The Emotions of Reaction and Socialism?

[Curved_Sw0rd]

So this is a question born of reading tweets from the Distributist, a Dissident Right YouTuber, and in a discord server having an exchange with a Socialist friend of mine in the same day. I couldn't help but recall several examples of Socialists and Reactionaries all looking at the general structure of the US or the West, or whatever and just despairing. Whether it's Democracy or the Free Market, Government's lack of authority in certain areas, or certain cultural norms, the Cathedral existing or it being in competition with Cronyists, it all seems to mirror one another. A deep dissatisfaction with the modern world and a desire to change it, either through activism or by just bowing out of the democratic process entirely, all signs of a sort of core of despair. Blackpilled, if you will.

So I suppose this is a thread about why people who are really dang unhappy are drawn to things like Neoreaction and Socialism, and if there's deeper reasons than just "Life sucks but it wouldn't if everyone would just fall the fuck in line..." It's a question I don't really know the answer to, hell, even that guess I just made makes me feel like an armchair psychologist who doesn't know what he's talking about...

So I guess I leave it to you all.

 

[LordsFire]

Socialism offers several extremely appealing concepts.

"Your problems are other people's fault."

"The ills of society at large are other peoples fault."

"The solution to your problems is not you working your ass off to improve your circumstances, it's overthrowing The Man that is keeping you down."

"It is morally righteous to be angry and hateful towards The Man."

"You bear no serious responsibility for trying to help cure the ills of society at large. All you must do is mouth the correct platitudes and blame The Man."


So, all at once, you're virtuous, you have people it's okay to hate, you have no responsibilities, and once a charismatic leader comes along, you have someone to put your hopes in to fix your problems for you.

This is a very, very potent synthesis of emotional draws, and when you add in the vast literature of Marxist nonsense, there's also a time-consuming and ego-stroking hobby for those who style themselves as intellectuals or elitists.

It's the exact same appeal as racism, just replace 'The bourgeouisie' with 'The X race.' To be fair to racists though, they're more likely to be right about someone (other racists) deliberately keeping them down. Because that's something that has actually been a systemic problem in the West in living memory.

 

[Cherico]

I think the fundamental problem that society has is the lack of frontiers.

Currently socialists, communists, libertarians, monarchists, republicans, liberals, conservatives and a whole host of people with very disparit belief systems and core values are forced to try to get along in an increasingly crowded and competive planet with shrinking resources.

I think the solution to that is space, the creation of thousands upon thousands and eventally millions of o'neil cyliders. Let people leave this rock and form their own communities with their own laws, own cultures and own traditions. Some of these places will fail that is the nature of the universe. Some will succeed, but people being able to form their own communities or join one that agrees with their values would solve a lot of the current fuckery.

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

@LordsFire where do you think Reactionaries fall in that dynamic? As I get the impression that there's a lot of similar emotions going around in that sphere, but the blame is heaped on free expression and allowing the Left a seat at the metaphorical table.

 

[Harlock]

So I suppose this is a thread about why people who are really dang unhappy are drawn to things like Neo reaction and Socialism,

For the same reason people who were born and grew up in communist and socialist countries are drawn to capitalism. The system promises much and doesn't deliver it, this makes people angry and upset, they then decide if this system doesn't work maybe this other one does.
Couple of generations later it'll happen again in reverse

Every system makes promises of a better life to draw people toward it, some sort of reward or happiness if you just follow the basic principles. Its all a ponzi scheme and the only reason we in the west are generally okay with it is because we're not at the bottom anymore.

People will keep trying to find a system that works and there will always be someone else ready to make fake promises to draw them in to the next big idea. Maybe one day there will be a system that genuinely works, but not yet.

 

[Aldarion]

So this is a question born of reading tweets from the Distributist, a Dissident Right YouTuber, and in a discord server having an exchange with a Socialist friend of mine in the same day. I couldn't help but recall several examples of Socialists and Reactionaries all looking at the general structure of the US or the West, or whatever and just despairing. Whether it's Democracy or the Free Market, Government's lack of authority in certain areas, or certain cultural norms, the Cathedral existing or it being in competition with Cronyists, it all seems to mirror one another. A deep dissatisfaction with the modern world and a desire to change it, either through activism or by just bowing out of the democratic process entirely, all signs of a sort of core of despair. Blackpilled, if you will.

