Conservatives - always one step behind?

AutSider · December 29, 2014, 6:37pm

“Progressives” today often like to claim they are part of a group that has made every advancement in history. But it’s not correct. Today’s “progressive” has nothing in common with, for example, the creators of sanitation systems, fresh running water, auto-mobiles, medical science, washing machines, dishwashers, the internet (this was originally designed and created by the US military, lol, the “progressives’” worst enemy, apart from Jews), computers, etc. etc. etc.

It needs to be constantly pointed out that those who idolise and glorify the rights of gays, women, ethnic minorities above that of the mainstream (usually done through quotas in employment, public service, political parties) are not progressives in the sense as was conceived in the past. It is also true of conservatives. A conservative today is not necessarily someone who would be conservative in the past. Conservatism isn’t all about maintaining the status quo anyway. There is change (pragmatic change), but not change for the sake of change.

I agree that today’s progressive doesn’t have much in common with the progressive of the past, but you’re transiting beyond social issues with your examples about technological advancement, which aren’t the focus of this thread. What was considered progressive by people in the 19th century may as well be considered bigoted even by some conservatives today. The point is to notice the relation between liberals and conservatives in their own respective times in the past and how in every conflict regarding social issues so far the liberal has come out on top and the liberal idea was accepted to be right by conservatives in the future. I’ve provided some examples for that, if you (or somebody else) think there are conservative ideas which won over liberal ones in history regarding social issues, as PK said, I’m listening.

Myself I too would disagree with glorifying the rights of gays, women and ethnic minorities ABOVE other people’s rights, and that is one of the things that so called “liberal progressives” of today are doing that is completely inconsistent with everything their ideological ancestors stood for, however, not all of them are doing it.

Did you seriously just call totalitarian systems progressive? You think Stalin and the team advocated social equality?

phyllo · December 29, 2014, 10:40pm

Opposition to US involvement in Vietnam. JFK sent in advisers and LBJ escalated it to a full conflict. Democrats had a majority in congress when large numbers of troops were deployed.

Notice that Republicans thought that it was a mistake long before Democrats:
[attachment=0]oppositionvietnam.JPG[/attachment]

phyllo · December 30, 2014, 2:08pm

Yes.
Before they took power, the Bolsheviks were promising to overthrow an unjust totalitarian system and to bring freedom and equality to the people.

“The introduction of ‘appointed’ bureaucracy must not be tolerated. Only ‘bodies created by the people themselves’ should be recognized.” To this the workers and peasants re-plied: “Verily, t’is the holy truth!”

“The idea of the need for leadership by a bureaucracy ‘ap-pointed’ from above is in its essence a fallacious one. It is non-democratic, Cesaristic, a Blankist Adventure.” (Vol. 14, Part 1, p. 129). The masses overwhelmed with enthusiasm shouted: “’Tis the holy truth, Ilyitch! Hail, the Bolsheviks! Hail, the Republic of the Soviets!”

“In a free land,” said Lenin, “only those govern the people who are elected by the people themselves for this purpose… That is why the governing of the people in free countries is brought about by means of open party contests and free agreement among them.” (Lessons of the Revolution, Vol. 14, part 2, p. 33). And the masses shouted “Bravo”, returned to their abodes with the slogan, “Hail Free Russia!”

“By establishing the institutions of democracy and freedom which were maimed and crippled by Kerensky, the bolsheviks will form a government which none will be able to overthrow.” (The Bolsheviks Must Secure the Power, Vol. 14, Part 2, p. 134). And the masses shouted, “Down with the social traitor, the lackey of the bourgeoisie, Kerensky! Hail, the bolsheviks! Hail, the Republic of the Soviets!”

“The freedom of the press,” said Lenin to the workers and the peasants, “means this: all the opinions of all the citizens may be freely proclaimed. The power of the state in the form of the soviets take possession of all the printing establishments, all the paper, and distributes them equitably, — in the first place, to the state: in the second place to the big parties of significance; in the third place to smaller parties; then comes any group of citizens which has attained a definite number of mem-bers and has gathered sufficient signatures… This would con-stitute a real freedom for all, and not for the rich.” (How to Secure the Successful Election of the Constituent Assembly, Vol. 14, Part 2, pp. 112–113).

