If you believe Robert Conquest's 2nd law of politics, that any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing, it means it is possible. There does seem to be evidence of this in real life, from the NFL (doesn't matter that it was neutral, it's now a messaging tool for progressives) to corporate coffee to school boards. Meanwhile it seems most absolute right-wing organizations are simply deemed the enemy by progressives, and not a target to overtake.
Churches are a good example of seemingly on the right, but not explicitly right-wing and being taken over.
Maybe the mission statement has to be explicit, and its adherents must be fine knowing they are the enemy moving forward.
I think it's further worth considering what pro-life laws and bills have done in states like Florida and Texas lately, which is the most right-wing and offensive idea on the planet if you're a progressive. If it could be shown that this is in effect a deterrent to progressives who now don't want to go take it over, that could give hope for such a thing.
Totally in agreement with the exception of clustering population being anathema to explicitly right-wing values and mission. The the "big city" itself would dissolve naturally or never exist if explicitly and exclusively right-wing, but since Cthulu does indeed always swim left, the existence of any left-wing element would move the rudder of the whole beast.
So no. An explicitly right-wing big city could not exist with or without it being blue collar.
Aside re: TX in particular: pro-life legislation exists, but even driving a vehicle has been linked to national ID and mandated insurance purchases for over a decade. Maybe this isn't an explicitly right-wing issue, but it is definitely a personal liberty issue.
I don't think true "right wing" people are wired that way. Nobody I have ever met, or known that leans right has ever talked about moving to the city, most seem to want to move farther and farther away. I live on the outskirst of a small city in Virginia. Even there national dynamics play out, those I associate with that live within the city limits tend to be left, and those that I associate with that lean right tend to live away from town.
No (because tech isn't static?) as our Uncle T wrote:
The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them....
In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change...
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a
society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
Nothing that comes close in terms of population or density is possible, cities like Fort Worth and OKC are probably the closest thing to a large right wing blue collar city and that’s operating with the loosest definitions of “right” and “blue collar” the Permian basin is a smaller example in Texas, roughly 200k people there between the two cities, explicitly conservative although that’s changing with all the multinational oil companies importing the laptop class from Houston.
The only thing I can think of would be some Spartan type education system where you send kids off to the "wilderness" for some of their formative years to learn independence and the responsibility that comes with it. Something like working on farms or other such things. I doubt that would be feasible to implement and if you could that you could get most of the kids to stay if it worked.
I’m trying to think of one from modern times and I am coming up stumped. It probably could be done if there was complete control by real right wingers or a hegemony I guess. But they would be insanely vilified and likened to that funny mustache man so not sure how long it would last
There is a reason why Amish communities have a maximum of 70 people, beyond that it is difficult to manage. So maybe one community of 70 people connected to 70 other communities? Each of them will mantain its own independence and agemony. It works with the Amish because they stick to the basics life and secular values. Would it work with us? It would have to include self-reliance and responsibility something that it is really not taught in our society. Does it would have to be based on secular laws? Because that usually does not last very long except when there is the transition point in the middle.
Also at this point anything too dependent from technology I do not see it working in our favor in the future of humans. I think that is where the problem lays.
Over a long enough period of time, if a city started out right-ish, it would naturally evolve to a collective hive of "we must", "we should" and other out-of-touch calls for politicians to take immediate action to solve issues without any thought of consequences or individual freedoms.
So I think the idea of "city-states" should be really pushed even in a situation like Texas where if they were to secede, they would let Austin rule itself and account for their bad decisions/ideas. Let them degrade themselves with their homeless tents while the rest of Texas is left alone from the scourge, in this example.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea of "borough-states" in NYC could be appealing. "Borough State of Coney Island"? Sounds funny though.
It’s hard to imagine in the current social/political climate. But if I learned anything from March 2020 it’s that the whole world can change overnight.
The only way it could work is through an extraordinary set of circumstances i.e. Serbia exiting communism. That would probably only last a few generations and you would need a strongman actively keeping globohomo out of the culture.
When I was growing up in the deep south in the 70's, most everyone was fairly conservative, but voted democrat. Different era. If anyone had ever mentioned "trans rights", they would have gotten the shiznit knocked out of them. But that would have been after they explained what "trans rights" are.
If you believe Robert Conquest's 2nd law of politics, that any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing, it means it is possible. There does seem to be evidence of this in real life, from the NFL (doesn't matter that it was neutral, it's now a messaging tool for progressives) to corporate coffee to school boards. Meanwhile it seems most absolute right-wing organizations are simply deemed the enemy by progressives, and not a target to overtake.