So I suppose this is a thread about why people who are really dang unhappy are drawn to things like Neoreaction and Socialism, and if there's deeper reasons than just "Life sucks but it wouldn't if everyone would just fall the fuck in line..." It's a question I don't really know the answer to, hell, even that guess I just made makes me feel like an armchair psychologist who doesn't know what he's talking about...

So I guess I leave it to you all.

Problem is that modern world is just out of tune with human nature. It can be seen everywhere: society (people are increasingly alienated), economy (humans are seen as an expendable resource), politics (anyone thinks politicians give two f***s about people?), architecture (modern architecture is not just soulless, but also brutal) and so on. The entire world is basically designed to make humans unhappy, depressed and even suicidal. Vast majority of political thinking today is in agreement about these issues existing. What different groups differ in is focusing on some of these issues above others, as well as the exact course of action to be taken to solve said issues.

 

[LordsFire]

@LordsFire where do you think Reactionaries fall in that dynamic? As I get the impression that there's a lot of similar emotions going around in that sphere, but the blame is heaped on free expression and allowing the Left a seat at the metaphorical table.

That really depends on how you define 'reactionaries.' The definition I'm most familiar with, is 'anti-communists.'

 

[Curved_Sw0rd]

That really depends on how you define 'reactionaries.' The definition I'm most familiar with, is 'anti-communists.'

How familiar are you with Mencius Moldbug or Nick Land? Neoreaction or Dark Enlightenment types might be a more accurate term, but the short of it is people who have a very dim view of democracy and egalitarianism, favoring things like absolute monarchy, though I'm typing this out late at night so I could probably make a much better response later.

 

[LordsFire]

How familiar are you with Mencius Moldbug or Nick Land? Neoreaction or Dark Enlightenment types might be a more accurate term, but the short of it is people who have a very dim view of democracy and egalitarianism, favoring things like absolute monarchy, though I'm typing this out late at night so I could probably make a much better response later.

Not at all. I tend to study ideas more than those who purvey them, though some of the bigger names I'm familiar with.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I question how much Mencius Moldbug or the online movement of monarchists and neo reactionaries has on people in the RL. But then a lot of ideologies don't have that much offline presence.

Anyway, to get philosophical I think we're living through a profound crisis of both the liberal order, to some extent modernity itself.

Woke-ism and more reactionary politics(especially Racialism) strike me as a rebellion against the dominant Liberal Order on which global civilization is founded.

The Enlightenment itself is being questioned and has been jettisoned in many circles, postmodern notions have thrown all that was certain into chaos, and all that was solid into mist(to paraphrase Marx), identities are growing more fragmented, less certain, the world just doesn't make sense and clearly isn't making people's lives better or happier.

So on the right you have the deep dive into every form of reactionary politics, from your Mencius Moldbugs and Online Neo Reactionaries, to the folks of Charlottesville. On the left you have the embrace of fragmentation and confusion-intersectionality is nothing if not the atomizing and confusing effects of modernity on identity.

People embrace these forms of politics because the current system isn't working for them. And not just in material terms, its not working for them in a spiritual, social, or intellectual way either.

They are profoundly dissatisfied at every level.

One thing, that's become clear to me especially these past five months, is that for many people nothing is truly certain, everything is open to attack and discussion, and thus the world itself is crumbling. Not physically, so much as the foundations that civilization, really human existence themselves, these unspoken axioms and truths, are being interrogated.