“Hail the freedom of the press!” replied the masses. “All power to the local soviets!”

In every constitutional country the right to organize demon-strations remains inalienable to the citizens… Any party in a free land has the right to organize demonstrations.” (The Sacred and the Entangled, Vol. 14, Part 1, p. 254).

“A gov-ernment aware of the principle that its entire structure rests upon the will of the majority of the people cannot fear demon-strations previously announced. It will not prohibit them.” (Hints p. 255).

“All peaceful manifestations are merely political agita-tions. There must be no forbidding of political agitations, nor should agitation be monopolized. The constitution of a free republic cannot forbid peaceful manifestations, or any mass demonstrations of any party or any group.” (Contradictory Positions. Vol. 14, Part I, p. 259). “Hail, Lenin!” replied the masses to this. Let us go forward in the fight for freedom!”

The basic rule, the first commandment of any true revolu-tionary movement, should be: Do not depend upon the ‘state’; depend only upon the power of your class”, spoke Lenin to the workers. “No ‘state’ is able to be of help to the worker in the village, to the agricultural worker, the daily worker or to the poorest peasant, to the semi-proletarian, if they are unable to help themselves.” (The Necessity to Organize a Union of Rural Workers in Russia, Vol. 1 4, Part 1. pp. 290–1 ). Verily, verily!” shouted the workers in reply.

“All the land of the landlords must be confiscated. Na-tionalization of all the land in the country and the management of the same must be given to the local soviets of the Deputies of the agricultural workers and peasants. (Vol. 14, Part I. pp. 17–18).

“The objective difficulty of socialism is intimately bound up with small-husbandry. We do not even pretend to subject it to expropriation or regulation, in fact not even to control. (The Destruction and the Proletarian Fight Against It. Vol. 14. Part I, p. 243). And the peasant howled in reply, “That’s the idea! Truthfully stated!”

“Fear not the initiative and self-expression of the masses; have confidence in their revolutionary organizations, and you will see in all departments of the state functions the same power, greatness, and determination of the workers and peasants which they had demonstrated in their united efforts against Korniloffchina.”

Lenin did not fear such initiative and self-expression of the masses because they led him to power. And, indeed, supported by all the toilers of Russia, he finally came to power. Using their initiative and self-expression, the people commenced to bring into realization what Lenin daily impressed upon them in simple and popular language. While the masses had been absorbed by the struggle and their creative work upon which they fell as the starved do upon food, Lenin diplomatically persuaded the people and forced the Party to organize not a simple army, but a red army of the workers and peasants”, to protect the conquests of the revolution, and to repulse the im-perialists. Thus was created a huge strictly disciplined army, separated from the people and in juxtaposition to the people. Under the pretext of protecting and maintaining order and the fight against criminals was organized a most common garden variety of police force; under the pretext of fighting against speculators and counter-revolutionists was created a political secret police; while the promise was made that bureaucracy and its privileged clerks would be abolished, there had been created a bureaucracy the equal of which the world had never seen be-fore. In fact, the new bureaucracy had come to be a new class of lords. Capital punishment, it was promised, would be abolished. Instead, wholesale shootings became an everyday occurrence.

The people were called to freedom, but were led into a stable of state slavery under which human life became less than worthless. The people were called to the banner with the promise of the abolition of piece-work remuneration and other sweat-shop methods of exploitation. Yet, no sooner had they secured the power, than, in the name of the good of the toiling masses and of socialism, it was found expedient to apply in practice, and to investigate the value of piece work, and the application of any progressive and scientific points of the system of Taylor.” (The Soviet Government Problems of the Day, Vol. 15, p. 209). Now after many years of communist over-lordship, Russia has become a country of terrible exploitation, and miserable com-pensation for the work.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ … nd-reality

Fent · December 30, 2014, 2:16pm

This is some very confused logic. Fascism is tradition and history? They call this logical fallacy ‘begging the question’ and/or ‘circular logic’.

Fent · December 30, 2014, 2:22pm

Yes. Their goal was the classless society.

The drive to equality always ends up in big government; because, equality doesn’t occur naturally; it has to be forced. So, they have to take control of the public service, the executive branch of government, the education institutions, the military, and the media.

