Conservatism is not simply a defense of “capitalism”

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

“Capitalism” is a word coined by Karl Marx, intended from the beginning to imply that the only thing conservatives defend is vast accumulations of private capital

The etymology of the word capitalism goes decades before Karl Marx was born. Karl Marx yes was a critic of capitalism but he did not, I repeat not coin the term.

Please don't miss the point of my post. It was to articulate a common misconception of conservative thinking by outlining certain underlying tenets. Coining, in my opinion, does not necessarily mean inventing, but rather using to serve a purpose. In Marx's case, to emphasize what he believed as an "evil" perpetuated by conservative thinking.

really?...a misconception?....you are confusing "conservative thinking" with "conservative actions".....when in the last few decades has any federal legislation introduced by republicans EVER been about protecting the poor?....anybody with political knowledge of this country, knows how adamant the conservatives protect and advance the wishes of the wealthy, regardless of how it may negatively impact the middle class and poor.....you can try and "spin" it another way, but it doesn't change what's actually happening outside the beltway.....and this isn't even going into the republican state governors actions, that are fly under the radar in the national media...Kansas, and Michigan come immediately to mind.

originally posted by: daskakik
Actually, conservatism applies to any idea that seeks to maintain the status quo. That means that a conservative can be against every point you made if it goes against the status quo.

I'm pretty sure you meant american conservatives but that is a specific application of the term.

I have thought that too.

The philosophical conservatism is more specific. Edmund Burke, if not the first conservative is an excellent example of the conservative.

Conservatism means letting society evolve from the day to day behavior of individuals rather than from attempts to design the perfect society by experts.

a reply to: jimmyx

Well, no, there is clearly also a misconception of conservative thinking. Example, you equate republican action and thinking to conservative thinking, which, while in part may be true, is not the whole story.

Also, your definition of "protecting the poor" is different than mine. I want to provide opportunities and access (equality of OPPORTUNITY), while you seem to just want to hand them equality of OUTCOME.

anybody with political knowledge of this country, knows how adamant the conservatives protect and advance the wishes of the wealthy, regardless of how it may negatively impact the middle class and poor

You clearly did not show up to have a civil discussion of the issues. You came with an agenda. You seem to think this post is a defense of the republican establishment. You are wrong. It is to discuss the UNDERLYING tenets of conservative thinking.

Your tirade is misplaced.

American conservatism means "I own erverything, your body and the constitution, both mean what I say they mean, and I don't want to share." How many laws have they constructed against women, state and federal since 2010?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

There might have been a time when conservatism equated to republicans, but I don't see that anymore.

The opening post looked more like classical liberalism, to be honest.

It's what today's liberals claim to uphold, but don't.

Conservatism is closer to a person's real outlook on life than any political party. A political party is trying to do something, whereas a philosophy of life is about that political thing and everything else in life.

The Republicans were conservative because the Republican party was a backstop that caught all of the Anti-New Deal, anti-war, and non-foreign intervention grass roots in the 1930's.

Conservatism is not political in the sense that politics seeks to use power to accomplish its ends, and Conservatism eschews attempts to design society.

Conservatism tries to do nothing, as far as political action is concerned.

The last Conservative was Barry Goldwater or Senator Taft. Conservatism has been gone from politics for at east 50 years.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
The point of my post was to shed light on the underlying tenets of conservatism beyond the dictionary definition of the word. Webster's definition of "conservatism" or "conservative" is different, in my view, than the political and ideological meaning of conservatism/conservative as it has developed over time. You're focusing on the former, I'm focusing on the latter.

You can't say that "american conservatives" believe XY and Z when many of them don't.

If the don't believe in X,Y, and Z then they are not conservatives, although they might think they are and call themselves such.

Logically if they can toss any of your tenets to the side and still be considered conservative then that tenet is not a core value of the ideal.

All I see is you trying to reclaim the term. That is why, instead of trying to see which way things are spun, I prefere to stay with the dictionary definition.

The dictionary defines words by their usage which changes depending on the Media offerings, in our times.

Conservatism is older than the post WW2 political rhetoric, and the philosophical territory of Conservatism is what the OP addresses.

a reply to: jimmyx

really?...a misconception?....you are confusing "conservative thinking" with "conservative actions"

"Conservative actions" is like "pacifists murdering". Like the word "liberal" the word "conservative" has been displaced from its original and essential meaning.

Conservatives, by definition, take no political action. Nothing about using government as a vehicle of change is conservative.

Conservatives favor change by individual behavior. Society progresses best when changes come from many folks deciding to do things this way rather than that way.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I skimmed it.