 

[Aldarion]

@Lord Invictus You pretty much described why I became a monarchist / dark enlightenment / neoreactionary type. It basically started with my realization that history does not show constant progress - technological progress yes, but how important technology is? Did we really achieve greater quality of life? I was no happier after I got computer than I was when I just had books - despite the fact that computer is basically one piece of modern technology I truly like, mostly because it means I have easier access to both literature and discussion areas (meaning forums and stuff). As for other technology... Refrigerator? In my days as a student I lived just fine without using one. I prefer sleeping on floor over sleeping in a bed, I don't think electric stove is that much better than wood-burning one - and I don't use it that often anyway, I can shower with cold water even though it is not exactly comfortable, and so on. Even computer I would not believe that important if there were a) a huge library and b) regular discussion groups nearby. But with everything else other than technology, I have seen no progress at all. Education? Yes, we cram facts into childrens' heads but - what good are "facts" if there is no understanding? And most students I have been with do not really have interest in anything beyond "getting it over with" anyway, certainly not in actually understanding stuff. My late grandma understood how things stood better with four years of primary school than most academics I know of. Food? Food we eat nowadays is literally poisonous. It is denser in calories and relatively cheap, but despite that majority of people in developed world are undernourished.

Fact is that modernity has failed. The belief that everything can be understood rationally, and that happy life can be achieved that way, has failed. People need something to live for, and reason alone cannot provide that. The entire idea that happiness can be achieved by providing material standards, that material advance automatically increases emotional quality of life, has been proven wrong. Despite generally easier life and higher standards, people living in cities have greater likelyhood of depression and other mental health issues. And the entire modern world just feeds into dehumanization, alienization and general unhappiness.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

@Lord Invictus

@LordsFire



This I can see as a summary of Neo-Reactionary thought.

Capitalism is just as much as fault for the ruination of everything as leftism is. Infact, all the corporations are ruled by wealthy leftists. Capitalism achieved what leftism doctrine wants, a deracianted worker class the world over but in this case, said worker class exists to consume. Capitalism destroys the nation and the family.

This is not a new thing and has been ongoing for many many years now.

Another point about NRX is that libertarians are failures. So obsessed with government that they don't see academia, corporations and media taking over and will defend said institutions.

Anyway, to get philosophical I think we're living through a profound crisis of both the liberal order, to some extent modernity itself.

Woke-ism and more reactionary politics(especially Racialism) strike me as a rebellion against the dominant Liberal Order on which global civilization is founded.

The question is did liberals really believe in liberalism or did they push it to weaken others while they themselves don't act liberal. Observe that the person who helped start the very first gender studies advocated for eugenics and annihilation of the male gender.

You wouldn't think a liberal would advocate for that and yet they really did advocate for it.

The liberal teachings teach you not to commit violence especially for political purposes cause violence bad but they will happily be violent without consequences.

Maybe, just maybe, liberalism is a fucking lie. Think about it.

 

[Terthna]

Problem is that modern world is just out of tune with human nature. It can be seen everywhere: society (people are increasingly alienated), economy (humans are seen as an expendable resource), politics (anyone thinks politicians give two f***s about people?), architecture (modern architecture is not just soulless, but also brutal) and so on. The entire world is basically designed to make humans unhappy, depressed and even suicidal. Vast majority of political thinking today is in agreement about these issues existing. What different groups differ in is focusing on some of these issues above others, as well as the exact course of action to be taken to solve said issues.

The modern world is a result of human nature; even if you managed to reset everything to zero, our lives would not be improved in the slightest. Our problems would simply take different forms.

 

[GoldRanger]

The modern world is a result of human nature; even if you managed to reset everything to zero, our lives would not be improved in the slightest. Our problems would simply take different forms.

I think people just don't understand what they're actually supposed to DO with their lives. In a primitive society (or for the very poor today) you don't actually have time for thoughts like that, you don't have any free time since you're struggling just to survive day to day. The question itself is irrelevant, they have clear understanding that they don't want to starve, all the rest follows.

In past, more structured societies, a person's future was clear. You get married (usually in arranged manner), have children, work to feed them. You knew your place in society, for good or ill. Any thoughts about the pointlessness of these actions is swept away by religion. Speaking as an atheist, this is one big advantage of religion. It gives you the illusion of purpose (or real purpose, if that's what you believe), so it soothes the soul.

