Bourgeoise liberalism is destructive and nihilst

[graffic]

This a theory that has been going through my head. If you consider that Burkean Conservatives, i.e old-fashioned traditionalist Conservatives who perhaps have respect for Christianity and tradition etc or perhaps not - they want the best for society and they believe in tradition and they support nationalism and religion because the idea of a nation provides people with an incentive to help each other and not be selfish, and religion provides people with a purpose for life etc. You can expand on all of that but that is the general thrust. The idea of a nation and also religion is constructive. Then on the other spectrum Marxists and Communists are also constructive because they want to create a better society, a more egalitarian society. And again it is because they want the best for society. All ideology, whether Burkean old fashioned Conservatism, Fascism, communism or Anarchism - they are constructive and it’s adherents want the best for society as a whole. The problem with bourgeoise liberalism. )I refer to bohemian, athiest, secular liberal bourgeois for example) is that I think it is a projection of left-wing intellectuals on behalf of the bourgeois. Bourgeoise liberals take noble aspects of Marxism or Trotskyism, for example internationalism or sexual freedom, and project them as selfish ends rather than making a more egalitarian society. I think the idea of internationalism is noble with the end of an egalitarian world, and the idea of a sexual freedom and the break down of family is legitimate when the end goal is an egalitarian society. It is a constructive idea because Marxists and anarchists want to break down tradition because they want a more egalitarian society. The only legitimate way to attack tradition is from the end goal of each according to ability to need and a more egalitarian society because it is therefore constructive. Bourgeoise liberals attack nationalism, which in turn contains altruistic elements and a sense of helping each other, without advocating an alternative egalitarian society. It is therefore not constructive, but destructive. Bourgeois liberals advocate breakdown of the family without connecting feminist/lgbt issues to class struggle, so it is again destructive rather than constructive. Therefore fascists deserve more respect than bourgeoise liberals because they are atleast trying to be constructive, even if it is in a henious way. In my opinion the noble aims of Marxism and Communism have been naively attempted by reformist labour politicians within capitalism and have failed. Internationalism results in migrants being exploited and wages being lowered for all. Sexual promiscuity and freedom just led to sex being commodified and women being objectified. In a way it is a worse kind of capitalism to traditional, conservative capitalism and conservatives paint the left as a bunch of selfish arseholes whose ideology have produced this mess. Whilst bourgoise social democrats naively tried to change and reform society for the better and perhaps did not achieve, bougeois liberals actually did not want to construct a better society. They actually believe that a worse, more dysfunctional and selfish society within capitalism is good because they are destructive and nihilst. The most disgraceful aspect is that now in the UK the "modern" conservatives are adopting these misplaced Marxist ideas such as homosexual rights and are trying to appear as "modern". They position themselves as anti-traditional, anti-nationalist and anti-Christian but they are not constructive because they don't advocate under-mining tradition for radical egalitarian ends like Communism, they are tories, they are free-marketers. So you have ask why are they undermining tradition. They are undermining it for purely selifish way that is anti-intellectual and primitive. They are destructive and nihilist. Some Marxists think it is good that conservatives, free-marketers and globalisation is destroying nations and making society more progressive for them however I disagree when it is being used for the interests of capital and is basically just imperialism.

[#FF0000]

your theory kind of falls apart when you consider that literally everyone wants what is best for society and bourgeois liberals aren't worshipping the chaos gods hoping for the downfall of everything. you also mess up when you try and suggest that fascism or the status quo that conservatives want to maintain aren't destructive as well.

Also I think calling any particular system "destructive" is kind of like saying nothing, since everything is in a constant state of flux you know? Things are constructed and deconstructed and destroyed no matter what system is in place.

But like I said your thing falls flat on its face when you act like liberals literally just want to watch the world burn and it betrays some pretty black and white (read: stupid) thinking.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Liberalism is based on moral value- judgements just as any other political ideology. If you think any kind of nihilist enthusiastically goes on and on about "liberty" or "rational self- interest" you obviously don´t know what it means to be nihilist.

