Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What "Conservatism" REALLY means... (hint: FASCIST)

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 8:13 a.m. EST by metapolitik (1110)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?

A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?

A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

//1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

More:

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html

Also:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/how-ideology-colors-morality

...And:

http://www.livescience.com/7486-conservatives-happier-liberals.html

16 Comments

16 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

Yes.

Personally I do not mind if conservatives wish to perceive themselves as aristocratic - it means nothing to me. What is important is that they pay their fair share in supporting the social structure that enables them to maintain their charade in the luxury and comfort to which they are accustomed.

Today there is no such willingness. They prefer their luxury and comfort be held aloft upon the backs of the masses, the better to glorify their own self-delusion.

Lift them up high I say. Lift them up high, and thrust them low, into the mud. We will see how their charade fits them then.

z

[-] 1 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 8 years ago

Hi im darren check out my blog http://youngphilosopher89.wordpress.com its left wing reflecting my anarcho-syndicalist views

[Deleted]

[-] 2 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 8 years ago

Yes a lot better written, I wrote the comment fast. P.S. Its quite childish on your part to use spelling mistakes as an argument.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

I wasn't trying to argue with you.

I am as left/radical as it gets, so we're probably in agreement on many things. The problem is that trolls come here and pretend to be leftists, then proceed to write poorly worded posts and say outlandish things in a deliberate attempt to make us look bad.

If you really are what you say you are, I support you.

But don't make OWS look bad because you were too lazy to type properly.

[-] 2 points by YoungPhilosopher89 (19) 8 years ago

So a few spelling mistakes is going to make the movement look bad ? god if that works the we really are in trouble. are you American ? Because I have only ever noticed the spelling mistake argument come from Americans. In Europe we don't bother with such irrelevant issues

[-] 1 points by EXPOSED (222) 8 years ago

crickets

[-] 0 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Crickets are preferable to trolls.

[-] -1 points by SmurfSlayer (0) 8 years ago

I don't like conservatives, but you've got them mostly wrong. Conservatives are basically - at least in theory - 'liberal libertarians'. That is to say, sort of a watered down version of libertarians. They are suspicious of government and want to limit it's power. This is what os often manifest cynically as pro business deregulation regardless of the consequences.

They do tend often to have obnoxious views along the lines that the wealthy are wealthy because they've earned it and the poor are poor because it's their own damn fault. This can true but often of course is not. The comparison of monarchies and all powerful states to conservatism is way off. They're for li tied government, at least in theory. In practice of course they tend to be just as statist as the democrats.

Calling conservatives fascists is like calling liberals commies. Sure, they're jerks (for the most part) but they're not fascists.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I agree that conservatism and fascism aren't synonymous, but at the point where a conservative is arguing in defense of inequality at as great or greater than the current levels, it starts getting close.

"Fascism is often considered right-wing due to its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism"..."the more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Definitions

A definition for pre-Reagan/Goldwater conservatives used to be something more like "moderate liberal." Conservatism has changed and it's not for the better.

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

To anyone who is willing to read a few texts: Paxton is always the best for a serious study of fascism.

This thread, however, is borderline trollbait.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"This thread, however, is borderline trollbait.'

I don't disagree, but, different from other threads equating liberalism and fascism?

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Culling those too; I'm removing this one for balance (warned the OP) mostly so I don't get whining in my inbox.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Cool.

What of this one: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberal-trolls-trolling-in-the-american-conversati/

The damage, if any, is done, but...

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 8 years ago

Removed, even if the thread where you own the OP is hilarious. It's still bullshit ideological trollbait.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

:o) Thanks.

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Don't tell me, tell Philip E. Agre, the guy that wrote the article back in `04.

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html