*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[wufwugy]

False. Conservatism upholds traditional values, so what it supports depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.

In a way. Conservatism is an offshoot of liberalism. They're like two sides of the same coin, where liberalism is saying faster faster must go faster and conservatism is saying slow ya roll there hoss, let's not mess something up here.

It's "the left" that is the odd one out. Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism -- those are the guys that hold totally different principles than that which encapsulates both liberalism and conservatism.

[wufwugy]

It's "the left" that is the odd one out. Marxism, fascism, socialism, communism -- those are the guys that hold totally different principles than that which encapsulates both liberalism and conservatism.

Here's an example:

Both conservatives and liberals historically thought that people should generally be free to do what they want as long as they are not hurting others. Where they disagree is on what that line of hurting others is and what "hurting others" even means. Everything from tax policy to abortion policy has a great deal of this dynamic going on.

It's different with Marxism. Under that, you're not free to do fucking anything. You're a cog in a machine. You're a part of a collective. Your duty is to the collective, which means that your duty is to the state since the state is what relegates duty to the collective.

Marxism might be really great as a religion, because maybe then it wouldn't naturally need a state and maybe it would be about people framing themselves as groups (things religions already do). Though as a political ideal, it seems to need an all-powerful state and seems to eradicate individualism and liberty.

[CoccoBill]

It's different with Marxism. Under that, you're not free to do fucking anything. You're a cog in a machine. You're a part of a collective. Your duty is to the collective, which means that your duty is to the state since the state is what relegates duty to the collective.

Marxism might be really great as a religion, because maybe then it wouldn't naturally need a state and maybe it would be about people framing themselves as groups (things religions already do). Though as a political ideal, it seems to need an all-powerful state and seems to eradicate individualism and liberty.

That's true only if you look at communist regimes. Marx's view of socialism was that when there's enough production and prosperity to comfortably take care of everyone, it is the key to ensure everyone a good life. Of course, this requires there to be enough production and prosperity, and that's why Marx saw capitalism as the necessary step towards socialism. Soviet Union, for example, tried to take a shortcut straight to communism, and with poverty and rampant corruption that didn't end so well. They were all intents and purposes dictatorships, not liberal in any way. The countries that most closely follow social liberalism's principles nowadays are probably the Nordic states, which seem to be doing pretty well in most metrics. I guess in the US the most notable social liberal was FDR with his New Deal.

[wufwugy]

That's true only if you look at communist regimes. Marx's view of socialism was that when there's enough production and prosperity to comfortably take care of everyone, it is the key to ensure everyone a good life. Of course, this requires there to be enough production and prosperity, and that's why Marx saw capitalism as the necessary step towards socialism. Soviet Union, for example, tried to take a shortcut straight to communism, and with poverty and rampant corruption that didn't end so well. They were all intents and purposes dictatorships, not liberal in any way. The countries that most closely follow social liberalism's principles nowadays are probably the Nordic states, which seem to be doing pretty well in most metrics. I guess in the US the most notable social liberal was FDR with his New Deal.

Unfortunately for Marx, the socialist Utopia deteriorates the production that is already there.

Scandinavia is an interesting case, and it's important to point out that they have some VERY good capitalism. They have some of the best capitalism, like in some ways their state policies are among the best in the world for businesses. Given this and given the ethic of the people and the relative peace, it doesn't surprise me that they do how they do. Granted, I predict that their lack of conservatism will over the long haul cause them real damage and we're already seeing it happen.

[CoccoBill]

In a way. Conservatism is an offshoot of liberalism. They're like two sides of the same coin, where liberalism is saying faster faster must go faster and conservatism is saying slow ya roll there hoss, let's not mess something up here.

Originally liberalism was the movement in 18th century France to give power to the people from the monarchs (or I guess already before that in Spain, but I think France is usually considered the start). In the French parliament, the liberals sat on the left of the isle, conservatives on the right (that's where political left-right comes from). Conservatives were the ones supporting monarchy and traditional values, and has always been the main opposition of liberalism. In the American revolution classical liberalism won over the English monarchy, so you're right in the sense that there conservatism (republicanism) has tried to uphold those roots, against the rising social liberalism. Still, conservatism as an ideology typically isn't liberal, rather it's opposite. The common values they typically hold are support of free markets and property rights.

I think it's more like

Liberals: Let's try to change things for the better
Conservatives: Nah, we're good

[wufwugy]

Liberals: Let's try to change things for the better
Conservatives: Nah, we're good

I agree with this assessment too.

To further understand this I think we have to question the premises. For example, liberalism certainly does try to change things for the better, but that doesn't mean that change that emerges from liberalism is better. Conservatism recognizes this (at least in a way), and so tries to pull back from accidentally messing something up.

Nassim Taleb discusses this type of thing frequently. Traditions often exist because they have fitness. The small-c conservative view emphasizes that, not wanting to make changes that deteriorate fitness.

That doesn't mean the conservative view is always right. But it's damn sure right more often than the liberal view thinks it is, and it would be nice is the liberal view acknowledged that radical change (even change that can seem slow) can be VERY destructive for societies.