[graffic]

I think from the viewpoint of the traditional, hard working, right-wing petty bourgeoise, bourgeoise liberalism/bourgeoise liberals looks very unjust, selfish and like a desire to have it both ways. For example, the petty bourgeoise may have a strong work ethic tied to a belief of working for the common good in turn tied to nationalism and tradition whereas bourgeoise liberals who position themselves as anti-traditional, anti-nationalist and anti-religious would sneer at them for being "backward" or whatever. The thing that would annoy the petty-bourgeois and perhaps tempt them towards fascism is the inconsistency and injustice that bourgeoise liberals don't advocate anti-traditional and anti-nationalist positions to liberate the working class (which is arguably noble that petty-bourgeoise could emphasise with because they too would disapprove of blatantly exploitive elite) bourgeoise liberals advocate undermining tradition and nationalism purely for selfish ends. This is obviously at odds with the values of the right wing, hard working, traditional petty bourgeoise. It undermines the whole ethos that sustains and justifies their position in society. Tradition, nationalism and religion contain anti-capitalist elements in a reformist way that tames capitalism and justifies it. For example, religions preach that greed is immoral. Nationalism emphasizes the common good over self-interest. These ideas are re-enforced in tradition. Whilst these ideas are reactionary and justify the status quo they justify the position of the petty-bourgeoise. Bourgeoise liberalism advocates a disgusting form of capitalism where the petty-bourgeoise are sneered at for not being rich and the working class are held in even worse distain. If you take soft nationalism, tradition and religion away from capitalism and emphasise just the free-market you make an even more elitist and unjust form of capitalism. And fascists play on these confused interests of the petty bourgeoise whilst Marxists/ Trotskyists blindly support aspects of globalization and bourgeoise liberalism because they mistake internationalism in the first world as genuine internationalism rather than just imperialism.

[#FF0000]

I think from the viewpoint of the traditional, hard working, right-wing petty bourgeoise, bourgeoise liberalism/bourgeoise liberals looks very unjust, selfish and like a desire to have it both ways.

I really don't care what "traditional hard working right-wing petty bourgeois" people have to say, though. They are not better or "more noble" than liberals for believing the wrong things for the right reasons. They are, like liberals, just wrong.

And I'm not really sure why you're trying to build this imaginary bridge between fascists/conservatives and communists and an imaginary wall between fascists/conservatives and liberals. Historically fascists, conservatives, and liberals have been extremely cozy with each other whenever communists were becoming a force and the workers too uppity.

I'll also throw in that intent means nearly nothing when it comes to morality or anything like that. Liberals might be against traditionalism and religion for the wrong reasons, but believing in "the common good" and tying it to nationalism is just as wrong. Sorry to tell you.

[Jason]

Internationalism results in migrants being exploited and wages being lowered for all.

Without migration, the third world would explode into socialist revolution. Migration does two things: It satisfies capitalist greed, and prevents revolution.

For example, the petty bourgeoise may have a strong work ethic tied to a belief of working for the common good in turn tied to nationalism and tradition whereas bourgeoise liberals who position themselves as anti-traditional, anti-nationalist and anti-religious would sneer at them for being "backward" or whatever.

The petty borgeoise almost always blame the poor for thier situation. But this analysis works poorly in regards to the 1st world poor, and is laughable when speaking of the 3rd world.

For instance, Mike Huckabee might parade family values, but demand the overthrow of Chavez (who is providing concrete steps to end poverty). Because these petty borgoise don't see poverty as a social problem, but they do see "pornography" etc.. as social problems.

[graffic]

I'll also throw in that intent means nearly nothing when it comes to morality or anything like that. Liberals might be against traditionalism and religion for the wrong reasons, but believing in "the common good" and tying it to nationalism is just as wrong. Sorry to tell you.

No believing in the "common good" and nationalism is a coherent ethos. It is ideological and intellectual, even if it is wrong. As humans we desire clarity, and I respect ideologies that are clear and coherent, even if I disagree with them. It's like that line from the movie the Big Lebowski "Say what you like about the tenets of national socialism but at least it's an ethos".

Communism/fascism/traditional conservatism and social democracy are all coherent ethoses that are grounded in wanting the best for society as a whole. They are ideological and I have no doubt it's adherents want the best for society, even if in some cases they are wrong.

Liberalism or bourgeoise liberalism if you like, is not a coherent ethos. It is a desire to have it both ways. It is purely selfish and by definition it's adherents do not want the best for society because it is grounded in selfishness. It advocates the destruction of the morals, traditions and customs which uphold the comfortable bourgeoise life they support. I don't consider it constructive either. By definition as humans, art has to come from a desire to make the world a better place and art is always constructive. Social liberalism tied to class struggle is constructive because it advocates the material equality and social justice, traditionalism and nationalism tied to capitalism advocates the common good and social justice over greed and profit making. Blatant Free marketers/neo liberals however do not advocate the common good and is destructive by definition. Similarly social liberalism that is not tied to class struggle or anti-capitalism does not advocate the common good and is destructive by definition. That doesn't make a huge amount of sense but I consider it nauseating for the traditional, right wing petty-bourgeoise and working class with legitimate concerns when mercenary, bourgeoise liberals sneer at fascists, communists or traditionalists because of their ideology when to anyone with a brain, fascists and communists clearly want the best for society as opposed to bourgeoise liberals who follow a destructive, incoherent ethos and are motivated by selfishness that because we are naturally social creatures who want to develop ourselves we naturally suspect and distrust.