Churches are a good example of seemingly on the right, but not explicitly right-wing and being taken over.
Maybe the mission statement has to be explicit, and its adherents must be fine knowing they are the enemy moving forward.
I think it's further worth considering what pro-life laws and bills have done in states like Florida and Texas lately, which is the most right-wing and offensive idea on the planet if you're a progressive. If it could be shown that this is in effect a deterrent to progressives who now don't want to go take it over, that could give hope for such a thing.
Totally in agreement with the exception of clustering population being anathema to explicitly right-wing values and mission. The the "big city" itself would dissolve naturally or never exist if explicitly and exclusively right-wing, but since Cthulu does indeed always swim left, the existence of any left-wing element would move the rudder of the whole beast.
So no. An explicitly right-wing big city could not exist with or without it being blue collar.
Aside re: TX in particular: pro-life legislation exists, but even driving a vehicle has been linked to national ID and mandated insurance purchases for over a decade. Maybe this isn't an explicitly right-wing issue, but it is definitely a personal liberty issue.
I don't think true "right wing" people are wired that way. Nobody I have ever met, or known that leans right has ever talked about moving to the city, most seem to want to move farther and farther away. I live on the outskirst of a small city in Virginia. Even there national dynamics play out, those I associate with that live within the city limits tend to be left, and those that I associate with that lean right tend to live away from town.
No (because tech isn't static?) as our Uncle T wrote:
The degree of crowding that exists today and the isolation of man from nature are consequences of technological progress. All pre-industrial societies were predominantly rural. The Industrial Revolution vastly increased the size of cities and the proportion of the population that lives in them....
In the modern world it is human society that dominates nature rather than the other way around, and modern society changes very rapidly owing to technological change...
The conservatives are fools: They whine about the decay of traditional values, yet they enthusiastically support technological progress and economic growth. Apparently it never occurs to them that you can’t make rapid, drastic changes in the technology and the economy of a
society without causing rapid changes in all other aspects of the society as well, and that such rapid changes inevitably break down traditional values.
Nothing that comes close in terms of population or density is possible, cities like Fort Worth and OKC are probably the closest thing to a large right wing blue collar city and that’s operating with the loosest definitions of “right” and “blue collar” the Permian basin is a smaller example in Texas, roughly 200k people there between the two cities, explicitly conservative although that’s changing with all the multinational oil companies importing the laptop class from Houston.
The only thing I can think of would be some Spartan type education system where you send kids off to the "wilderness" for some of their formative years to learn independence and the responsibility that comes with it. Something like working on farms or other such things. I doubt that would be feasible to implement and if you could that you could get most of the kids to stay if it worked.
It's an interesting thought experiment
I’m trying to think of one from modern times and I am coming up stumped. It probably could be done if there was complete control by real right wingers or a hegemony I guess. But they would be insanely vilified and likened to that funny mustache man so not sure how long it would last
There is a reason why Amish communities have a maximum of 70 people, beyond that it is difficult to manage. So maybe one community of 70 people connected to 70 other communities? Each of them will mantain its own independence and agemony. It works with the Amish because they stick to the basics life and secular values. Would it work with us? It would have to include self-reliance and responsibility something that it is really not taught in our society. Does it would have to be based on secular laws? Because that usually does not last very long except when there is the transition point in the middle.
Also at this point anything too dependent from technology I do not see it working in our favor in the future of humans. I think that is where the problem lays.
Over a long enough period of time, if a city started out right-ish, it would naturally evolve to a collective hive of "we must", "we should" and other out-of-touch calls for politicians to take immediate action to solve issues without any thought of consequences or individual freedoms.
So I think the idea of "city-states" should be really pushed even in a situation like Texas where if they were to secede, they would let Austin rule itself and account for their bad decisions/ideas. Let them degrade themselves with their homeless tents while the rest of Texas is left alone from the scourge, in this example.
Maybe, just maybe, the idea of "borough-states" in NYC could be appealing. "Borough State of Coney Island"? Sounds funny though.
It’s hard to imagine in the current social/political climate. But if I learned anything from March 2020 it’s that the whole world can change overnight.
The only way it could work is through an extraordinary set of circumstances i.e. Serbia exiting communism. That would probably only last a few generations and you would need a strongman actively keeping globohomo out of the culture.
When I was growing up in the deep south in the 70's, most everyone was fairly conservative, but voted democrat. Different era. If anyone had ever mentioned "trans rights", they would have gotten the shiznit knocked out of them. But that would have been after they explained what "trans rights" are.
A mining town of some sort?