4 ms·
I don't know, man. You'll have to go talk to some of them to get a better answer. This is my distilling of 8 years of conversations with average, everyday conse
by afpx 2y ago
I don't know, man. You'll have to go talk to some of them to get a better answer. This is my distilling of 8 years of conversations with average, everyday conservatives as I tried to figure out what they were even talking about. Interestingly, the all seem to have a strong intuition of what they want but seem to stumble on articulating it, they get frustrated, and lash out. I had to do a lot of socratic method and ask a lot of questions to come to these conclusions.
However, you are right about Marxism in that it influences a lot of things. Ironically, the accelerationist movement also even has influence from Marx. A lot whom I talked to have disdain for "academia" - I do know that.
I'm guessing here (and a lot of this is guess work) - that integration is difficult because they view "social control" as impossible outside of a cultural context. That is, within a culture, everyone learns all of the subtle rules and order of things - things that you can't codify in law. But, integration requires a lot of frontal lobe activity which is difficult to maintain and is fragile when it fails.
- gom_jabbar 2y agoCorrect - Nick Land, often regarded as the father of Accelerationism, affirms Marx's fundamental insight that "the means of production socially impose themselves as an effective imperative" [0], though his interpretation aligns itself with capital and its autonomization: "Right-wing Marxism, aligned with the autonomization of capital [...], has been an unoccupied position. The signature of its proponents would be a defense of capital accumulation as an end-in-itself, counter-subordinating nature and society as a means." [0] [0] https://retrochronic.com/#right-on-the-money-2 https://retrochronic.com/#right-on-the-money-2