[ComradeTim]

Ah utopia, the one good thing that can be said of progressives of the marxist-leninist strain is that they do have some long term goal in mind and are not just flailing around changing things for the sake of it like other progressives. The trouble is marxists are the kind of driver that promises to take you to a good hotel but mysteriously seems to pick a route that takes you straight to the bad part of town... and you the hapless passenger are never seen again.

I agree with you wholeheartedly taxizen. Marxists' (leninist or otherwise) fetishisation of the establishment of a fabled "Workers' state" led by a dictatorship of the proletariat as carried out by an elitist vanguard party of permanent revolutionaries has been met by spiritual, if not material destruction following a period of rapid moral degeneration as is the consequence of its authoritarian and statist nature. As Bakunin, Kropotkin and other sensible social anarchists have pointed out from the very beginning "Give the most dedicated revolutionary absolute power and he will be soon be worse than the Tzar", "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice but socialism without liberty is brutality and slavery", "If people are beaten with the stick, they do not much care whether it is called "the peoples' stick"", etc etc. However, I am not a Marxist not a Leninist but an Anarcho-Syndicalist. We are far more progressive than them, not relying on revolution from above but from below. In your somewhat specious taxi-driver imagery, we ask the passenger where they want to go and then take them there, rather than dictating to them where the best place for them to go is, as a Marxist-Leninist would.

[Istanbuller]

Conservatism is an ideology in the West. It is not actually about keeping every tradition and value. In my opinion, it is well established and developed ideology. It is also divided into categories in itself.

Anyway, in in my country, conservatism exactly means keeping old religious values. It is religious, not ideology.

[quetzalcoatl]

I agree with you wholeheartedly taxizen. Marxists' (leninist or otherwise) fetishisation of the establishment of a fabled "Workers' state" led by a dictatorship of the proletariat as carried out by an elitist vanguard party of permanent revolutionaries has been met by spiritual, if not material destruction following a period of rapid moral degeneration as is the consequence of its authoritarian and statist nature. As Bakunin, Kropotkin and other sensible social anarchists have pointed out from the very beginning "Give the most dedicated revolutionary absolute power and he will be soon be worse than the Tzar", "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice but socialism without liberty is brutality and slavery", "If people are beaten with the stick, they do not much care whether it is called "the peoples' stick"", etc etc. However, I am not a Marxist not a Leninist but an Anarcho-Syndicalist. We are far more progressive than them, not relying on revolution from above but from below. In your somewhat specious taxi-driver imagery, we ask the passenger where they want to go and then take them there, rather than dictating to them where the best place for them to go is, as a Marxist-Leninist would.

Very good sir, I applaud you. Even though I don't agree with social anarchists (the anarchical part, anyway), they are on the whole a lot less likely to suddenly decide to liquidate the opposition. Maybe that's why the SR's got slaughtered after the revolution. Anyway, I think your being over generous to label Taxizen "somewhat specious", but keep up the good work.

[SolarCross]

I agree with you wholeheartedly taxizen. Marxists' (leninist or otherwise) fetishisation of the establishment of a fabled "Workers' state" led by a dictatorship of the proletariat as carried out by an elitist vanguard party of permanent revolutionaries has been met by spiritual, if not material destruction following a period of rapid moral degeneration as is the consequence of its authoritarian and statist nature. As Bakunin, Kropotkin and other sensible social anarchists have pointed out from the very beginning "Give the most dedicated revolutionary absolute power and he will be soon be worse than the Tzar", "Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice but socialism without liberty is brutality and slavery", "If people are beaten with the stick, they do not much care whether it is called "the peoples' stick"", etc etc. However, I am not a Marxist not a Leninist but an Anarcho-Syndicalist. We are far more progressive than them, not relying on revolution from above but from below. In your somewhat specious taxi-driver imagery, we ask the passenger where they want to go and then take them there, rather than dictating to them where the best place for them to go is, as a Marxist-Leninist would.

I see, you will understand how I could mistake you for a Marxist / Leninist though? There is a lot of overlap in the memes used by marxists and bakuninites, so it is not always so easy to tell you apart. Bakunin, whom was personally acquainted with marx, was thoroughly disgusted with Marx's authoritarianism and also suspicious of his jewishness but for all that he copied without modification Marx's economic and social mythos, only his tactical remedy differed.

It is certainly fair to say anarchists are more progressive than Marxists, in fact liberal democrats are more progressive than Marxists, even the conservatives of today are more progressive. Marxists are really stuck in the 19th century, only a monarchist could be more reactionary. But you can't tell them that. However I don't view progressivism as it is advertised to be (the improvement of society) though so this to me is no dishonour. I've come to see progressivism as social and political decay, human entropy. To be an anarchist then is to be more sadly afflicted with error than even the Marxists.

