this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
1516 points (96.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
5778 readers
2035 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What "reactionary" movements existed in tribal societies devoid of distinct classes?
I blame Capitalism for Capitalism's issues, not literally everything.
I have no idea what point you're actually making.
"What "reactionary" movements existed in tribal societies devoid of distinct classes?"
tribal societies specifically?
exactly how far are you narrowing societies you want examples of reactionary movements in down to?
like you want a specific century and a specific type of society? instead of just any non-capitalist society?
how are you defining capitalism?
are you ignoring the contemporary Amish and other people who oppose change out of principle for no capitalist reason?
"I blame Capitalism for Capitalism's issues, not literally everything. "
you're lumping conservative human behavior that exists independent of capitalism with actual examples of direct capitalist problems like mortgage crises.
your brush is too broad.
"I have no idea what point you're actually making. "
yelling "socialism is the best and capitalism causes all the problems" at the people yelling "capitalism is the best and socialism causes all the problems" isn't exactly dignifying your stance with a sense of legitimacy.
Yes, after tribal societies came the first class-based societies. You said reactionary movements predate class society, tell me.
An economic mode of production centered around commodity production through competing Capitalists in markets who employ wage-labor, seeking greater and greater accumulation. This process is only a few hundred years old.
The Amish participate in Capitalism. Culture is a reflection of the Mode of Production.
I am speaking of class interests.
Where are you seeing this?
"Yes, after tribal societies came the first class-based societies."
if you ignore the coexistence of tribal societies and class societies, i guess.
okay.
tribal societies with conservatives(you call them reactionaries):
I can't think of any tribal society without conservatives in them.
maybe I'll just find specific examples for you?
there's that famous uncontacted Island tribe, sentinalese, who kills anyone who attempts to contact them, that's pretty reactionary.
I guess we can look at Australian aborigines, they are at least 30,000 years old.
If you didn't follow the traditions and tried to change their cultural habits, you were banished or put to death for your disrespect of tradition in aboriginal culture.
and native American culture.
and...
That's the same with almost every tribal society I can remember.
maybe not the Jain?
are you using some weird gotcha definition for reactionary and that's why you're pretending not to know about conservative backlash against change in tribal societies?
"The Amish participate in Capitalism. Culture is a reflection of the Mode of Production."
completely irrelevant. we're talking about why they are reactionary.
they are not reactionary because of capitalism.
The Amish are reactionary for cultural and religious reasons entirely unrelated to capitalism.
there are several societies like that existing right now that resist change and have reactionary movements that have nothing to do with capitalism.
conservatism is a very human trait, irrespective of your economic infrastructure.
"Where are you seeing this?"
in your comments and the memes you are defending.
BEEP! Wrong. Conservativism is not the same as beimg reactionary, though similar.
That's not what reactionary means. Reactionary refers to trying to turn the clock back to an earlier point in economic development.
I am using the correct definition.
You just explained precisely why it's relevant.
Never said reactionary movements are only due to Capitalism.
Quote me.
conservatives and reactionaries are the same unless you want to pretend they're different with a special definition that is slightly inaccurate.
since you were playing around, I figured you would be using a made-up gotcha definition.
which is fine, I definitely was waiting for you to take off the mask.
"Reactionary refers to trying to turn the clock back to an earlier point in economic development. "
I asked you for your special definition, you didn't give one.
so yes, if you change the definition now, then the answer will be different.
"I am using the correct definition."
you're using a make-believe special definition for you. sure.
"Never said reactionary movements are only due to Capitalism."
Cool, nobody said you did.
"Quote me. "
done. 4 times in this comment alone.
You made up definitions and can't even quote me. You were never in good-faith.
I've quoted you like 20 times.
now you're just literally repeating what I said even though it has nothing to do with my comments.
you want to believe that reactionaries are not conservatives.
that is incorrect.
reactionaries are conservatives.
you want to believe that because otherwise your ideology of a singular evil economic system falls apart.
that is also a flawed understanding of capitalism and your ideology of the One Great Evil is a tenuous bit of fervor.
there are plenty of happy, successful capitalist countries right now all around you.
If you want to play with special definitions, and you are asked for your special definitions beforehand, supply your special definitions or you won't get the answers you're looking for.
You made up definitions and can't even quote me. You were never in good-faith.
I've quoted you like 20 times.
now you're just literally repeating what I said even though it has nothing to do with my comments.
you want to believe that reactionaries are not conservatives.
that is incorrect.
reactionaries are conservatives.
you want to believe that because otherwise your ideology of a singular evil economic system falls apart.
that is also a flawed understanding of capitalism and your ideology of the One Great Evil is a tenuous bit of fervor.
there are plenty of happy, successful capitalist countries right now all around you.
If you want to play with special definitions, and you are asked for your special definitions beforehand, supply your special definitions or you won't get the answers you're looking for.
You made up definitions and can't even quote me. You were never in good-faith.
I've quoted you like 20 times.
you want to believe that reactionaries are not conservatives.
that is incorrect.
reactionaries are conservatives.
you want to believe they are not because otherwise your ideology of a singular evil economic system falls apart.
that is your flawed understanding of capitalism and your ideology of the One Great Evil is a tenuous bit of fervor.
there are plenty of happy, successful, functioning capitalist countries right now all around you.
If you want to play with special definitions, and you are asked for your special definitions beforehand, supply your special definitions or you won't get the answers you're looking for.