point we miss about liberalism and conservatism

I have noticed people make grand announcements about liberalism and conservatism
and they miss a very important point, Liberalism and conservatism have changed dramatically
in the last say, 50 years. Both have gone right. For example, what we now call liberalism,
40 or 50 years ago was then known as conservatism. conservatives now occupy the territory
once held by John Birchers. Liberalism around the world are much more liberal than here in the U.S
and conservatives around the world hold beliefs similar to democrats here in the U.S.
When I was in High school, from 1973 to 77, liberals truly held liberal positions. They held
beliefs that truly were left of the population. There was a much clearer division between
liberals and conservatives. The change between then and now can be seen in the whole gay marriage
battle. To even suggest that being gay was anything less than an abnormal psychological issue was
way beyond the pale. If you were gay, you had an psychological problem, in fact, being gay
was consider a mental illness for centuries. the road we have traveled in 50 years in regards to issues such as
being gay is considerable and not appreciated. we have in two generations gone further
then western civilization traveled in two centuries and this fact is lost on people and the young
in particular. We look at issues such as gay marriage and it is mainspring today, 50 years ago it was beyond
the far left into no man land. You have to understand this to understand where we are today.
Where the right was 50 years ago, the left is today. so viewpoints on such issues as the union, pay scale,
the role of government, the right 50 years ago believe in and today is where the left is. The right belief
in such matters as the role of government, taxes and unions is stuff barry Goldwater believed in 50
years ago and that was very, very far right 50 years and today is standard right wing belief standards.
This drift right has taken mainspring conservatives to area that far, far right extreme conservatives believed in
50 years ago. You need to understand this evolution to understand where we are today.
So for conservatives to shout how liberals are bringing socialism into America are completely missing
the point. Liberalism has gone right in it beliefs. 50 years ago, liberalism was much more about
socialism than it is today. You have to understand where we have been to understand where we are.

Kropotkin

Conservative == “Keep it as it is”.
Liberal == “Change it” … to anything else.

So as it changes, the conservative becomes what the liberal was. And eventually the liberal changing becomes what the conservative was.

At one point, the Nazis were the liberals.

The Nazis were never conservative, on the contrary, the conservative humans were their greatest enemies. The only real (!) resistance against the Nazis were the conservative humans.

      [img]http://www.nusquam.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/vonstauffenberg.jpg[/img]          [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpO0buoWNYE[/youtube]
      Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg (committed an assassination on Hitler).          Lady Morphia, "Widerstand"  ("Resistance"), 2007.

Once any party obtains control, they become conserving of their control, the “conservative party” actively resisting any change from that control: "We like it the way it is."

You are decribing the more “negatvie” aspect of “conservative”, and what I was describing was the more “positive” aspect of “conservative”.

How does that issue help your argument?

The reason for that is there has been a shift in most politicians’ sense of responsibility to the public. Socialism is culturally irresponsible and would have terrible long term consequences, so while a politician that truly advocates it is an imbecile, it still shows that he actually has a strong pretense of public, as opposed to personal, interest. Likely so strong he even he believes the pretense. Now what we have is democratic politicians who no longer believe their pretenses, but still make an effort, and republicans, who would hardly lose points in the polls for openly admitting to using politics for financial gains.

Both parties are unprecedented in their cultural liberalism, the republicans simply putting up the pretense of a struggle before completely accepting every new form of cultural devastation the democrats push.

Then as for economic issues, the democrats have shown to be clearly the conservative party. All the old issues that differentiated economic liberals from economic conservatives, having basically disappeared when concerning those in power in the US, it’s now is simply the republicans, those generally more integrated into the economic infrastructure, having lost most confidence in the long term durability of their investments, desperately trying to cash in while they can. And the democrats, no longer (as in the last thirty years) needing to disrupt the economy (the republicans doing that for them) so that they may better stake a claim finding themselves in the role of economic conservative trying to keep the economy together as their only chance at one day obtaining an economic foothold.