[quetzalcoatl]

It is certainly fair to say anarchists are more progressive than Marxists, in fact liberal democrats are more progressive than Marxists, even the conservatives of today are more progressive. Marxists are really stuck in the 19th century, only a monarchist could be more reactionary. But you can't tell them that. However I don't view progressivism as it is advertised to be (the improvement of society) though so this to me is no dishonour. I've come to see progressivism as social and political decay, human entropy. To be an anarchist then is to be more sadly afflicted with error than even the Marxists.

Just remember error is only finally decided after the fact. I tell myself that every day, so that I may listen and learn. In any event, it's good to emotionally distance yourself from your beliefs, so that you may see your errors and recognizing them as such. That's why I am such a shining beacon of humility.

[ComradeTim]

I see, you will understand how I could mistake you for a Marxist / Leninist though? There is a lot of overlap in the memes used by marxists and bakuninites, so it is not always so easy to tell you apart. Bakunin, whom was personally acquainted with marx, was thoroughly disgusted with Marx's authoritarianism and also suspicious of his jewishness but for all that he copied without modification Marx's economic and social mythos, only his tactical remedy differed.

It is certainly fair to say anarchists are more progressive than Marxists, in fact liberal democrats are more progressive than Marxists, even the conservatives of today are more progressive. Marxists are really stuck in the 19th century, only a monarchist could be more reactionary. But you can't tell them that. However I don't view progressivism as it is advertised to be (the improvement of society) though so this to me is no dishonour. I've come to see progressivism as social and political decay, human entropy. To be an anarchist then is to be more sadly afflicted with error than even the Marxists.

It is a relatively easy mistake to make, going from that basis. The tolerance part should have been a give away. I disagree with you that monarchism is so reactionary. The presence of great quantities of ceremony and tradition that usually accompanies kingship acts as a constraining effect on the more brutal instincts that accompanies great power. Rulers that have not had the civilising influences of hereditary power and pampered upbringing, such as despots and dictators, are usually far more vicious.

However, I am assuming that you are going to be the monarch in this "new monarchism" or at least an aristocrat or trusted retainer? Otherwise, I can't make head or tail of the position myself as opposed to democracy or almost any other form of government (saving despotism).

Very good sir, I applaud you. Even though I don't agree with social anarchists (the anarchical part, anyway), they are on the whole a lot less likely to suddenly decide to liquidate the opposition. Maybe that's why the SR's got slaughtered after the revolution. Anyway, I think your being over generous to label Taxizen "somewhat specious", but keep up the good work.

Thank you. Don't worry, come the revolution we will have our hands full eliminating reactionary elements, so there will be plenty of time for you miserable democratic socialists to pretend that you've supported us all along.

[anarchist23]

The conservatives in the main desire that the status quo remains unchanged. That the majority are subjugated, and that there is an accepted elite.

[SolarCross]

I disagree with you that monarchism is so reactionary. The presence of great quantities of ceremony and tradition that usually accompanies kingship acts as a constraining effect on the more brutal instincts that accompanies great power. Rulers that have not had the civilising influences of hereditary power and pampered upbringing, such as despots and dictators, are usually far more vicious.

I think the disagreement there is more with the meaning of the word "reactionary". You seem to equate the word "reactionary" with brutal authoritarianism. I am using a different definition. Perhaps incorrectly, I see reactionary as an impulse to preserve good order against the entropic efforts of progressives to introduce disorder. By my definition then a monarchist is really the most reactionary position. It is quite true what you say about traditional monarchies being very much less brutal than the autocracies of the modern or military type. I think I should probably defer to your definition since I think the origin of the word was a lefty meme that came about during the regicidal activities of the leftist revolutionaries of France and Russia as derogatory term for the people they slaughtered. I should probably say that monarchists then are traditionalists or loyalists.

However, I am assuming that you are going to be the monarch in this "new monarchism" or at least an aristocrat or trusted retainer? Otherwise, I can't make head or tail of the position myself as opposed to democracy or almost any other form of government (saving despotism). :?:

Unlikely, but not impossible, it all depends what happens. This isn't really the right thread to discuss that though.

[quetzalcoatl]

I see reactionary as an impulse to preserve good order against the entropic efforts of progressives to introduce disorder. By my definition then a monarchist is really the most reactionary position. It is quite true what you say about traditional monarchies being very much less brutal than the autocracies of the modern or military type.