Peter_Kropotkin · December 30, 2014, 5:22pm

K: as it happened that I was alive during said time period and I think some historical revision is going on.
The protest really didn’t go mainstream until 1969 or 70. Before that it was driven by youths who really, really
didn’t want to go to Vietnam. If there were complaints by the right, it was about the cost of the war, not about
the war itself. Recall Nixon won in 68 pretty much admitting he was continuing the war and that election
was a pretty straight forward right vs left election with Nixon winning the right vote handily. The right just
thought Nixon would run the war cheaper and with competence. Also, the right really didn’t object to the war
because to do so meant you were anti-American and a traitor, a la fonda and hayden. The basic division
between right and left was the right objected because of the cost, the left objected because of the loss of lives.
The division between right and left was almost enough to drive this country apart and was the greatest division
seen in this country since 1932 -36. A little side note, JFK actually followed in Eisenhower footsteps sending
in “ADVISORS” as Eisenhower sent advisors in as early as 1958, but the real escalation was after JFK was killed,
1964 and later. LBJ was the real driver of the escalation, not JFK.

Kropotkin

Uccisore · December 30, 2014, 7:50pm

 There's a combination of factors here, but the first is a confused understanding of history.   So for example,  you have racism completely backwards- it was the progressives that wanted eugenics, that wanted to treat blacks like inferior beings, and so on. The progressives supported abortion specifically to reduce minority populations because they thought they were bad for the nation's gene pool.  Now you are [i]taught[/i] that race relations is the single biggest example of progressives being right and conservatives wrong because, well, progressives lie.   About the only aspect of race that breaks down on left/right the way you suggest is interracial marriage- everything else from slavery to segregation ends up with conservative, religious, Republicans being the advocate of minorities. 

  Also, your point omits counter evidence. Namely, socialism. The left was all about socialism and communism, and they were absolutely wrong about that- the world has moved on from communism except in a couple backwater shitholes that will continue to suffer until they drop that economic plan. Conservatives were right there, progressives were wrong-  but we're taught that socialism has never been tried and that Mao, Stalin, Castro, and so on 'don't count' because again, progressives lie. 

   Vegetarianism is a great counter example too.  You may well be right that in the future, we won't be allowed to eat meat because progressives will have forced that sort of social change upon us.  You pointed out that you disagree with this.  Well, in that possible future, the world will  be convinced that veganism is the only ethical choice, and you and I here in the present know that the world will be wrong about that, just like the world is wrong about gays and transsexuals now (because of the lies of progressives, there again).    Of course, if the progressives get their way about that, you won't be allowed to disagree with vegans withing being called some horrible kind of bigot (speciesist, probably) and losing your job- so if they WERE wrong, how would the next generation ever find out?  Don't confuse being in control and restricting the flow of information with being 'correct'- the left isn't correct just because they don't let the other side speak- not now with sexual issues, and not in a possible future over vegetarianism.

So in summary, the trend you are noticing is a combination of four factors- progressives lying to you about history, progressives omitting their failures, progressives controlling society such that they can’t be disagreed with and (I didn’t bring this up before), the simple fact if one side is pushing for change and the other side is pushing for stability, it will be much easier to point to examples of the ‘change’ side’s successes because, well, something changed. The resistance to (so far) pedophile groups like NAMBLA is a conservative victory against progressives, but that won’t get in a history book because “in the end, nothing happened” isnt’ a good story.

Uccisore · December 30, 2014, 7:56pm

What the fuck? Pronouncements of objective right and wrong coming from PK? Do I even have to bother going through the giant list of posts of yours that absolutely contradict the existence of any such thing?
Like I keep saying, 'right' and 'wrong' are just words to a progressive, and they use them for their ends. Relativist when it suits them, absolutist when it suits them.

AutSider · December 30, 2014, 8:04pm

It’s not a logical fallacy. Fascism is a far right ideology originating in Italy based precisely on Italian tradition and history, in fact, on roots of Italy itself. Fascists thought they can return Italy to its former glory in the days of ancient Rome through a radical authoritarian system with a powerful figure on top of the hierarchy to be an equivalent of the emperor in past.