[Kenco Smooth]

It is purely selfish and by definition it's adherents do not want the best for society because it is grounded in selfishness.

By definition as humans, art has to come from a desire to make the world a better place and art is always constructive.

Blatant Free marketers/neo liberals however do not advocate the common good and is destructive by definition.

Similarly social liberalism that is not tied to class struggle or anti-capitalism does not advocate the common good and is destructive by definition.

Why do I get the feeling you're the one defining the words here...

[Jason]

Liberalism or bourgeoise liberalism if you like, is not a coherent ethos. It is a desire to have it both ways. It is purely selfish and by definition it's adherents do not want the best for society because it is grounded in selfishness. It advocates the destruction of the morals, traditions and customs which uphold the comfortable bourgeoise life they support. I don't consider it constructive either. By definition as humans, art has to come from a desire to make the world a better place and art is always constructive. Social liberalism tied to class struggle is constructive because it advocates the material equality and social justice, traditionalism and nationalism tied to capitalism advocates the common good and social justice over greed and profit making.

The liberal ethos is mainly based on the philosophy: "People should be free to do what they want, as long as they don't bother others". This leads to tolerance of everything except the intolerant (rednecks, fascists, communists 'even though liberals are often labeled communists - as with Obama', religious right)

Obviously Communism (despite a lot of compassion for minority rights) doesn't hold to this philosophy, because it holds capitalism to blame for society's ills. This causes causes "huge conflict" with others, and so isn't a "let people do what they want" philosophy.

Anyhow, the problem with the liberal ethos (and you could also apply some of this ethos to 'right libertarians') is, as you say, it's selfishness. It either doesn't care or doesn't see that humans are social creatures. People cannot "do what they want" without expecting some effect on somebody else. Also, communists won't stand idly by why children starve in El Salvador, even though the "right libertarian" philosophy would say to side with business interests. The "hero principle" demands action, and recognizes that the "strong" are usually wrong, not right, hence contradicting Nietzche's philosophy.

This "concept" is mathematically observable. Selling above production cost and under paying workers creates artificial scarcity.

Capital doesn't exist. Rather, as capitalists increase scarcity artificially, inturn general cost of production also increases artificially, therfore what is precieved as a need for "capital" is in fact artificial scarcity.

In essense, capitalism is an economy of perception, and it has been fabricated so the rich can keep more for themselves. Where it breaks down is that the rich cannot validate consuming more than they produce.


Quote:
If you're a libertarian communist, I think the same criticism applies. Just replace state bureaucrat with the collective (work for the collective or starve).
people are intelligent enough to understand the concept of work. What capitalists want you to do is be so ignorant that you don't understand you're being exploited. Within communism, there's no artificial scarcity.

If you look at our current economy, with 20% of people having 80% of the wealth, it doesn't take a mathematician to understand that removing concentration of wealth, 80% of the population will see an immediate increase in quality of life.

Conversely, 20% of people cannot produce 80% of economic value, it is physically impossible. this is why capitalists rely on social constructs of ownership and markets to force economic subjugation onto the masses.

You see from the quote above (from the poster lowtech) that communists believe capitalism is a hostile force. They are of the opinion that "capitalism" started this bullying and combating it is a matter of justice. This view would conflict with the liberal ethos (or also to some degree 'right libertarian') of "leave people alone to do whatever", because they are taking a stand. So, as said before, communists don't believe in "real freedom" because capitalists abuse that power.

[#FF0000]

No believing in the "common good" and nationalism is a coherent ethos.

But again, bourgeois liberals are not chaotic evil nihilist demon heretics who want to watch the world burn. They, too, think their ideas are for the common good and, yeah, the good of the nation.

Literally everyone with a political ideology, no matter how coherent or incoherent it seems to you, wants what is best for society or humanity as a whole, now matter how "destructive" you think their ideas are.

And again I think it's really weird that you think bourgeois liberalism is "destructive" (how do you mean destructive? Destructive of what?) while traditionalism and fascism -- or any other system or school of thought that believes in or enforces a hierarchy of humanity -- somehow aren't. Like I said, intentions don't mean a damn thing. Just because a fascist says he wants what is best for society doesn't make the fascist any less monstrous.

[graffic]

But again, bourgeois liberals are not chaotic evil nihilist demon heretics who want to watch the world burn. They, too, think their ideas are for the common good and, yeah, the good of the nation.

