krishna bound

2y

culture being important is essentially why right wing mythos doesn't make a ton of sense to me. if you acknowledge the importance of cultural facets, then surely you have to simultaneously acknowledge how material economics affect culture.
Given how A) it's clear capitalism dilutes culture and requires a constant reshaping to support growth and B) material economics are a real force that can't be ignored, i'm not sure how anyone could flock to ideologies which aren't cognizant of this politically

Aristotle

2y

Culture is to some extent downstream from economic conditions, but no one ever asks what economics are downstream from. Ruling class drives culture more than economics. I don't think capitalism dilutes culture more than any other economic system. Part of me thinks this is the natural cycle of any nation or civilization where eventually the system decays for a number of reasons and a country declines.

JT is Electric

2y

mf said anti-equality

krishna bound

2y

the two affect each other dialectically; this is even something famous right wing thinkers like Schmitt have admitted, regardless of the association traditionally with marxist writing. it's not that they're "downstream" from each other categorically in a linear manner.

Aristotle

2y

To some extent, sure, but not to the extent Schmitt thinks. Ruling class comes first in a society.

krishna bound

2y

the ruling class is only the ruling class because of economics unless you're assigning the measure of "ruling class" to the "brahmin" equivalent caste of societies. There is a big distinction between a role-based society where native american chief bestows down knowledge and direction than one where people like murdoch or soros fund news orgs

Aristotle

2y

The issue here is you and I agree on the ruling class is only the ruling class because of economics, but agree for different reasons. When you say the ruling class is only the ruling class because of economics, you seem to attribute it to capitalism capitalism. When I say it, I say the ruling class emerges under any economic system and this holds throughout history.

There is no distinction in ruling class. It's still a class even if the class thinks differently or emerged under different conditions. A chief, monarch, totalitarian dictator, or wealthy elite like soros is still an elite.

Big Tobacco

2y

@op thoughts on NazCentBol?

Aristotle

2y

i have no idea what this is

Aristotle

2y

The issue here is you and I agree on the ruling class is only the ruling class because of economics, but agree for different reasons. When you say the ruling class is only the ruling class because of economics, you seem to attribute it to capitalism capitalism. When I say it, I say the ruling class emerges under any economic system and this holds throughout history.

There is no distinction in ruling class. It's still a class even if the class thinks differently or emerged under different conditions. A chief, monarch, totalitarian dictator, or wealthy elite like soros is still an elite.

Wonyoungism

2y

thoughts on taylor swift?

krishna bound

2y

there is absolutely no way you can compare the current ruling class to like, a historical brahmin caste dude

Aristotle

2y

A ruling class is a ruling class.

krishna bound

2y

and you're anti-egalitarian?

americana

2y

there is no reason to be right wing unless your personal politics are either outdated, unrealistic, or inhumane

paradise valley

2y

US "conservatives" are pathetic for embracing people like Andrew Tate. They just want to be contrarians all the time. They are gonna lose 2024 and they deserve it

Aristotle

2y

uhh yes? Ruling classes suffer from the same problems. Doesn't change the fact that you can prefer one over the other.

krishna bound

2y

why in the world would you want a ruling class propped up by economics rather than cultural virtue/merit

Aristotle

2y

A ruling class is a ruling class.

mythic

2y

you are fundamentally wrong, in principle.