You’re pretty much wrong by definition. Every totalitarian system seeks to conserve itself, it isn’t open to any sort of change (progress) once it fully establishes itself because the specific totalitarian ideology itself (such as fascism or communism) is usually viewed as the peak of progress and anything which deviates from it is therefore regress.

If by equality you mean equality of opportunity, so what if it’s not natural? I don’t find the appeal to nature argument convincing, why should humans attempt to imitate the rest of nature? Humans are the most intelligent beings in nature, they should be the ones determining IT, they shouldn’t LOOK UP to beings LOWER than themselves, that is the epitome of regress in every possible meaning of the word.

Equality of opportunity is generally accepted as desirable because if properly incorporated it allows for every person to achieve their full potential regardless of the social and economic background they’re born into. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume that the only people who would oppose such a system are the ones who are born into better social/economic background than they deserve and attempt to preserve their privileged state.

Peter_Kropotkin · December 30, 2014, 9:45pm

Uccisore:

Peter Kropotkin:

K: You are wrong. if we were living in a fascist dictatorship, conservatives would be for it because it is
tradition and history. Liberals are against fascist dictatorship because it is wrong regardless of
the fact it has existed for a time.
What the fuck? Pronouncements of objective right and wrong coming from PK? Do I even have to bother going through the giant list of posts of yours that absolutely contradict the existence of any such thing?
Like I keep saying, 'right' and 'wrong' are just words to a progressive, and they use them for their ends. Relativist when it suits them, absolutist when it suits them.

K: I really have to post once I’ve woken up and not the very first thing.
Once a fascist dictatorship has been up and running, for the soviets, say the 1950’s, it is now history
and tradition. It is the conservatives that want a continuation of system because it is history and tradition.
Liberals who want to change the system into a less dictatorship and say so and are promptly shipped off to
Siberia. Improving the system is not tolerated and dealt with severely. conservatism is about maintaining
the system, not changing it. Any and all changes are done at the top with the top giving approval and strict
guidelines on how change is to happen. What happens to any dictatorship is in fact a situation where
the system itself regardless of how much it declares itself socialist, it becomes afraid of changes.
Fear of change, which might lead to an undermining of the dictatorship, drives the dictatorship
to freeze and change is forbidden. Which is what conservatives are all about. This is
what I mean by conservatives fighting change to the dictatorship and how liberals who want change to
the system are sent to Siberia. This is what I meant, I just wasn’t clear. It is about the fossilization of
dictatorships that leads said system to lock out liberals and be cheered on by conservatives.

Kropotkin

phyllo · December 31, 2014, 12:11am

Those Gallup polls were taken in the 1960s. How could those polls be a revision?

It was opposed more by older people than young people.
jstor.org/discover/2747894?s … 7720&uid=4

Cost was one complaint but not the major one.

Complete nonsense as can easily be seen:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Ni … aign,_1968

Troop withdrawals. After Richard Nixon was inaugurated president in 1969, he proposed that both North Vietnam and the United States should begin to withdraw troops from South Vietnam. While U.S. troops began to withdraw during the latter part of that year, the North Vietnamese government refused to go along. In an unsuccessful attempt to force North Vietnam back to the negotiating table, Nixon stepped up bombing raids on North Vietnam. As a result, the total number of bombs dropped in Vietnam, during Nixon’s presidency, was higher than those dropped during the Johnson Administration.

As part of an attempt to encourage the South Vietnamese army to fight more independently and effectively against the NLF, Nixon announced the Vietnamization Plan. By returning combat responsibilities to the ARVN and gradually removing U.S. troops, Nixon hoped to ease America’s opposition to the war without destabilizing the military efforts of South Vietnam.

By the end of 1970, the total number of U.S. troops occupying Vietnam fell to 280,000, and by October 1971, the lowest number of troops (196,700) since January 1966. Nixon announced on November 12, 1971, that another 45,000 American troops would be removed by February 1, 1972. On November 30, 1971, White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler informed the press that troop withdrawals would no longer be announced, since there were only 27,000 remaining in Vietnam. By the end of December, the U.S. had ceased heavy bombing of North Vietnam.

u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

This statement is completely unsupported by the historical record. It’s simply leftist propaganda.