When I say the "common good", I mean helping the worst off in society. In other words: social justice. Fascism, Communism, Traditional Conservatism and Social Democracy all contain social justice and recognise and genuinely want to help the worst off in society, they just have radically different ways of doing it.

When you remove tradition, nationalism and perhaps religion from capitalism without constructing an alternative and still advocating capitalism (which is what bourgeoise liberals do) that is by definition destructive.

Bourgeoise liberals advocate the destruction of the values, customs and traditions that uphold the bourgeoise lifestyle they want so it is by definition a desire to have it both ways as well as inherently destructive.

And again I think it's really weird that you think bourgeois liberalism is "destructive" (how do you mean destructive? Destructive of what?) while traditionalism and fascism -- or any other system or school of thought that believes in or enforces a hierarchy of humanity -- somehow aren't. Like I said, intentions don't mean a damn thing. Just because a fascist says he wants what is best for society doesn't make the fascist any less monstrous.

I think from a right wing, hard working, traditional petty bourgeoise perspective as well as a traditional, socially conservative working class perspective it is destructive and explicitly opposed to them personally as workers and also their way of life. Fascists play on these confused interests.

It advocates the destruction of their way of life for no other reason other than the sake of it or perhaps blind selfishness. Why should they bother being "progressive" like the bourgeoise liberals tell them to be and move on from tradition, religion and nationalism when nothing is replacing it but exactly the same exploitation remains. What's the fucking point. Thats what bourgeoise liberals are saying to the working class from their ivory towers : fuck your way of life and fuck you too materially. It's not like a Communist saying "forget nationalism/religion/tradition...we need beautiful equality, social justice and an egalitarian society instead"... It's "Fuck Nationalism/tradition/religion...because well I feel like it and you will still be exploited just like before"

[#FF0000]

When I say the "common good", I mean helping the worst off in society. In other words: social justice. Fascism, Communism, Traditional Conservatism and Social Democracy all contain social justice and recognise and genuinely want to help the worst off in society, they just have radically different ways of doing it.

Except that isn't true of fascism or traditional conservatism by a long shot.

I think from a right wing, hard working, traditional petty bourgeoise perspective as well as a traditional, socially conservative working class perspective it is destructive and explicitly opposed to them personally as workers and also their way of life. Fascists play on these confused interests.

I don't care about their perspective, though. Their perspective is not material reality.

It's "Fuck Nationalism/tradition/religion...because well I feel like it and you will still be exploited just like before"

Except no, that is not it. Bourgeois liberals think these things are bad and that society would be better off without them. They are not some chaotic evil force, dude.

[Jason]

When I say the "common good", I mean helping the worst off in society. In other words: social justice. Fascism, Communism, Traditional Conservatism and Social Democracy all contain social justice and recognise and genuinely want to help the worst off in society, they just have radically different ways of doing it.

That's debateable. Take the Nazis, for example, they wanted to help the "worst off" (disabled etc..) by KILLING THEM. On the other hand, conservatism says it wants to help the poor, but actually blames them for thier poverty.

Thats what bourgeoise liberals are saying to the working class from their ivory towers : fuck your way of life and fuck you too materially.

I don't think that's the case. They don't say "fuck you". They just don't care. They live in a guilded cage where they have no real contact with real people, so thier compassion has become dulled.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Does "liberal" mean something different in graffic's country than it does here in the USA? Because none of what he's saying makes sense to me.

[graffic]

Except no, that is not it. Bourgeois liberals think these things are bad and that society would be better off without them. They are not some chaotic evil force, dude.

Yes and it is just selfishness. Nationalism promotes the idea of the common good, altruism and it's selfless. Similarly religion contains selfless elements. If you advocate the destruction of this without advocating the creation of an alternative common good and selfless philosophy then it's just pure selfishness.

The writer Nick Cohen said the left "won the cultural war" and the right won the "economic argument". The result is a more selfish, superficial society. If you take the social liberalism of the left and the economics of the right you are taking the two most selfish aspects and combining them. If politics is supposed to be about wanting to help the worst off in society, if you take the two most selfish aspects from the left and the right, you clearly do not want to help anyone other than yourself.

Thats my biggest problem with Bourgeoise New Athiesm and right on bourgeoise social liberalism. We've arrived at a place where a rich bourgeoise homosexual banker with strong socially liberal beliefs who believes in the free-market and sneers and mocks the "old fashioned" priest who has socially conservative beliefs grounded in the common good and tradition combined with left-of centre economic beliefs that the rich should pay their fair share. One has devoted his life to serving others whose philosophy is grounded in wanting the absolute best in humanity. The other has chosen not to take part in patriarchy, chosen not to take part in the idea of the nation and serve the common good, who chose not to serve others but to rip others off and steal from others to get rich himself, to live solely for himself to the detriment of others and ultimately himself. And the nonsense "right on" politically correct orthodoxy would have us believe the fucked up latter example is more "morally correct" than a priest because apparently being old fashioned/traditional is a greater crime than being a mercenary exploiter.

