Introspection: Why didn't we become rightists?

I started drinking Zig Forums kool aid but always kept a bit of scientific skepticism, never agreed for the "kill all europeanz" retardation. and though I was agreeing to some extent with the "race realism" I always said that we needed to maintain a focus on effectively berniecrat policy as "gommunism"

'Petty bourgeois socialist'

It's not nearly as hard as you think. It starts with thinking about the lack of strict separation between material conditions and essential or willed qualities. Marxism already interacts with both, taken in a certain direction this can lead to rejecting universalism. Without that, capitalist integration and centralization retains its dispossessive character but it becomes hard to conceive of anything but barbarism following the creation of its mass society. Conservative realism fills the void of revolutionary socialist promises to resolve the antagonisms of that society, with both being alien to the 'secular civic religion' of liberalism ruling that society.

That doesn't mean I readily dismiss the entire materialist conception of history, but I am skeptical of the idea liberalism and capitalism is moving us to a world where the main antagonism is between capital and labor, and the latter can achieve a general abolition of things as they are including lower and more local forms of human organization such as family, nation, and religious community.

Sort of, it varies believe it or not. The emphasis on capitalism comes down to the fact that in present conditions the way of life we like can only be given a niche space by the free market.

This is less of an argument for capitalism, which isn't very conservative, and more of one for disintegration.

so a socialist who happens to be a small bourgfag?

If people owned workplaces democratically they would be able to accomplish shit through their passions and not because they have to follow a profit motive. Its not like people will just stop making cool shit just because communism and or socialism exists as the main mode of production.

...

I am a former rightist. I found Richard Spencer to be charming and intelligent, and enjoyed the aesthetics of the alt right. 2016 was the most fun I've ever had online shitposting on Twitter and Zig Forums with other Rightists and I will always think back on 2016 fondly.

However, the conspiratorial thinking, the fascist LARPing, the unwillingness to consider alternative points of view outside of "muh jews" eventually bored me. The e-celebs of the right grew increasingly cringey as well; The Right Stuff guys are basically fat, boomer losers LARPing as Nazis.

While I do see a bit of conspiratorial thinking on this website and generally find the left-wing e-celebs to be cringey and disgusting, I am enjoying Marx and Engels, Zizek, non-Tumblr feminism, etc, at least as a curiosity. The right-wing cliche "You'll be left-wing until you get a job" had the opposite effect for me. I was right-wing until I got a job and I am now a precarious laborer and I understand the relationship between myself, my labor, and my employer.

The world would be pretty similar but better, we would focus on shit like health, education, transportation, communication, and other important subjects first and foremost before making shit that we want but don't necessarily need. So it puts an importance on infrastructure but still allows for shit like TVs after burgerland is no longer falling apart. Theres a reason we have the means to feed, clothe, and educate everyone but choose not too and that's because our main mode of production is commodity production. This is also the same reason why capitalism is eventually going to collapse under its own internal contradictions.

Attached: happywojak.jpg (248x204, 11.18K)

I was expecting some idealist conception of a monarchist figure, and instead got a retarded idealist conception of what antagonisms are. Antagonisms cannot be resolved by regressing into older property relations or systems, and thinking so is no different then the fascist idea that the state and a national mythology can "mediate" between the capitalists and the proletariat to "resolve" all class antagonisms. As in, both completely ignore what an antagonism is and assume its something that needs to merely be smoothed out or controlled to be negated, rather then dialectically brought to it's conclusions to be resolved.
>but I am skeptical of the idea liberalism and capitalism is moving us to a world where the main antagonism is between capital and labor, and the latter can achieve a general abolition of things as they are including lower and more local forms of human organization such as family, nation, and religious community.
Fucking shit like this is exactly what I mean. This idea completely ignores what Marx even means by abolish and inserts what I can assume is a negation of the material conflict between those who own production and those who must sell their labour through superstructure.

kek this description is gonna stay with me

That's not what I have said and I haven't made any suggestions on this topic. You asked how I square the circle of understanding materialism yet ceasing to be a Marxist. I didn't give an argument for what we should do to resolve these antagonisms, this isn't the place to pitch that and derail the thread.

I'm not sure what you are saying, especially the latter part. I thought it was a given that a commonly owned world defined by post-scarcity would conceivably feature the collapse of those lower forms of organization I mentioned.