Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:

There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.

There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.

And apparently it originates from the comments of this blog post, not from the commonly attributed CIA stooge: https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progressives/#comment-729288

It's pretty lib subject matter on the whole and I'm not holding out hope that Mr Wilhoit is a marxist, but it actually maps pretty well. I was just talking to a friend about how the NLRB rulings against starbucks are doing literally nothing to stop them from union-busting and penalizing union workers, and this popped into my head:

It's almost like there's a class who the law protects but does not bind, and a class who the law binds but does not protect or something

Mr. Wilhoit was onto something but it's not celebrities or immigrants or whoever he meant it about, it's the working class and the ruling class. Also I really want to eventually get called a tankie for quoting some liberal blog reply guy. I just think it would be funny

PS: check out his music, it's not bad:

https://www.broadheath.com/mp3s.html https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgT0vSWjBh4gAtab6JZgVrA/videos

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] YearOfTheCommieDesktop@hexbear.net 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I'm not saying we shouldn't use it, just that I find it more useful when applied to class than like, cancel culture.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 2 points 2 years ago

To me, it ties into Corey Robin’s argument that conservatism is at its core, the view that market economies are hegemonic but that a special place needs to be carved out within that economy for the traditional hierarchy or hierarchies. The shape those hierarchies take varies depending on place and time, but there’s always a class element, implicit or explicit, in them.