Although politicial correctness is good, it seems to have been picked up by the bourgeoise and used to justify globsalisation and all sorts of injustice such is the apparant power of political correctness.

[#FF0000]

Yes and it is just selfishness. Nationalism promotes the idea of the common good, altruism and it's selfless. Similarly religion contains selfless elements.

I think you're being extremely generous here hahah. Believing in a common good for one's team and no one else isn't believing in a common good at all -- it's tribalism.

Thats my biggest problem with Bourgeoise New Athiesm and right on bourgeoise social liberalism. We've arrived at a place where a rich bourgeoise homosexual banker with strong socially liberal beliefs who believes in the free-market and sneers and mocks the "old fashioned" priest who has socially conservative beliefs grounded in the common good and tradition combined with left-of centre economic beliefs that the rich should pay their fair share.

Both of those people are wrong and neither are worthy of defense, nor are they "on our side", so I'm not sure why we should care.

I don't think we disagree that these 'bourgeois liberals' (economically right wing and socially liberal) are awful. But fascists and traditionalists are just as bad lol

[Thirsty Crow]

I think you're being extremely generous here hahah. Believing in a common good for one's team and no one else isn't believing in a common good at all -- it's tribalism.

And of course, belief and intent are worth jack shit when the result is the same - though probably with even more pronounced consequences - that being exploitation and oppression. I really fail to see how people fall for such blatantly ideological gimmicks such as "for the common good of the nation" or any such crap.

[#FF0000]

It's pretty easy if you think that intention has anything to do with whether or not a thing is ethical or moral.

[graffic]

I think you're being extremely generous here hahah. Believing in a common good for one's team and no one else isn't believing in a common good at all -- it's tribalism.

No I think nationalists believe "peoples" are better off on their own and without interfering in each others affairs. For example, Nick Griffin argues against the war in Afghanistan because he thinks Britain should not be involved in affairs in the middle east and leave the "Islamic peoples" alone.

It comes down to honesty. Needless to say, I consider honesty one of the most important things in life. I respect Nationalists/racists/fascists more than bourgeoise liberals because they have the balls and honesty to come out and say they are racists and they believe in nations keeping to themselves. The ones that are genuinely honest, that is. ( I don't consider Nick Griffin honest or trustworthy but I consider his ideological belief stated in interviews honest because it's coherent and makes sense , even if I disagree with it(unlike bourgeoise liberals, for example Tony Blair).

The problem with bourgeoise liberalism and bourgeoise multi-culturalism and imperialism is that it's based on a deception. Rhetoric of "tolerance" and political correctness of "respect" for other cultures is not for proper internationalism, it's for ghettoized multi-culturalism so that the bourgeoise can exploit immigrants and drive down wages for the working class. Politicians, journalists use honeyed words like "tolerance" and "respect" to justify purely mercenary interests. And that is abhorrent.

Similarly, bourgeoise liberals supported the war in Afghanistan and Iraq again using a "liberal" smokescreen that they were "liberating" the peoples when the motivations were purely mercenary.

Globalisation is essentially mass exploitation and workers in the Far East are exploited far worse today than any subjects of former empires or victims of tyrants in the past were but there is massive deception in the first world where noble Marxist ideas such as internationalism, anti-racism are perverted by bourgeoise liberals to paint over and cover up exploitation and imperialism.

It's like a wolf in sheeps clothing if you like. Traditional conservatives and fascists are just wolves and you know they are. Bourgeoise liberals are deceptive wolves in sheeps clothing and I consider that far worse than the most heinous ideology because It leads you to think that whilst most ideologies do want the best for a society as a whole, even if they are wrong, a liar cannot want the best for society as a whole because it's a lie and it is therefore not even good intentioned.

[#FF0000]

Except that these people don't use marxist language or make any appeals to internationalism or anti-racism to make excuses for imperialism. Of course people make humanistic appeals and point out "oh man look at the way these people treat their women they need our help!" and things like that, but these appeals have been around since imperialism was a thing.

Can you give me a specific example of what you're talking about?

And again, you say they are being deceptive and that they say they are doing things to make things better while making things worse, but literally everyone can be said to do this. Again, not everyone who subscribes to these ideas stands to gain personally -- they are not just acting out of selfishness. They honestly believe society would be better if things were done their way.