Today people's future is a big question mark. Do I go to college? Do I start a family? Do I even need or want kids? None of these are mandatory, neither for survival, nor socially. Society entices people with promises of self-fulfillment, but in reality a scant few can truly reach it, and it's hard work that rewards you too slowly to grab people for very long.

People end up "searching themselves" in drugs, travelling to see the world (that's cool, but what comes after?), burying themselves in either mindless or intelligent entertainment which was designed for relaxation and filling up free time in between work and survival, not as an actual reason to live.

Ironically, it's "too much freedom". Like a sandbox video game where people get stuck doing pointless "fetch" type sidequests for hundreds of hours, but in reality the main quest will not patiently wait for you to finish doing everything else.

People need a clear philosophical framework that they don't feel like it's their duty to constantly keep challenging. They need a clear understanding of what their future is likely to look like, at least in general terms.

 

[Aldarion]

The modern world is a result of human nature; even if you managed to reset everything to zero, our lives would not be improved in the slightest. Our problems would simply take different forms.

And why do you think your statement is necessarily in contradiction to mine (as your reply implies)? It is in human nature to corrupt everything, itself included. The only defence against this is traditionalism / conservatism, but only if tradition being preserved has not been already corrupted in the first place.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I think @Harlock and @LordsFire had the right of it, more or less. Right now, the problems and flaws of our current demographic society and the post-enlightenment liberal order that underlies it have grown to the point that it's almost impossible to overlook them, and there's no easy fix. It took decades for things to decay to this point, it may well take just as long to restore things, and that's after accomplishing the herculean task of convincing people that the problem isn't just "X group are monsters incompatible with democracy and must be crushed"....which is a position that's becoming increasingly common across the US political spectrum and there's no clear answer as to how it can be addressed. And because we're talking about a democratic system, that means that ultimate authority (and ultimate blame) lie not with the system, but with the people. And not some abstract, vaguely defined "them" somewhere who are screwing things up, but you, right now, bear some of that blame. That's a bitter pill to swallow.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of people don't have the strength of will or character to face that, and so are vulnerable to the seductive lie that it's not their fault, it is actually all because of "them" and we can just fix everything quickly with no cost to anyone but them if you just vote blue no matter who/get rid of the brown people/appoint the right person to fix things/etc.

 

[Syzygy]

And because we're talking about a democratic system, that means that ultimate authority (and ultimate blame) lie not with the system, but with the people.

Yet the blame cannot be evenly distributed. People failed to uphold the democratic system, yes, but their initial failure hardly encompasses the majority of problems that have come about. Ultimate authority no longer rests with the majority, if it ever really did, since many countries were designed as democratic republics. That's why there is so much discontent among the general population; they have no real sway in politics and are coming to grips with that unfortunate truth.

More than ever people are seeing that real authority is in the hands of a few select groups all interconnected on some level with one another, and the latter aren't even bothering to hide it anymore. Worse, they are so incompetent at concealing their hands - or simply don't care to - that overt power plays become insulting to anyone who witnesses them. That is what incenses so many groups and is pushing individuals towards more extreme positions; moderation is only going to get you played by everyone else.

The blame born by those who allowed the system to be corrupted - through ignorance or apathy - is infinitesimal to the people actively abusing it.

 

[LordsFire]

The blame born by those who allowed the system to be corrupted - through ignorance or apathy - is infinitesimal to the people actively abusing it.

On an individual, yes. On the aggregate level, it's actually the other way around. If there's say, one million people in this country horribly abusing the system as power-brokers and the like, each of those million is far more worthy of blame than each individual among the other 300 million plus.

Those 300 million plus though, if they actually all were vigilant against the politicians and grifters who whisper sweet nothings in their ears in exchange for their votes, their passiveness, or their surrender, would be able to shut the power abusers down. It wouldn't happen immediately or easily, but it would start happening pretty quickly, and things would begin to noticeably and steadily improve along the way.

