this post was submitted on 25 May 2026
265 points (91.8% liked)
Memes
55992 readers
889 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
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
Conservative doesn't mean what you think it does. Conservative means not changing the state at all. Capitalism is the status quo. Communism is something new, something untried, that resolves to break the status quo. Conserving the environment means to stop whatever actions we are doing to change it. Usually people mean stopping the destructive actions towards the environment, so it has eventually come to mean saving the environment/biodiversity, etc. That still doesn't change the meaning of the word conservative, which means upholding the prevailing state of things.
Using your example, letting the train run is conservative, and hitting the brakes to stop it (changing the state) is radical.
Your mistake is treating capitalism as a static "status quo." It isn't. Capitalism is a dynamic process of constant, disruptive revolution. It actively destroys the ecological status quo every single day. So if "conservative" means upholding the prevailing state of things, then defending the physical world against capitalist expansion is conservative. You have to radically change the economy just to conserve the environment.
The train analogy only proves my point. If a train is accelerating toward a cliff, letting it run preserves the engine's current operation, but it radically destroys the train. Hitting the brakes disrupts the engine's operation in order to conserve the train. I want to disrupt the capitalist engine to conserve the physical world. Communist means, conservative ends.
I think you're conflating ecological conservation and political conservatism. This seems like an argument that wouldn't exist in a language that created a meaningful distinction between the two.
An individual that is protecting the rights of capital to cause rapid ecological damage, is doing so by seeking to preserve the power of private capital.
A leftist seeking to abolish the power of capital to conserve the environment is the radical in that case.
Communism through conservatism as I think you are describing it isn't wrong, but it is at the very least confusing due to the clashing definitions of radical, conservative, and the targets of both changes and preservation of the structures.
Once again for the sake of clarity
Ecologic conservation, cultural/sociatal conservation ≠ economic conservatism.
Sticking the terms together is kinda just confusing
You are absolutely right that the terms clash and it makes for a confusing label to those on both sides i think. I do prefer to keep using it though because I think that naturally pre-occuring confusion points to something important about the situation. I realize now my earlier framing of communist means and conservative ends was backwards i guess. Since global capital is the true radical force destroying our social fabric, merely conserving the present is not enough. We actually need the conservative discipline of a strong state to impose order and push us forward into a truly emancipatory communist future. I am still unsure if this is the best way to articulate it, but does it make more sense? I feel like I just sound like cowbee now, but I also never felt I disagreed with him in much of anything substantial to begin with
Scattered ideologies (your views are not communist). Bullshit semantics (communist "conservatism"). Terrible takes ("we need conservative discipline of a strong state").
These people are too kind to you. At least you admit you were confused and wrong. That's good.
I think it's best just to avoid the term conservative in general, similar to how I would suggest any socialists organization avoid using the term national socialist. Even if you can clarify the position, and linguistically its technically correct, the label of conservatism is just too loaded.
From our brief interaction It does sound like your views are heavily motivated by environmentalism, I haven't done much reading on eco-marxism or eco-anarchists, but someone probably has come up with a decent dialectic analasys and some formal terminology. Then again we socialists tend to be shit at naming things do maybe not xD. I wish I could recommend some literature for you but it's not a direction I've studied up on, but I'm sure someone can suggest a properly solarpunk book.
You're playing on semantics