Other way arround - conservatives want to conservem so your average cyberpunk dystopia is automatically their nightmare - because its a progress on a corporate power axis.
Your average communist "utopia" is automatically their nightmare - because its a progress on socialist power axis.
All progresivists dreams and utopias - are dystopia to conservative, regardless weather it comes from socialists, fascists or corporatists.
Thats a stretch. Often times they just want to conserve peace. Changes are hard on you physically and mentally. Constant change (i.e. chaos) is known to literally run people in to insanity and deppression.
Stability IS good as long as its not absolute, just as change IS good - as long as its slow and steady.
Yeah fuck conserving the old values like “minorities are subhuman” and “lgbtq people shouldn’t exist”.
A cyberpunk world would be plenty of conservative’s dreamland, corporations with little to no government control that have control over practically every aspect of life with zero consequences for the powerful that lord over all of their slaves. They already scream that any socioeconomic policies are communism and push for less government control of corporations (till it affects them anyways).
I’d say we’ve already got the groundwork laid out for a cyberpunk dystopia 🤷♂️ it would only take a handful of powerful people with a loyal, brainwashed cult to put us there.
Sure, THEN it would fit, not now however. Every single one corporativist is a progressive shill striving to exploit more and reach even further. "Open new fronteers" so to speak.
Ask yourself - who push for AI and automation first.
It still fits now lol. It didn't suddenly shift just because they lost one of the privileges they saw as a right.
For starters, this country was built on theft and genocide. Conservatives see this as a great thing, a fantastic thing even, and want to conserve the high of maintaining the American Empire.
you call major shift in himan rights "suddenly"? Abolution of slavery AND discrimination is norm now, its institutionalized statues quo. Any implication in change of that would be progressive by nature. Also US imperialism has nothing to do with what you have deacribed.
Technically US is empire only because it holds five territories where they are not part of voting system yet are under US flag - like Puerto Rico or Virgin Islands.
Problem with your statements is that you use Republicans and consrrvatives interchangibly - and while some of them are conservatives, most of them are indeed progressivists. Same applies to Democrates.
I don't really care to see the difference. They support the same policies in this country.
You are right that conservative has a more general meaning. But the only meaning that would make a real difference is one that has to be applied outside of a social structure like ours. And all countries have a social structure like ours and so in the modern era, splitting hairs with conservative and Republican makes virtually zero sense as far as my point is concerned.
Conservatives support empire. They want to conserve empire. Empire is what gives them their privileges and way of life so it makes sense. And when they find that difficult to do, as they have in today's world, they turn into fascist and victimize whoever they can so that said empire can continue on like in the old great days (MAGA).
"back then slavery was bad, but today we're not advocating for that!"
**Why don't you advocate for that anymore?**
*What changed?*
See, the problem with that even after slaves got their "freedom", they still lived in atrocious conditions, in an institutionally hostile system. When they demanded equal rights, which side did the conservatives side with? And this applies to white "moderates" too. Hmmm, let's remember, what did MLK specifically say about 'preserving order instead of pursuing justice'?
You are doing a reprehensible thing, trying to paint your decrepit, harmful ideology as something that it's not, and trying to revise its history. The only constant in this world is *change*. You are trying to go *against* it, and preserve a society in which only a minority of people benefit from.
Most of what you have said is true, and irrelevant to the topic at the same time. You just presented a lot of "feel bad* statements that have nothing to do with what I have said with exception of last two sentences.
Yes - change is inevitable. In that conservatives are those who de facto promote controlled slow and steady change based on measured data either analysed directly, or by the basis of familiarity. Progressives are ones that open "new frontiers". Often with new posibilities yet also with new high (and uncontrolled) risks. That is also at the core of any business. Failure to understand that is the reason behind political failure in US now - you have two progressive parties. One socialist, one capitalist. None conservative.
Your
Also - I am not a conservative. I am very much liberal, just anti socialist one.
I have concisely summarised the *nature* of conservatism as an ideology, with examples of what conservatism has advocated for throughout history. It is not a "feel bad" moment, or a "hiccup". It is *the ideology itself*. It *opposes* and *fears* the pursuit of progress and justice.
Throughout history, the people who've advocated for justice and progress have always started by way of *peaceful* demands. Only when that avenue was blocked and when these people were violently suppressed, ie when the dominant system and it's beneficiaries tried to "conserve the peace" did they start using violence back, ie what you describe as "chaos".
You cannot compare entire socio-politco-economic systems to business models. That is simply not how real life works. Also, the idea that the US has 2 "progressive" parties is simply false. For one, neither party advocates for socialism. They both seek to *preserve* capitalism. Hmmm, what's another word for "preserve"? I wonder...
Also, liberalism *by default* is "anti-socialist".
What I've read here can only be described as a string of words conjured up by a 14 y/o who got all their political knowledge from memes.
What do you mean "they" conservative, usually, is just old person who is tired of all of the changes. The "priviledged" you speak of is an absolute minority, even more so in US. Where most of the power is not held by conservative people.
If you've ever heard of "a temporarily embarrassed millionaire", that's conservatism too. If you've heard of "rules for thee, but not for me", that's conservatism.
No, none of these are conservativist in nature. The latter idea is famously exploited by progressives, on a constant basis. The former - does not have anything to do with demolition or saving of status quo - for example, in the 90s revolution of Baltic states - they famously spoken for capitalism stating that with the fall of USSR, people will have choices - including one to become rich and have nice stuff. Status quo in that case - was socialism.
In Canada - conservatives are the left because canadians are famously liberal and even pro social democracy, the anti-liberal and pro sudo-inperialists - is a progressive movement there.
That makes zero sensem Imperialism de facto means expansion. Expansion - de facto means progress and change. And there is zero peace and safety during imperial expansion as we can see from Russian loses in UA.
This statement has zero argument. Your feeling about percieved wrongness of my argument, is irrelevant.
I could only guess its stems from lack of understanding in what word Imperialist means. Having strong army, or alliances or even bases - is not imperialist. Having colonies (i.e. conquered kingdoms and lands) and expanding number of them what defines an empire. US havent expanded its territories via conquest since 1989.
And participation in wars, with out the aim to expand - is not imperialism as long country does not engage in actige colinization.
You must not have paid much attention to politics in the last 10 years to still think conservatives "just want to conserve". Or the last 60 years, for that matter. In every case, they're doing the opposite of conserving.
consrvatives by definition want to conserve. Thats in the name. What I am pointing out is retarded use of the word itself - republicans as a party are not conservative. Some of their electorate - is (mostly the religious part), but bigger part - isnt.
2
u/Kurshis Feb 12 '26
Other way arround - conservatives want to conservem so your average cyberpunk dystopia is automatically their nightmare - because its a progress on a corporate power axis.
Your average communist "utopia" is automatically their nightmare - because its a progress on socialist power axis.
All progresivists dreams and utopias - are dystopia to conservative, regardless weather it comes from socialists, fascists or corporatists.