The numbers don’t lie:

u-s-history.com/pages/h1888.html

Uccisore · December 31, 2014, 3:40am

 China and Cuba have been communist for multiple generations and conservatives are still against it, because those systems are anti-tradition, anti-liberty, and anti-personal-responsibility no matter how long they last.  Socialism and Communism are leftist movements, leftists the ones shipping you off to Siberia if they catch you hording property, praying, or advocating free elections.  The typical leftist/liberal response to socialist tyranny was that of Walter Duranty- lying, denial, and apologetics.  To try and tell me that it was leftists heroically standing up against fucking Stalin is sickening.  Uncle Joe was the fucking hero of American Progressives, and you can find books and tracts all over the place advocating for the U.S. to become more like the USSR.

A week ago you were creating thread after thread about how there’s no such thing as right and wrong, so much so that other progressives were dissecting your relativism. Now you’re saying progressives are against tyranny because Its the Right Thing To Do irrespective of tradition and culture.

You are simply making up bullshit to make liberals sound heroic, even if the bullshit you made up today contradicts the bullshit you made up yesterday.

That kind of intellectual dishonesty (remember that term?) is exactly what is to be expected from the progressive ideology- making whatever claims about ethics are immediately useful to them. This kind of behavior is what results in posts like the one started this thread, where young people are so twisted up by political lies that they think racism is a conservative thing and the Left in the US has never been wrong about a social engineering project.

AutSider · December 31, 2014, 7:13pm

As far as I know, and I may be wrong, but the parties switched ideologies later on. At the time when slavery was still an issue the Republicans were supposedly more liberal while the Democrats were conservatives. Besides, I don’t think it makes sense to say that people who wanted to conserve the current status of the society and its hierarchy (those who advocated slavery) are to be called liberals while those supporting the liberty of black people at the expense of conserving the privileged status are to be called conservatives.

This contrast between liberals and conservatives is more apparent when observing the relation between the north and south. North (anti-slavery) symbolizes modernism, industrialism and liberal and progressive thinking while the south (pro-slavery) was more agricultural, traditional and conservative.

Extreme capitalism hasn’t had much better results than communism. In fact, countries that have the best living standards and successful economies usually incorporate components of both ideologies and balance them out. Example is most of Western Europe and Scandinavia. And I’ve already expressed my thoughts on why calling any totalitarian regime progressive is ignorant and just plain wrong.

Vegetarianism is a great counter example too. You may well be right that in the future, we won’t be allowed to eat meat because progressives will have forced that sort of social change upon us. You pointed out that you disagree with this. Well, in that possible future, the world will be convinced that veganism is the only ethical choice, and you and I here in the present know that the world will be wrong about that, just like the world is wrong about gays and transsexuals now (because of the lies of progressives, there again). Of course, if the progressives get their way about that, you won’t be allowed to disagree with vegans withing being called some horrible kind of bigot (speciesist, probably) and losing your job- so if they WERE wrong, how would the next generation ever find out? Don’t confuse being in control and restricting the flow of information with being ‘correct’- the left isn’t correct just because they don’t let the other side speak- not now with sexual issues, and not in a possible future over vegetarianism.

You misunderstood me. I am still examining the arguments for and against vegetarianism, I didn’t decide against it yet. Some people, like Peter Singer, give decent arguments on why we shouldn’t treat animals the way we do and eat them, and most of his arguments rely on the general sense of morality every human has - not to hurt others, and Singer is trying to extend that to animals and it’s not entirely unreasonable as some may think. I let facts lead my morality and if enough facts mount up in favor of vegetarians argument then I am willing to abandon meat eating despite the fact that I love meat. The path of truth is a hard one to walk indeed.

Also, you should at least try to see the issue from the opposite side too. The way vegetarians see it, humans can survive without meat yet we choose to breed other living beings (sometimes in poor conditions) for the sole purpose of mercilessly slaughtering them for food later on, even though we can survive without eating their meat. IF they are right about it and killing animals IS immoral (again, a big IF), THEN it would be perfectly sensible and consistent to try and ban eating meat because it would be immoral.

