this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
-12 points (20.0% liked)
Asklemmy
54379 readers
728 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When I speak of 'moderately conservative communists,' I mean something closer to someone who acknowledges that to survive the ecological catastrophe and economic madness, we must become conservative. We must conserve the commons, the state's capacity to protect its citizens, and the welfare state against the 'radical' destruction of the market. Basically I think we should have a strong state that limits the freedom of corporations to destroy us.
Please counter-attack where I go astray, preferably viciously too.
I don't really think "conservative" is a helpful angle due to the connotations. I think "pragmatic, and planned" are good descriptors. The advancement of green energy, the radical restructuring of society, all of this is definitely not seen as "conservative." Further, I'm confused if you mean social democracy, or socialism proper (ie, Nordic capitalism vs. China's socialist market economy).
I understand the hesitation with the word, but I think we need to reclaim it. If we look at the ecological crisis, the market is the 'radical' force destroying the planet. To be a communist who wants to strictly protect the environment is, by definition, a 'conservative' act. We are trying to conserve the habitability of the Earth. It isn't about choosing between Nordic social democracy or China's model; it is about the state acting as a adequate defense against the chaos of the market.
My issue with both choices is that both are ultimately still playing by the rules of global capital. I'm talking about a 'conservatism' that refuses both. It isn't about being 'pragmatic' or simply 'planned' in my opinion, it is about the strict protection of the commons.
I understand, but at least if we are to consider the march towards communism as the continued development of humanity onto a qualitatively new level, this is a progression. We can be conservationists with respect to the environment, but certainly not conservative. To try to hold back the wheel of history is to be reactionary, not progressive.
The state is not opposed to the market, which is why I brought up the Nordic countries and China. In capitalism, the state serves capitalists. In socialism, the state serves the working classes. A socialist state is necessary for supremacy over capital, which is why revolution is necessary.
But isn't the 'wheel of history' precisely what is driving us toward ecological collapse? Sometimes the truly revolutionary act is to stop the clock, to say 'enough' to this automatic march of progress. If 'progress' means the destruction of the environment, then the only way to be truly progressive is to become conservative: to stubbornly conserve the commons and our material existence against the market's drive to destroy them. We have to survive the 'march' before we can reach the destination.
I agree that the socialist state must serve the working class, but I would argue that this service is inherently a conservative project. The state must act as a guardian, conserving the health, housing, and resources of the people against the chaotic 'progress' of the market. We shouldn't fear the word 'conservative' if it means we are refusing to let the logic of capital degrade our lives. The revolution isn't just about seizing the state; it's about using that state to protect us.
Progress doesn't mean the destruction of the environment. You cannot stop the clock. Progress is necessary to stop the destruction, and to take a more harmonious approach. See how China is combatting desertification, and is rapidly electrifying and adopting solar as the biggest new energy source. This is progress.
As for the state protecting the people, this is progressive. Nay, revolutionary. The people take political power in their own hands, and can radically transform the world and better meet their place in it. The wheel of history is pressed forward.
I fear you're on a pipeline towards eco-fascism. Not saying you're an eco-fascist, to be clear, but the combination of trying to stop progress while also adopting prop environmental policies can definitely lead people down that road. It's not a nice road.
I think you may have the causality backwards. Eco-fascism thrives on scarcity, no? In my mind, it is what happens when the state fails to manage resources and people are forced to fight for scraps. My point is that we must use the state to strictly conserve the commons to ensure there is enough for everyone. That is the opposite of fascism. It is the only guarantee against it. As for China, simply electrifying the economy with solar panels doesn't change the underlying logic of endless accumulation. We can't just assume the 'wheel of history' will save us if we don't grab the wheel ourselves.
Not really, we need to advance to make production more green, efficient, and to reduce our impact on the environment.
But when you make production more efficient, people don't consume less. They consume more. 'Green advancement' is often just a license to expand the exploitation of nature under a new label. We cannot 'advance' our way out of a systemic crisis, but if we fundamentally change our relationship to consumption, maybe we can start to really rip the e-brake on how efficiently we have been and currently are exploiting nature.
You can both produce more efficiently and without excess without stopping advancement.