'The masses' are not helpless. They and/or we are quite capable of stopping almost all the shit that politicians and their cronies get up to today, but to quote, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'

And eternal vigilance is hard work.

 

[Battlegrinder]

'The masses' are not helpless. They and/or we are quite capable of stopping almost all the shit that politicians and their cronies get up to today, but to quote, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.'

And eternal vigilance is hard work.

A little while after the election, I saw something posted one of the staffers on...I dunno, I think it was SV, said about the increasingly bitter, hostile atmosphere on the forum, and it's always stuck with me. They admitted that things had gotten worse...and then said most of that was Trump's fault, recounting a bunch of vile stuff he'd said, etc etc. That's a lie.

Trump does not have magic powers. He didn't use the HAARP array to fire off a bunch of mind control beams and force people to be jerks. He's not using his twitter feed to subliminally brainwash everyone exposed to it. Trump doesn't have the staff at Vox held at gunpoint, forcing them type out all manner of hyperpartisan rage bait under threat of death. The people on SV, and SB, and CNN, and in your town or workplace or whatever, are the same people they used to be before Trump took office. All Trump did, and by extension what that staffer did, was give those people an excuse to act up, to act out, and then pin the blame on someone else. But acting on those impulses, that was a choice, a choice they all choose to make. And a lot of them did, and then a lot of other people, myself included, made the choice to do the same and fight fire with fire. That was a mistake, and while I don't regret any of the positions I've stacked out in the past, I certainly regret the words I used to do so.


I suspect this problem is a bit worse on the left than the right because they actively teach people that the masses are helpless, that they "marginalized" or "vulnerable" or whatever, that they can't do this on their own, that they need the support of a larger group, or institution to get things done...and hey, by sheer coincidence, there's such a group right here, ready to step in and help. Whereas the right's focus on self-reliance doesn't have that problem to the same extent, though it still hurts them in other ways. I once read a national review article about the the Parkland shootings, where they discuss the aftermath. The anti-gun people got themselves a little band of puppets to go and push the left wing agenda (I recall once getting infracted on SB for calling them the "Parkland Puppets"....wonder if I can get that reversed now that they're literally using a dead kid from parkland as a virtual marionette). There was a student who disagreed with them, Kyle Kashuv, and right leaning outlets gave him interviews and the like, but nothing like the support the left was giving out, which NR suspected was due to that self-reliance mindset.

 

[Aldarion]

I suspect this problem is a bit worse on the left than the right because they actively teach people that the masses are helpless, that they "marginalized" or "vulnerable" or whatever, that they can't do this on their own, that they need the support of a larger group, or institution to get things done...and hey, by sheer coincidence, there's such a group right here, ready to step in and help. Whereas the right's focus on self-reliance doesn't have that problem to the same extent, though it still hurts them in other ways. I once read a national review article about the the Parkland shootings, where they discuss the aftermath. The anti-gun people got themselves a little band of puppets to go and push the left wing agenda (I recall once getting infracted on SB for calling them the "Parkland Puppets"....wonder if I can get that reversed now that they're literally using a dead kid from parkland as a virtual marionette). There was a student who disagreed with them, Kyle Kashuv, and right leaning outlets gave him interviews and the like, but nothing like the support the left was giving out, which NR suspected was due to that self-reliance mindset.

It is not just the self-reliance mindset on the Right. At least part of it is likely due to difference between conservatory vs revolutionary mindset. Modern mainstream Right is in fact comprised of de-facto centrists. They want to conserve the existing values, but there is no push to "go back in time", to "turn back the clock". Meanwhile, Left actually has a goal they are working towards, even if that goal is basically "be even more 'progressive'" (whatever "progressive" is), which has created a sort of revolutionary mindset. The Right is turtling, while the Left is raiding, and Conservatives are useful idiots of the Left at least as long as they believe themselves to be the true "right wing". And as pointed out, the fact that the Progressives have a goal they have to reach means that they will naturally be more aggressive and proactive about it - which then also means that Progressive ideals will appeal to people who tend to be more proactive in pushing said ideals, while the so-called Right will be more passive.