Personally I am still leaning to meat eating but I can understand where the arguments from the opposite side are coming from too.

Conservatives try to control society such that they can’t be disagreed with just as much as progressives. The struggle for power and control is innate to humans regardless of political orientation.

That’s a good point. Many people who call themselves progressives had/have such radical ideas that would very probably do more damage than good to society, such as anarchists or 3rd wave feminists, yet most progressives tend to ignore the faulty ones ascribing to their own ideology. It’s also true that it’s much easier to notice change (progress) than preservation/conservation, which is one of the possible reasons why people overlook or are unaware of conservatives being right in the past.

AutSider · December 31, 2014, 7:18pm

And by the way PK and others, the terms right and wrong IMPLY objectivity, so if you’re using those terms when talking about morality you’re implicitly talking about objective morality. An opinion is subjective - there is no way to determine it right or wrong.

Uccisore · January 2, 2015, 9:12pm

I'm not talking about parties, though. Racism, eugenics, and the belief that the inferior races need to be stamped out to make way for a glorious white (and maybe asian) future were progressive, leftist ideas, irrespective of party.

Yeah, it doesn’t make sense if all you know about the movements is what the words sound like. Progressives believed in the betterment of mankind through making sure the undesirable elements shouldn’t be allowed to reproduce, and conservatives believed in a natural order that shouldn’t be meddled with in such a way, largely because of their religious convictions. Do some reading on eugenics and the progressive movement. Croly, Margaret Sanger… look up the book Eugenics and other Evils, by conservative G.K. Chesterton, and you’ll see him responding to the progressive arguments of his day.

Actually it’s had vastly superior results if you consider the communist nations to be the USSR, Cuba, Maoist China, and so on.

 When Mao was in power, when Stalin was in power, and when Castro was in power, progressive leftists in free countries like the USA and Western Europe were [i]cheering them on[/i] and declaring that their home nations needed to adopt more of their policies.  Leftist reporter of the New York Times Walter Duranty knew about Stalin's starvation campaigns and [i]covered them up[/i] because he didn't want to make a Communist nation look bad.   Sure, NOW that hatred of those regimes is so widespread that the left has to disavow them in order to still be taken seriously, they say what you said-  'oh, those weren't really progressive'.  But at the time, when these people were in power and it was not a forgone conclusion that their states would collapse, [i]the left endorsed them.[/i]  You really need a context for history here-  it was easy for the progressive left to endorse Stalin in the United States when people like Margaret Sanger were advocating the use of abortion to reduce black and latino populations because of their genetic inferiority. 
It seems like you're trying to take what you think you know about a 21st century college age liberal and project them back into centuries past and speculate on what they would have done and believed there.  But there was no such animal in those times, and there's no need to speculate, this is all easily accessible information.

Jesus Christ it' a thought experiment.  Let me take it to the abstract so you won't get caught up in pointless details.   You can imagine a future in which moral issue X is championed by liberals, and they are wrong.  Because of the way liberals do things, in that future it would be very very difficult to speak out against X, and they would teach everybody's children that X is correct, thus making it the 'progressive' view that is on the 'right side of history'.  That doesn't make them right.  If you do decide that vegetarianism isn't a moral obligation, and the left does decide to make it one anyway, you will be at odds with them - and so we can see that just because a moral ideal sweeps the nation doesn't mean it's correct or that the people who opposed it are wrong, for you may yourself one day be in the position to disagree with a liberal.  Feminism would be another example.  Attitudes about women may change, thanks to the left, in such a way that you are considered a barbarian.  That doesn't make you wrong, or conservatives that agree with you wrong.

 I have a degree in political philosophy from a hard left university. I know more about the opposite side than most of it's advocates do. I've given public presentations on Peter Singer.  You aren't going to say anything about vegetarianism that I haven't read and thought and written and debated about for years.  So where doe the above comment come from?

That’s a story people tell in order to sound egalitarian, because they have been taught that egalitarianism is wise. The historical record disagrees.