You make it sound like we should believe what you say about conservatism but make it clear that that you are not willing to back anything up but instead just point out upfront that it is just your opinion. Well then your points have nothing to stand on.

That is what I am saying.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I skimmed it.

You make it sound like we should believe what you say about conservatism but make it clear that that you are not willing to back anything up but instead just point out upfront that it is just your opinion. Well then your points have nothing to stand on.

That is what I am saying.

I'm worried you don't know what an ideology is....

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I'm pointing out that the group using the label is so different that they (maybe you) should think about coming up with a different label.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

I'm pointing out that the group using the label is so different that they (maybe you) should think about coming up with a different label.

I'll just quote my OP for you.

This post does in a way reflect my personal thoughts on the direction of the modern conservative. To the extent that direction leads away from stark conservatism and towards more moderate views, then perhaps the term needs adapting or refining (at least as applied in the American political climate). Some have argued that black and white ideologies may be no better than an extremist's views. With that said, I want to highlight some underlying tenets of conservatism that are misunderstood or overlooked. These tenets are ones, in my opinion, that should form the foundation of the political ideology that our country embraces moving forward.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

But those tenets are not part of the ideology except in your version of it.

Maybe the term needs to be left where it is and a new one used for something that does include the underlying tenets that you mentioned. Why try to reclaim the term?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

But those tenets are not part of the ideology except in your version of it.

Maybe the term needs to be left where it is and a new one used for something that does include the underlying tenets that you mentioned. Why try to reclaim the term?

Good question. Modern conservatives are trying. Don't be disillusioned by the current base.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

The more right-wing or classical liberal or conservative approach to changing society is on a personal level, one-on-one, one by one. You stress character, family, morality and better society by creating a society of better individuals with a stronger character.

The left wing approach is that people need to be governed. You change society from top down using laws, rules, regulations and social conditioning like politically correct speech to compel society as a whole to behave as you want without regard to the personal state of the individuals in a society.

You could say that liberals sneer at the notion of trickle down economy and don't possibly see how it works, but they practice trickle down morality in a sense.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ExNihiloRed

The more right-wing or classical liberal or conservative approach to changing society is on a personal level, one-on-one, one by one. You stress character, family, morality and better society by creating a society of better individuals with a stronger character.

The left wing approach is that people need to be governed. You change society from top down using laws, rules, regulations and social conditioning like politically correct speech to compel society as a whole to behave as you want without regard to the personal state of the individuals in a society.

You could say that liberals sneer at the notion of trickle down economy and don't possibly see how it works, but they practice trickle down morality in a sense.

I always find your posts intelligent and well-written. I am not just saying this because we agree on most things. Even when we don't agree, you make me think. Just wanted to say that (as I thought it earlier reading another of your posts).

Perhaps this reminded me of your other post, which alluded to the fundamental contradiction in liberal thinking. Fighting for freedom while simultaneously assigning it to the government.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
Don't be disillusioned by the current base.

Not my thing one way or the other.

What I do find interesting is that the two previous posts drop a "label" in the usual manner, in a thread which seems to be about people getting past the popular view of labels.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
Don't be disillusioned by the current base.

Not my thing one way or the other.

What I do find interesting is that the two previous posts drop a "label" in the usual manner, in a thread which seems to be about people getting past the popular view of labels.

We were discussing the popular view of that label. If you would like to extend a more ideological stance on the issue and why the modern liberal is not driven by the things outlined above, we can discuss in the post you write.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Right, in a thread which says that doing that might be missing the point and deeper tenets.

I see no reason why I would write a thread about it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

"Conservatives favor change by individual behavior. Society progresses best when changes come from many folks deciding to do things this way rather than that way."

And that is TRUE conservatism. That is the way we use to think and our churches use to think. Christians churches use to change hearts by living examples. Now they are just another political party.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
Conservatives understand that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a stable world of enduring values.

Hopefully no matter what your political ideology, you found this enlightening in some respect.

I found that last line to be something which I've been thinking about for quite a while. Although I don't know that I'd say all conservatives really live by such ideas. I have found that some conservatives have a strong tendency to stir up chaos and instability as well.

But I do agree in principle. People want to feel like the ground under their feet is steady and that everything isn't going to be yanked out from under them in favor of "New" just any day.

If the left wants to change things they should leave older people alone and let them live out their lives in peace. Don't try to force people to change everything that they've known all their lives.

But fundamentally, I believe that the world the left wants to build is just wrong and backwards and they can't make up for the hell they'll cause with the excuse that they were only trying to do the right thing.