Is it something that has to do with social relations and milieu, or is it more random variation?
According to mattchristmanism its the nationalist petty bourgiouse (tracing back to the slaver south) vs the college educated financial bourgeoisie (tracing back to like the antislavey new england libs of yore)
a huge factor is how close they are to the exploitation, some good cushvlogs about this
search for "tip of the spear"
tip of the spear
I looked for it but didn't find a specific episode
ty comrade. Wth this knowledge I will begin the long process of building Socialism in One Youtube Watch Later Playlist
Because they're still part of an overall culture with distinct blocs of moral beliefs that they can fall into. People are perfectly capable of the cognitive dissonance of genuinely believing that racism is bad while still supporting fundamentally racist systems that benefit them personally, and they're also capable of selective empathy/personability where to some people they are kind and human, while to others they are cold and cruel.
That even applies to cops, who can be personally affable and charismatic (even if just conditionally) while at the same time standing shoulder to shoulder with complete monsters and being perfectly prepared to commit atrocities against the people.
I feel like there's this assumption that monsters have to always openly be monsters, that if someone is cruel and domineering they must always be so to everyone, that if someone is reactionary in some ways they must be reactionary in all ways. It's certainly true that they must be judged by the worst of their actions and there is a sort of comfort in assuming the villains must only be that because it makes it easier to envision them being brought to account for their actions and the harm both they and the systems that feed them have caused, but when that gets in the way of understanding how they act that assumption can be a problem: these villains are still people, and they're full of cognitive dissonance that allows them to be coldly monstrous to some and warm and caring to others, and regardless of them being people they still need to be stopped, and to face punishment for the grievous harm they have caused.
I think as marxists it is necessary to not have illusions about morality. Often we have to engage in bourgeois morality in order to justify our actions to both those we are trying to win over and ourselves. But in the end, we have to realize our struggle is based on power, not morality. Morality is a mere afterthought that justifies the power relations that exist, not the other way around. Our violence will not punishment as an end, but a mean to transform power relations. Our very position guarantees that all of what we do are just.
That's akin to my point: that it's psychologically appealing to see the people who are causing so much harm as nothing but pits of depravity and bile, and while that is true for some of them most are more complex and some may even do some good things, and that we have to understand that that complexity and nuance doesn't change a single thing about what must be done. There's not some moral scale to weigh their good deeds against their evil ones, and we don't need to pretend that such a scale must tip overwhelmingly one way in order to justify ending the harm they are doing and taking measures to stop further harm.
cowboys vs yankees
national vs international capital
virginia colony vs plymouth colony
etc
right, thats what I thought too. Yet its not like they have conflicting interests, rather different roles to play in the empire.
You can only make sense of it that way if you look at it from the macroscopic level. Our lumpen bourgeoisie is basically constitutionally incapable of acting for the benefit of the ruling class as a whole at this point in time because they're all focused on their own narrow personal interests, prisoners of their own ideology
eh I'd argue that there's a real conflict between national/extractive and international/financial capital right now that has both economic and cultural elements. It's all part of Small Capital vs Big Capital, which are genuinely two factions with competing interests atm
I feel like what we see the most up front is by and large the cultural element of this clash. In America economic interests are rarely ever brought up politically as people accept the default ideology and let the corporations do their thing.
I think the interesting question is why exactly do they diverge culturally, and what significance does that hold.
Come from white lib family, feeling vaguely bad about racism is considered both the polite thing to do and also the extent of all praxis.
because mostly, what causes a differences in "wokeness" is interpersonal and not material among the rich white people crowd. its the same reason why the chapo people sometimes seem like theyre screaming at their parents more than theyre screaming at boomer electeds. its the same reason why white liberal women describe trump as a "scary boyfriend" . if ur incredibly rich the personal is political.
only difference between some of these liberals and some of these republicans is a fat phase in middle school like no joke (nothing wrong with being fat. ive noticed though that sometimes liberal indie white girls, for example, only go indie because they aren't able to fulfill the aesthetic of white supremacy)
They can be pretty evenly divided by urban cosmopolitan vs. exurban recluse
Some rich white people want to be the ones dictating everything, and some rich white people want everyone to be able to express their individuality in a free market (which means that they, the rich white people, end up with huge indirect power over everything).
Both think power and money imbalances are fine, both think class is fine, both think it's fine that you can wager or sign away your rights to your own self.
Both liberal and reactionary ideologies serve the wealthy.
