condition that would be transformed in practical terms if the conservative right would muster enough courage to go after it).

And I didn't actually call the conservative right crpyto-fascists. I refer to the localist or regionalist variants of this political ideology which, while utopian and in discrepancy with the current necessities of capital accumulation, advocate a stronger degree of isolationism - what I termed autarkic develpment of some sort.

So again, show me this opposition in practice - I don't care for ideology. Show me concrete measures enacted by a conservative government, for instance. Go beyond mere words and address the real conditions.

I can see your point of view here, but in that case which party in the world represents ideological conservatives?

Certainly not the British conservatives or Republicans which both follow neo-liberal economics and have for a long time.

The journalist Peter Hitchens has written about this. I think he said that no party represents ideological conservatism today although there is perhaps the capacity to change this in the modern Conservative party, which is obvious.

You could argue UKIP does to some extent although I disagree with that analysis and agree to an extent with Peter Hitchens analysis of UKIP.

There's that ex-Socialist Worker popping up again :D

I agree with you 100% on UKIP they are extremely liberal economically. They just think they can get a better deal outside of the E.U.

Oddly enough it was actually Enoch Powell who was one of the forerunners of the shift in economic direction of the Tories. Margret Thatcher being one of his proteges in that area. Just goes to show you can be economically neo-liberal and oppose the free movement of labour.

If you accept that globalisation = mass exploitation, ideological conservatives are advocating a smaller capitalism opposed to globalisation that is by definition less exploitative. The bourgeoise liberals are advocating a bigger capitalism and bigger exploitation.

But whilst traditional Tories seek to advocate smaller exploitation ideologically aswell as upholding the customs, morals and traditions that uphold the bourgeoise way of life. Bourgeoise liberals advocate destroying the customs, morals and traditions that uphold the bourgeoise way of life whilst advocating a bigger capitalism and mass exploitation.

Social liberalism that isn't political and connected to class struggle just looks like selfish nonsense. And bigger capitalism and exploitation without skepticism or feelings of guilt that small capitalist traditional conservative philosophy promotes just looks like fetishizing exploitation and commodity fetishism. I consider that a bad society.

Capitalism is seeking to expand and by doing that it's seeking a liberal face. Now that Marxism is apparently "dead", and "ideology" in general is dead, anyone who opposes liberal capitalism is dismissed as someone living in the past when in actual fact ideology and ideas should be encouraged because it seeks the best for society and to help the worst off in society in radically different ways (Communism and fascism) whilst blind capitalism does not because it's about self-interest. My theory is that bourgeoise liberalism isn't a coherent ideology like Communism/fascism and Traditional Conservatism that genuinely wants the best for society. At it's heart is selfishness and a desire to have it both ways and no good will come of it.

Capitalism is mass exploitation. And on the other hand, what you here call globalism, is much too vague to grasp capitalist development in the last quarter of the 2oth century and up til now.

Conservatives do not advocate a severe restriction of global capital flows and finance. Provide some damn evidence to back this up if you really believe this is the case.

And no, a "smaller capitalism" (what the hell is a smaller capitalism, seriously? capitalism was a global mode of production way before the series of process now known as globalization) would not be necessarily less exploitative since exploitation is not a moral term, but a technical one, designating the difference between the value produced and the wages received (so it is possible to obtain great rates of exploitation all the while handing out decent pay cheques).

Do you really believe that conservatives would advocate some form of a breakup of larger corporations in favour of small business owners? That's pure fantasy and ideology which wins votes (though I don't know if this is what you refer to by "smaller capitalism"). And guess what keeps ministers in their soft and cosy chairs and party funds for rainy days swollen? Taxes and donations, that's what. Hard working Papa Joe and his two workers can hardly suffice.

All of this bigger v. smaller capitalism is hopelessly simplistic and useless. Especially since you didn't even define the terms. And guilt promotion, really? You think that, if there even were such a thing, it would be significant? A moral inducement to treating workers better? What a load of nonsense.

An example of ideological conservatives advocating a restriction of capital flows would be the attitude towards multi-national corporations registered in the country paying their fair share of tax. Bourgeoise liberals and free-marketers were bleating that it is the fault of the tax system that starbucks is not paying it's taxes and that we shouldn't clamp down "because it will drive business away" whilst ideological conservatives argued if a company is registered in the country it should pay it's fair share of tax. Thats a common globalisation argument that taxing the rich "will drive business away", in other words to Switzerland, New York or Monaco.

Similarly, when the banking sector collapsed and bankers continued to pay themselves bonuses, in some cases with tax payers money, we again saw traditional conservatives joining forces ideologically with those on the left objecting to exploitation and greed whilst free-marketers and bourgeoise liberals shamelessly trotted out the argument that "bankers work very hard" and if you clamp down the bankers "will leave".

In theory, traditional conservatives want to advocate a smaller capitalism and promote guilt and skepticism about blatant exploitation of the working class but in practice perhaps politicians end up cosying up to big business. Similarly Labour politicians go into politics to try and change society and they end up selling out to big business. It doesn't change that in theory they did not condone greed, the exploitation of the working class and genuinely wanted to help the worst off in society, albeit in radically different ways.

My theory was that whilst in theory traditional conservatives, Communists, social democrats and fascists want the best for society, even if they are wrong, bourgeoise liberalism is based on selfishness and it seeks to condone things that other ideologies have historically been very skeptical of for rational and moral reasons such as for example greed and exploitation.

I'm wondering if the Romans had multiculturalism, so thier citizens would appreciate the slaves: "Oh, come on Cerio, sure the fought a nasty campaign against the barbarians, but thier help is a necessity... Is Rome so arrogant to think they can't learn valuable things from other cultures?" :D

Capitalism seeking both a liberal and conservative face.

I don't think the liberal social agenda hurts anyone. However, the liberal economic agenda hurts people, but then again, so does the conservative.

Anyhow, most people in the US (and other places) like "sex, drugs and rock and roll". Well, what can you do about it? Nothing. You can ***** about it by scapegoating gays (like with Chick-Fil-a protests). But in the end, you look like a douche, because the majority doesn't favor moral conservatism, and they buy the movies etc.. Myself, I think our nation would benefit from being more idealistic (this is not a criticism of gays BTW). For instance, people should exercise more and be less materialistic. Nonetheless, as I just explained, the people decide to make the nation more idealistic, and also socialist.

Are you serious?

Prove it wrong then. The simple fact remains, you can't. :lol:

Actually, in the US bourgeise liberals have done a lot to help the poor. For instance, they supported civil rights and the "Great Society". Even today, they do a lot by opposing conservative policies. Nonetheless, most communists recognize that liberals seek to expand imperalism, and also want a "mixed economy" and so strongly oppose them.

People who support regressive, oppressive, and exploitative systems simply are not our friends, simply put. We want to put an end to the class system and every social arrangement that puts one person below another -- racism, sexism, capitalism, etc. Advocating for "sharing the wealth" and "promoting the common good" is not the same as calling for a radical and total restructuring of society. Not only shouldn't we have anything to do with these "traditionalist" conservatives, it would be impossible.

And that goes for the liberals you're talking about as well.