I somewhat sympathize with these sentiments. The problem is that a healthy society must have a proper balance of order and disorder. There will always be new challenges, external and internal, to meet. Change is inevitable. Only a citizenry with a healthy attitude of skepticism and inquiry is agile enough to quickly adapt to new threats. That is one reason why the emerging Reformation states of Europe were able to so quickly overcome their competitors. This is why conservative monarchies like Saudi Arabia are doomed to fall to radical Islamists...eventually.

As I hinted before, there is no final structural solution to this problem. There is one option, and one option only: cobble together a system based on existing elements of a society that will adequately preserve such a balance - while keeping in mind the balance must be dynamic. Institutional rigidity will guarantee failure, wholesale unregulated market chaos or idealist radicals will, as well.

There is a reason traditional monarchies failed. You're a man, you must put away childish things, one of which is a magical faith in Kings, Princesses, and Royal Weddings.

[Pants-of-dog]

I think we need to clarify something:

When reactionaries and conservatives talk about the social decay and entropy that progressives support, they mean things like human rights, civil rights, freedom of religion, equal treatment under the law, keeping the gov't accountable to the people, cleaner air and water, healthier environments, better access to health care for all, dignity for all people in our society, more accessible resources, access to potable water, and generally letting everyone do what they want as long as you don't step on someone else's toes.

Oh, and letting the conservatives and reactionaries criticise us for doing this.

[SolarCross]

I somewhat sympathize with these sentiments. The problem is that a healthy society must have a proper balance of order and disorder. There will always be new challenges, external and internal, to meet. Change is inevitable. Only a citizenry with a healthy attitude of skepticism and inquiry is agile enough to quickly adapt to new threats. That is one reason why the emerging Reformation states of Europe were able to so quickly overcome their competitors. This is why conservative monarchies like Saudi Arabia are doomed to fall to radical Islamists...eventually.

As I hinted before, there is no final structural solution to this problem. There is one option, and one option only: cobble together a system based on existing elements of a society that will adequately preserve such a balance - while keeping in mind the balance must be dynamic. Institutional rigidity will guarantee failure, wholesale unregulated market chaos or idealist radicals will, as well.

There is a reason traditional monarchies failed. You're a man, you must put away childish things, one of which is a magical faith in Kings, Princesses, and Royal Weddings.

It is a mistake to conflate change with disorder or order with stasis. The growth of a human being from embryo to grown up is full of change but it is a profoundly orderly change. Disorder creeps in as the man ages and reaches its maximum at death at which point change is slow to static.

If one takes the long, long view, monarchies are the normal and most resilient of political orders and they do not lack for dynamism. In contrast democracies a rare, unstable and failure prone not least because they often respond to challenging changes very poorly.

It was only in the last century or so that cataclysmic human entropy smashed the greater part of the traditional monarchies. The causes are complex but they are not inherent to the form. Anything, good or bad, can be broken but that does not mean that which has been broken can not, or should not, be mended or remade.

[Torus34]

Conservatives, that is, true conservatives as opposed to the self-promoting talk show host variety, are the balance wheel -- the governor, if you please -- of the mechanism of progress. Societies slowly change with time. If change is too rapid it becomes a destructive force. In extreme cases it destroys the society in its entirety. I'll not bother with examples.

Thus, I have a deep respect for conservatives even as I look to the future with the eyes of a secular humanist. It takes time for a society to come to terms with a new idea that represents a change in the 'way of life'. It takes more time for a government to respond to the new 'need' of the society.

It is not easy to be patient.

"And gladly wolde he lerne, and gladly teche." Geoffrey Chaucer.

[quetzalcoatl]

I think we need to clarify something:

When reactionaries and conservatives talk about the social decay and entropy that progressives support, they mean things like human rights, civil rights, freedom of religion, equal treatment under the law, keeping the gov't accountable to the people, cleaner air and water, healthier environments, better access to health care for all, dignity for all people in our society, more accessible resources, access to potable water, and generally letting everyone do what they want as long as you don't step on someone else's toes.

Oh, and letting the conservatives and reactionaries criticise us for doing this.

Another factor to consider is that what some conservatives attribute to progressivism (various forms social decay) has a lot more to do with changes outside the control of a narrow liberal/conservative dynamic. Consider, for instance, the mass movement of people into cities, the development of the automobile and highway systems, and the decline of a large manufacturing base to absorb unskilled workers. These are some of the major movers of the decline in social cohesion.