 Well, this year's progressives are arguing for veganism, an end to capitalism, transgendered rights, otherkin rights, recognition that being overweight isn't unhealthy, vastly lowering the age of consent, acceptance of incest, global government subsidizes healthcare, an end to private gun ownership rights, and many other things.  Some of this may be good, some of this may be bad, and not every progressive is going to agree with all of it.   So if the question is whether or not progressives are always right or right more often than conservatives, of course we have to examine the fronts on which they have not succeeded (yet).

AutSider · January 4, 2015, 4:59pm

Was Hitler a leftist progressive? Were KKK leftist progressives?

As far as I know, leftist ideologies like Marxism and socialism opposed and condemned racism as it divided the workers, the proletariat.

Also, as I said, the best example of the liberal-conservative relation is the American North-South contrast, I think you’d find that a little harder to deny.

Aren’t the words usually meant as symbols that represent what the movement stand for? And don’t we (or shouldn’t we) name movements by what they stand for? So f.e. the movement advocating female rights should adequately be named something like “feminism” and its advocates “feminists” so that if we hear the word “feminism” we know at least approximately what they stand for. Equivalent to that, a person advocating the conservation of the present status regarding an issue should be called a conservative, while a person advocating more liberty should be called a liberal, but I do concede it’s open for debate and that it doesn’t ALWAYS work that way in real world.

As for religious convictions, again, KKK are a counter-example (radical protestants). Bible supports slavery as is demonstrated in the following passages on this list: evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

I recall Churchill supporting eugenics and he was a conservative. Jurgen Habermas on the other hand is a leftist opposing eugenics. I’m not saying all leftists necessarily oppose eugenics or all rightists necessarily advocate it, I didn’t even bring it up - you did. But I think you intentionally ignore the counter-examples you know are there (if you’re as well educated as you claim).

First off, that’s one big “if” you got there. Marx himself probably turns over in his grave when he hears the kind of manipulative dictators who never cared about the people are called communists.

Secondly, pure capitalism, before the socialist movement intervened, utterly exploited people and even children - low salaries to the point of people not being able to provide even for themselves, dangerous, filthy jobs, short life spans, working half a day, no annual leave/vacation. I don’t see how that’s so much better than most countries CALLED communist.

Perhaps you’re right. I’m sorry, but I don’t intend to spend days researching what Western leftists of the time thought of Stalin. I’m not saying leftists are all saints, I know that some of them, like Stalin, did horrible things. Can you acknowledge the same thing about some rightists though?

Jesus Christ it’ a thought experiment. Let me take it to the abstract so you won’t get caught up in pointless details. You can imagine a future in which moral issue X is championed by liberals, and they are wrong. Because of the way liberals do things, in that future it would be very very difficult to speak out against X, and they would teach everybody’s children that X is correct, thus making it the ‘progressive’ view that is on the ‘right side of history’. That doesn’t make them right. If you do decide that vegetarianism isn’t a moral obligation, and the left does decide to make it one anyway, you will be at odds with them - and so we can see that just because a moral ideal sweeps the nation doesn’t mean it’s correct or that the people who opposed it are wrong, for you may yourself one day be in the position to disagree with a liberal. Feminism would be another example. Attitudes about women may change, thanks to the left, in such a way that you are considered a barbarian. That doesn’t make you wrong, or conservatives that agree with you wrong.

I didn’t realize at first you meant it as a thought experiment but yes, I agree with your point, except that I would point out that it’s how most humans regardless of political orientation do things, not only liberals. Remember the oh so conservative Catholic Church during middle ages?

And I am supposed to verify that how? I can be anybody over internet too. But let’s say you did because I believe you. As for my comment, I just want to make sure people at least consider the ideas on the opposite side before rejecting them and I think vegetarianism has some merits and is worth considering.

I’m not an egalitarian nor do I want to sound like that. I merely recognize the fact of nature that humans as all other species are prone to will to control/exercise power over others. Besides, that’s not really a left-right issue, more of an authoritarian vs libertarian government.

I fully agree with that. The most important thing I overlooked in making of this thread as has been said before is that there have been progressive ideas which have been rejected and deemed undesirable by the majority yet the progressives of today will often ignore or even deny that and that there are issues that even progressives would agree conservatives are right about, but since there is no change those issues stand out less than when change happens.