K: I disagree with just about everything you wrote with the exception of maybe your name.
where to start? first of all, how is socialism culturally irresponsible? The socialism we saw in
the soviet had nothing to do with the socialism of Karl Marx. Marx’s system has never been tried
anywhere. what you saw in the soviet union was simple dictatorship disguised as socialism.
Secondly, I disagree that politicians have more sense of responsibility today than yesterday
because I was alive when politicians actually had a sense of responsibility during the
50’s, 60’s and 70’s.
I have no idea what it means when you say both parties are unprecendented in their cultural liberalism,
when the grounds of what it means to be liberal and conservative have changed so much over the last
50 years.
And the last paragraph you wrote makes little sense to me because there is a clear and precise difference
economic difference between conservatives and liberals today.
How have the democrats disrupted the economy as you claim and what would the purpose be?
these are among the many question about your post I have.

Kropotkin

This would be because Marx’s system is riddled so full of holes, and cannot be applied in any responsible way, that those that wish to follow it have to “fix” it. This is how we got Nazi Germany, Lennon-Marxism, Mao-Marxism, and Italian Fascism.

Referring to socialism simply as an extreme form of governmental distribution of money unrelated to economic worth: Economically, it depends on how its applied. But, culturally, any attempt by a government to level people, through distribution of money, quotas, etc. is detrimental to culture. All cultures are built on natural forms of competition, when that competition is negated through government imposed equalization the culture quickly becomes ephemeral, then slowly even the empty window dressing representing the culture dies out.

You misread me, though I admit I wasn’t clear. I was claiming that social responsibility has decreased (which says nothing about cultural responsibility, which, as mentioned earlier, has sunken near completely).

The word ‘conservatism’ has a very clear root word, ‘conserve’. The word ‘liberalism’, is less clear, but certainly relates to the word ‘liberate’, which’s meaning suggests an opposition to conserving a current order. So rather than base my use of the terms ‘conservatism’ and ‘liberalism’ on how they are used by others, I go by their roots. Cultures are being devastated, not conserved, and ironically, one could say they are being liberated from themselves, from their past. Therefore those involved with this destruction may accurately be classified as extreme liberals.

Maybe there is, but those in power are the democrats and republicans who, despite rhetoric and empty gestures, follow the patterns I explained.

I may have misspoke here, I don’t actually know of a time when democrats were overly economically disruptive as compared to republicans. The important issue here, related to my explanation on conservatism and liberalism, above, is that those who’re economically disruptive are by definition not economically conservative, so if the democrats were ever actually economically liberal, then that is when they were economically disruptive.

It’s different if we must complicate the matter and refer to economic liberalism/conservatism in terms of techniques towards conserving the economy. It almost seems like it would be unrealistic to claim that one party may have an interest in disrupting rather than conserving the economy, but it becomes more realistic when we consider that both parties are actively destroying American cultures and when we consider how the republican party has almost explicitly made economic disruption their goal the last thirty years.

Who got the “Lennon-Marxism”? The people of Liverpool?

John Lennon. Born and grown up in Liverpool.

I disagree.

=D>

This is exactly right. The only reason why Marx's socialism seems so peaceful compared to Mao and Lenin is that Marx didn't have to deal with actually trying to make his fantasy real.   It's classic- intellecual comes up with some pie-in-the-sky idea abstracted from reality, politicians try to make it real and kill/destroy/impoverish in the process, original intellectual and his defenders say "Well obviously that wasn't the intention..."

I didn’t consider that to be “negative”.

One of my favorite quotes from Marx is still,

It is exactly that his idea’s are useless, in that, when put to an attempted use, they fall apart. Worshipers attempt to smash it in, regardless of harm caused in the process. And he knows it.

I think that in the modern context, rightist and leftist are more arrpopriate than consevative and liberal.

with love,
sanjay