There is a rather glaring internal contradiction at work in the typical Conservative world-view. An unrestrained and highly dynamic capitalist economy will greatly amplify the rate of technological change, which in turn accelerates these social changes I just noted. A dynamic capitalism also fuels the development of a powerful merchant class (which notably played an important role in the decline of the aristocratic system). Taxizen's new vision would be much more consistent with a controlled market economy, rather than the Thatcherite/Friedman model we now have. The traditional feudal lord/peasant system could be considered a 'primitive' form of socialism that placed concerns of social stability on an equal level with profit.

[Far-Right Sage]

It should be said that long ago "conservatives"/right-liberals in Europe, the United States, and other places in the West were actually (in many cases but not all) liberal-nationalists and "progressives"/left-liberals were actually social democrats, a left-leaning variant of liberalism, but long ago such a delineation can be said to have ceased and both today are broadly neoliberal with little distinction between them save for stances on social issues, which as the original topic raises is more a matter of window dressing, rhetoric, and appealing to certain constituencies over others with little change in policy.

Case in point - The Bush '43 administration was widely considered by its detractors to be the most extreme-right variant on the liberal spectrum, it controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House all at once, and George W. Bush is supposedly an extremely devout Methodist who injected his Christian morals into federal policy. Yet what actually changed? Was Roe v. Wade overturned? Was homosexual marriage banned for the states attempting to pass it (contrary to what some will argue about that being a constitutional issue decided by states, so are many other issues from speed limits on highways to the drinking age which the federal regime has forced their hand on before)? Was any form of traditional culture promoted whatsoever against the tide of degenerate "gangster rap" and the soul-straining advent of largely base pop music and pop culture? Just about the one issue I remember them coming at from an actually conservative perspective was when the White House directed Attorney General Gonzalez to sue Oregon on behalf of the national government over its legalization of euthanasia; a half-hearted struggle which it impotently (and fortunately) lost.

Both parties today support transnational capitalism, open borders, the architecture of globalization found in advocacy of the erosion of national sovereignty across the planet, any form of societal organization based on or with respect for the organic distinctions between race, ethnicity, religion, language, and culture; and both support a world dictate to ruthlessly compel other nations in the rest of the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa to adopt this monstrosity of a model.

[Reason10]

I always hear how mainstream conservatives are for conserving traditional mores, yet don't seem to define or even attempt to defend these values? Conservatives have made no attempt to preserve the demographic majority in their societies, or prevent the excesses of commercialism destroying traditional values of the people. Conservatives seem to resist the liberal values of that era and then accept it, pretending that it has always been a traditional value. Since when did 'traditional' marriage include interracial relationships and no-fault divorce? Before the civil rights movement, neither of these 'traditional' values were widely accepted by mainstream society.

Do conservatives do nothing other than defend the current liberals system and ape what liberals did a few decades ago?

I'll let AMERICA'S ANCHORMAN answer that.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/12/12/what_conservatives_wish_for_all_people

Now, let's take the conservative opposition to big government. A lot of people -- and make no mistake about this -- a lot of people think that the conservative opposition to big government is rooted in the fact that we want people to suffer. As strange and as impossible as that sounds, there are people who believe it. And of course nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that we, as conservatives, know that nobody is ever gonna come close to anywhere reaching their potential or enjoying life the best and most they can if they end up dependent on anything: parents, a political party, a government.

The core principle of conservatism is wanting the absolute best for the human race, and we understand that that is possible only with liberty and freedom. Liberty and freedom to be the best we can be. Liberty and freedom to be what we want to be, applied according to our ambitions and our desires. We realize that people's lives are being stunted, their opportunity is being cut back and thwarted the more they are talked into depending on other people.

Pants-of-dog said

When reactionaries and conservatives talk about the social decay and entropy that progressives support, they mean things like human rights, civil rights, freedom of religion, equal treatment under the law, keeping the gov't accountable to the people, cleaner air and water, healthier environments, better access to health care for all, dignity for all people in our society, more accessible resources, access to potable water, and generally letting everyone do what they want as long as you don't step on someone else's toes.

Oh, and letting the conservatives and reactionaries criticise us for doing this.

First, only LIBERALS are reactionaries. Secondly, most of that statement is wrong. LIBERALS (there's nothing "Progressive" about the Marxist crowd) do NOT support human rights (visit an Abortion mill some time), Freedom of Religion, or equal treatment under the law. Liberals have gone out of their way to keep THIS criminal president Barak Ebola from ANY kind of accountability. Liberals DEFINITELY oppose better access to health care for all with this economy-killing Obamacare, which has put MILLIONS out of work and has cost MILLIONS their health insurance. Liberals are a cancer to America. They oppose EVERYTHING that is good and positive about America.

Conservatives criticize liberals because liberals are WRONG and their ideas are poison for society and for America.