Uccisore · January 5, 2015, 2:43am

Hitler was a National Socialist, combining leftist economic theory with fascism, which is neither right nor left. The KKK is a southern Democrat conservative thing, but ALL their race theory about eugenics and white supremacy came from the pseudoscience of the left.

Look, I've given you the information to the contrary, and you have Google. There's no reason to rely on 'as far as you knew' before we starting talking. Look up progressivism, leftism, and eugenics/racial hygiene.

I'm not denying anything, I'm explaining to you the way history has gon.  The only thing conservative about the South in the Civil War is that they were the group that didn't want to change something. If that's the narrow understanding of conservative you are using, then fine. But as far as actual ideologies were concerned, there were religious ideologues on both sides, hawks and doves on both sides, and so on. Marxism wasn't an influence in the United States at the time of the Civil War, so it's very difficult to draw comparisons between attitudes then and the left/right ideologies now.   The pro-slavery side was Southern, the democrat party, and advocating for agricultural concerns.  The anti-slavery side was Northern, the Republican Party, and defending the concerns of manufacturing industries.  Both sides claimed religious tradition in their camp.

What do you want me to say? In the past 100 years,  the left in this country have gone from calling themselves progressives, to Marxists, to Communists, to liberals, and back to progressives again.   You can complain all you want about what groups SHOULD be called, but that simply isn't how it played out.

It rarely does.  Hell, 'conservation of the present status' and 'advocating more liberty' aren't even at odds if there is a movement to change society in a way that would curb our liberties, as rarely happens.  What, do you want to start calling people who are against gun control legislation liberals now?  If you created this thread to criticize/example two groups that have actually existed in history, then you have to deal with who they actually are, not who you wish they were or how you want them to be classified.

 But the abolitionists made strong religious arguments as well, and so did Rev Martin Luther King.  Prior to the 1950's or so, basically anybody on any side of any issue in the United States tried to shore their case up through Christian ethics.

Churchill was a conservative like Olympia Snowe was a Republican, which I will leave for you to figure out on your own. And why are you talking about present-day leftists like opposing eugenics is some big triumph of virtue in the 21st century? Conservatives and Liberals both oppose it NOW, but back when it was a big thing, when it was taken seriously as the way forward for western civilization, it was a progressive ideal. They got it wrong.

It's not a big if.  Cuba, China, and the USSR were communist states that leftists in their hey-day championed as being utopias we should all follow in the footsteps of, including Stalinist Russia.  That is a hugely shameful fact about the American left, and they control the schools, so now you are taught those countries don't count as 'really communist' because progressives believe it's ok to distort history to push an agenda.

Then you simply haven’t examined the statistics.

Then stop telling me those nations didn’t count as ‘real communism’ if you aren’t willing to look into it. Such things are the precise answer to the question you asked in this thread.

Of course. Off the top of my head, the Devauliers in Haiti were conservatives.

Bare in mind that during the Middle Ages, it’s not as though there was some minority liberal voice opposing whatever it is you are objecting to in the above. This is another historical mistake/lie that liberals commit- they take some thing that happened a thousand years ago when neither the conservative or progressive movements existed, and say “Conservatives did that”, because white people or religious sentiment was involved. The progressive left has it’s roots in Catholicism as much as the modern right does.

Well, the problem there goes back to the change vs stasis thing. With few exceptions (eugenics being the only one I can think of) the left isn’t going to say “Ah shit, we were wrong, the people rejected that kind of change and we’ve learned from it”, because that mean they can’t try again for that change later.

iambiguous · January 5, 2015, 3:48am

sorry wrong thread…

Zerubbabel · January 22, 2015, 5:40pm

If we were going to pick the most salient political events in history we surely must include Communism and the Right’s steadfast resistance to follow the Left down that path to Utopia.

Arminius · January 26, 2015, 10:33am

[size=120]The distinction of “conservative” and “progressive” is moronic.[/size]

Evolution and history do not “proceed”, do not “run” in one “linear”, in one so-called “progressive” direction. Evolution and history move cyclically, spirally - like this:

It’s like the circulation of our planet Earth and our Moon, of the other planets and their moons, of asteroids and comets, of our Sun, thus of the whole Sun System, and of all other solar systems in our Milky Way: