This is yet another 'stealth' idpol topic isn't it.
No it's not it's more a political historical question
conservativism is liberalism
Sure but different obviously
Various identity based groups began pushing for greater recognition and an end to restrictions on their lives. People began to sympathize with them, and capital decided that this was a concession that they could make to subaltern groups without endangering their broader class interests. After acceptance of these groups became more widespread, pandering to them became a safe marketing strategy.
Really? One is pro choice one is pro abortion. Should I continue?
Do you think capital will change it's mind in the future?
Social conservatism is a branch of conservatism, not conservatism itself. They're a wide range of things that fall under the label, and yes, that still doesn't change them from being liberals.
So every when on a policy level they're the complete opposite in every possible way and their perfect society would look entirely different you would still classify them as exactly the same…. this is some big brain stuff
When it comes to the economic policy of capitalism, they're exactly the same, i.e. the only thing that matters when it comes to defining a liberal.
the new left kinda won the culture wars over time while at the same time losing
One side wants universal healthcare, higher taxes, and more regulation. The other side doesn't want universal healthcare, wants lower taxes, and less regulation.
>>1279761>capital decided that this was a concession that they could make to subaltern groups without endangering their broader class interests.
Agreed. This is why things are still so fucked up and why I still have hope for the future - the fact of capital making as many concessions as it has makes you realize there are clear cracks in the armor, we just have to keep pushing.>>1279764
Only if it's forced to, and even then, if it comes to it, capital will fight to the death.>>1279769>on a policy level they're the complete opposite in every possible way
See: foreign policy.
>>1279773>Only if it's forced to, and even then, if it comes to it, capital will fight to the death.
Wouldn't it change it's mind if it meant giving up liberalism meant more profit?
And do you think this negates what I just said?
Capitalism is still on the table for both of these groups. Maybe wrap your head around the fact that there were progressive conservatives at one time and things will become clearer.
yes and the answer the /pol/fag OP is looking for is somehow a shady cabal of jews
What would capitalism without liberalism look like? Is it happening now? If so, where? Has it happened before? If it has, why didn't it survive? If it hasn't, why hasn't it?
The main catalyst in the west was the sexual revolution.
My bad, I got caught up in switching definitions of liberalism. It's why I hate American politics.
Sure, yeah, but for now going back to conservatism would mean less consoomers. No going back imo.
Why do you think because two groups support capitalism that means they're literally exactly the same lmao that's retarded
Material conditions, more participants in the economy and shit
Because they both fall on the side of "conserving" capitalism for liberal reasons that date back to the French Revolution. Pretty simple, really.
The establishment absorbing socialist + progressive movements. LGBT, feminism, black civil rights / anti-racism.
Yeah but definitions have value and we need to distinguish different type of groups who support capitalism.
Why am I going to distinguish them by not calling them what they are?
I think in the US the 1890s to 1990s were a period of conservative consensus where the trauma of the civil war and the tensions produced at the end were papered over with a general belief in the superiority of institutions. One of the few non-cosmetic differences between liberals and conservatives is that conservative ideology is additive in the sense that you can sublate any proposition by throwing a sheet of racism/sexism/homophobia/transphobia on top of it, which is perfect for the US with its vast access to resources and consequent political weightlessness.
I'm fascinated by how liberals appeared to be just p-hacking society and seemed to be waiting until they gathered the social capital to have an equally plausible counterpoint to every conservative argument. For example projection politics are, to us now, very clearly how conservatives operate, but there was a time (the 60s) when accusing conservatives of projection was an eggheaded, over-educated and vaguely sinister thing to do. It wasn't until the internet came along and more or less proved that conservatives are projecting that political action on this insight began.
These differences are not essential. Take gun control for example: Regan used the first gun control law in response to the black panthers. Everything either side believes is situational and modular.
I'm looking for the cabal but not of Jews. More likely just White American businessmen. Like when Nixon was having private meetings with White oil businessman who forced him to intervene in other countries because of their business interests. I imagine this same sort of thing happens but with culture but where, who, and why.
no op, you're retarded.
Sure whatever autist
Call them Liberal A and Liberal B if it stops the buzzing
So when one side wants to ban abortion nationwide and the other side doesn't they're still literally the same and it makes no difference which one has the majority in the supreme court?
I think what they're getting at, is conservatism is a branch of liberalism, not a separate thing.
I understand that but no one asked is what I'm trying to get it
Then why are you even arguing with me?
The sides each take in that aren't essential. What matters is that they create the illusion of being opposed to each other. They could determine it with a game of rock paper scissors for all it matters.
Look up the term "controlled opposition"
Because I hate retards but thanks for reminding me you're not supposed to respond
You still going to say that if your sister gets raped?
Yeah, you didn't get it.
Yeah no one asked for your autistic wrong opinions about words
that's not even me, lol
You have to be 18 or older to post here. Go back to FunnyJunk.
because conservative is largely based on spooks, and progressive liberalism allows for an expansion of the market of identities and also subsumes conservatism within itself as reaction and gives raison d'etre to progressivism. progressivism also allows for the subsumption of other cultures whereas conservatism is ethnocentric and is therefore more amenable to imperialism.
Progressivism is the sword of capitalism and conservatism is it's shield.
Read a history book anon, huge social changes happened in the western world throughout the mid to late 1960s and early 1970s, emphasizing sexual and personal freedom and minority rights.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterculture_of_the_1960s
Culture wars have been a staple of politics ever since, with the conservative side slowly losing over time. It also didn't happen "so quickly" its a process which took decades and is still ongoing.
These culture shifts are mainly a result of increased individualism which is a natural consequence of society becoming wealthier and more technologically advanced, morality shifts from survival and reproduction to individual self actualization being the ultimate ideal, which results in artisanal forms of sexuality, spirituality, culture, etc. Hipsterism is the inevitable end result of late stage advanced capitalism. This is also why upper middle class economically comfortable people are more socially liberal than the working class in general as well.
It's a lot easier to maintain capitalism if communists can't just recruit 10 percent of the population with ease just because they like to fuck guys in the ass. Or to maintain capitalism when the black ghettos don't see their only ways of liberation to be extremely violent uprisings.
Liberalism is more amenable to the expansion of markets. Under conservatism, everyone is the same white bread type, with only one religion. With liberalism you can sell to that demographic and all the other subcultures and groups. Diversity and the like is just a way to multiply and refine ever more particularized and niche markets.
>>1279833>Hipsterism is the inevitable end result of late stage advanced capitalism.
A English poet and beatnik Jeff Nuttall wrote a book Bomb Culture, on 1950s counter culture. It's been years since I read it but IMS it covered things like CND/the Aldermaston marches, but also some more obscure stuff like ton up boys and lurid public interest in the Moors Murderers.
In an interview he seemed to suggest '66-' 67 was around when things got commodified: <In Jonathon Green's Days In The Life: Voices From The English Underground (1988), Jeff recalled "a shift between 1966 and 1967 from poetry and art and jazz and anti-nuclear politics to just sex and drugs, the arrival of capitalism. The market saw that these revolutionaries could be put in a safe pen and given their consumer goods. What we misjudged was the power and complexity of the media, which dismantled the whole thing. It bought it up. And this happened in 67, just as it seemed that we'd won".https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/jan/12/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries
Unique IPs: 19