The Essense of Conservatism.

[eyesinthedark]

Moreno: Some people take conservativism this way. Others see it as value based and not tradition based. Or to put it another way traditional values, which, supposedly can be shown through any medium.

A lot of confusion arises due to the fact that "conservatives" are really liberals (classical liberals) and "liberals" are really conservatives (classical conservatives).

So we have 3 conservatisms - 1. cutting back on production/consumption (classical conservatism - economic conservatism) and/or taxes/spending (classical liberalism - political conservatism) (((as individuals and/or as a collective))) 2. conservative values (question - what are classical conservative values? answer - classical conservative values are the ends (the collective) always justify the means (violence) question - what are classical liberal values? answer - classical liberal values are the ends (individuals) never justify the means (violence) 3. traditionalism (doing what we've always done).

Classical Conservatism - Elitism, Nepocratic Monarchy/Oligarchy, Socialism, Authoritarianism, altruism, collectivism, environmentalism, sustainability, traditionalism, culture, spirituality (Epimethean)

Classical Liberalism - Egalitarianism, Democratic Monarchy/Oligarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, egoism, individualism, growth, civilization, materialism (Promethean)

[James S Saint]

The business of the Right hand is to openly judge for sake of justice.
The business of the Left hand is to keep the Right hand in business.

[eyesinthedark]

Smoking Man: The business of the Right hand is to openly judge for sake of justice.
The business of the Left hand is to keep the Right hand in business.

You're saying the left hand offers us the 'sin', chaos, then the right wing offers us the 'salvation', order. If individuals didn't mismanage their lives and the earth, there'd be no need for an elitist, authoritarian right.

The question is... do both hands belong to the same shadowy master? ?

Are 'they' (Zionists?) trying to teach us something... or is this how they maintain their control? ?

[James S Saint]

Smoking Man: The business of the Right hand is to openly judge for sake of justice.
The business of the Left hand is to keep the Right hand in business.

You're saying the left hand offers us the 'sin', chaos, then the right wing offers us the 'salvation', order. If individuals didn't mismanage their lives and the earth, there'd be no need for an elitist, authoritarian right.

Properly interpreted.

The question is... do both hands belong to the same shadowy master? ?

Are 'they' (Zionists?) trying to teach us something... or is this how they maintain they're control? ?

Always, always, Always include a third option;

1) Are 'they' (Zionists?) trying to teach us something
2) is this how they maintain they're control?
3) 'They' are merely insane and thus unaware of what they actually do and why.

What 'they' are actually accomplishing is the final end of homosapian.
But is that insanity?

[eyesinthedark]

I would hope that homosapian could teach itself to better manage itself and its world (a 3rd option?), so we wouldn't have to elect dictators who'd probably fuck things up even worse. There's much we could learn from philosophy, schools like Cyncism could be revived and reinterpreted.

[lizbethrose]

Moreno: Some people take conservativism this way. Others see it as value based and not tradition based. Or to put it another way traditional values, which, supposedly can be shown through any medium.

A lot of confusion arises due to the fact that "conservatives" are really liberals (classical liberals) and "liberals" are really conservatives (classical conservatives).

So we have 3 conservatisms - 1. cutting back on production/consumption (classical conservatism - economic conservatism) and/or taxes/spending (classical liberalism - political conservatism) (((as individuals and/or as a collective))) 2. conservative values (question - what are classical conservative values? answer - classical conservative values are the ends (the collective) always justify the means (violence) question - what are classical liberal values? answer - classical liberal values are the ends (individuals) never justify the means (violence) 3. traditionalism (doing what we've always done).

Classical Conservatism - Elitism, Nepocratic Monarchy/Oligarchy, Socialism, Authoritarianism, altruism, collectivism, environmentalism, sustainability, traditionalism, culture, spirituality (Epimethean)

Classical Liberalism - Egalitarianism, Democratic Monarchy/Oligarchy, Capitalism, Libertarianism, egoism, individualism, growth, civilization, materialism (Promethean)

Thank you, eyes. I may not agree with everything you've said--I don't know yet. But you seem to be trying to discover the 'fundamentals' of conservatism. Are you presenting your fundamentals as you see them in US conservatism?

[eyesinthedark]

You're welcome Liz. Feel free to comment slash critique.

On the contrary, I'm attempting to comprehend the essence of Transcendental Conservativism... if there is such a thing. I believe Transcendental Conservatism may be more real than American conservatism, and that American Conservatism is an imperfect copy of timeless, metaphysical Conservatism.

Classical Liberalism vs Classical Conservatism goes to the very heart of what it means to be human. All the other isms follow from these two.

The dillema we face is a cosmic one - do we continue to advance as a species and utilize our superior intellectual capabilites (given to us by the Anunaki... whether the Anunaki exist(ed) or not, gave us life or not, is off little importance, either way, the myth serves to illustrate just how alien we are, literally or figuratively, to this world) to adapt nature to ourselves (Promethean - Classical Liberalism)... or do we adapt ourselves to nature (Epimethean - Classical Conservatism).

You see the discussions here just aren't deep enough for me... they barely even scratch the surface.

I'm attempting to stretch human comprehension, or at least my own, to its very limits, encompassing the totality of the human condition.

Nothing short of totality is sufficient for me, I'm very ambitious when it comes to this hobby of mine.

Just as a bird requires two wings to fly, man requires a left wing (Classical Liberalism) and a right wing (Classical Conservatism) to survive and thrive.

[James S Saint]

You see the discussions here just aren't deep enough for me... they barely even scratch the surface.

I'm attempting to stretch human comprehension, or at least my own, to its very limits, encompassing the totality of the human condition.

Nothing short of totality is sufficient for me, I'm very ambitious when it comes to this hobby of mine.

Interesting.

[uglypeoplefucking]

All liberal vs conservative political crap aside, i don't think there is an essence of either, because what either one believes is always at least in part relative to what the other one believes. Neither one is a set of fixed beliefs. i find them both to be essentially kneejerk positions. Essentially. But seeking out the essences of collections of partisan beliefs is kind of a fool's errand. Obviously over time what the liberal believes and what the conservative believes is always in flux, and varies from person to person. The only consistent trait either exhibits is opposition to the other. So pin a label on them. Does it make you feel secure in your beliefs when they conflict with mine? It does, of course. And that is why we do it to one another. But the labels don't mean much after all, they're just uniforms worn by ideological soldiers.

An essential difference between the two is pride and resentment. Conservatives feel pride in their cultural past and themselves, whereas liberals loath the past and themselves. It's why the former wants to preserve the past and the latter wants to uproot and destroy it.

i think that's simply what you want to believe.

there are any number of things about the past that liberals would seek to preserve and conservatives seek to "destroy", as you put it.

if anything, liberals are generally (sort of) less wary/fearful of change than conservatives, but that's really only in principal, in the abstract. truth is it totally varies from person to person, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they may pledge allegiance to.

[eyesinthedark]

Hope I didn't scare anyone off...

[James S Saint]

if anything, liberals are generally (sort of) less wary/fearful of change than conservatives,.

I suspect that is only a perception.
Conservatives are defending something thus they appear to be fearful of its demise.
Liberals are merely attacking something with nothing they can see to lose.

[Moreno]

if anything, liberals are generally (sort of) less wary/fearful of change than conservatives,.

I suspect that is only a perception.
Conservatives are defending something thus they appear to be fearful of its demise.
Liberals are merely attacking something with nothing they can see to lose.

It is interesting to me to see how people view liberals and conservatives when they identify with one or the other. (I might be wrong about you in this case, but what you say seems to fit things I have heard other conservatives say) As far as I can tell liberals tend to defend all sorts of what they see as good traditions, facets of the country, etc. Very few challenge capitalism, for example. How capitalism is to be restricted or carried out, sure they have tendencies to differ from conservatives, but as someone very critical of capitalism, both liberals and conservatives - going by how people define themselves - seem very much on the same page overall. The idea that liberals are only interested in change or here, attacking something, seems hallucinatory to me.

[lizbethrose]

Ah, Moreno, aren't Liberals against Capitalism when they speak out against big business? And aren't Conservatives bent on maintaining a 'free market' society--which we've never really had--and continuing the role of big business in government in the US? Imm, Conservatives aren't willing to let go of Smith's theory of economics, despite the fact that it was proposed in a way different age than now in order to set the functions of the newly emerging industrial age.

Since then, other economic/political systems have been tried and they've failed--we've simply run out of systems to try! Smith's Capitalism in the US is so firmly entrenched it's near to impossible to make even Keynesian style changes to the basic myths of Smith's economics. Imm, that's one of the 'traditions' Conservatives are unwilling to change.

Then, again,, does anyone have a workable, sustainable, theory of economics to put on the table?

[James S Saint]

I can't see anything that Liberals don't attack other than their right to attack and even that, they vote to relinquish so as to attack conservatives (or what they see as the cause of all of their restraints). In the long run, Liberals (or unrestrained liberalism) cause totalitarianism and has long been speculated that such is their only real purpose behind the scenes and thus used to be associated directly with Communism.

Conservatism merely by definition is a concern for maintaining something, not changing it.
You don't have to be one to see that much.
But a conservative in the US would be conserving constitutional governance, not today's underground subterfuge.
More recently, the underground Socialism seems to be the Conservative agenda in opposition only to the Liberal Communism.
Capitalism and constitutionalism are merely red herrings used to blame-shift and hide behind.

[Fent]

All liberal vs conservative political crap aside, i don't think there is an essence of either, because what either one believes is always at least in part relative to what the other one believes. Neither one is a set of fixed beliefs. i find them both to be essentially kneejerk positions. Essentially. But seeking out the essences of collections of partisan beliefs is kind of a fool's errand. Obviously over time what the liberal believes and what the conservative believes is always in flux, and varies from person to person. The only consistent trait either exhibits is opposition to the other. So pin a label on them. Does it make you feel secure in your beliefs when they conflict with mine? It does, of course. And that is why we do it to one another. But the labels don't mean much after all, they're just uniforms worn by ideological soldiers.

An essential difference between the two is pride and resentment. Conservatives feel pride in their cultural past and themselves, whereas liberals loath the past and themselves. It's why the former wants to preserve the past and the latter wants to uproot and destroy it.

i think that's simply what you want to believe.

there are any number of things about the past that liberals would seek to preserve and conservatives seek to "destroy", as you put it.

if anything, liberals are generally (sort of) less wary/fearful of change than conservatives, but that's really only in principal, in the abstract. truth is it totally varies from person to person, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they may pledge allegiance to.

It's much deeper than that. Political allegiance here is very important.
Today's lefty ('liberal' for Americans) has his ideological roots going as far back as Rousseau, with their dislike of private property, some of the arts and sciences, and even questioning the whole edifice of civilization itself. This is where the love of that myth comes from, the 'noble savage.' That civilization itself corrupts man and that he is 'naturally good' in the wild.
The next step here is Marxism. That the evils of bourgeoisie society can be remedied by a worker's revolution. (The destruction that this resulted in needs no further elaboration).
The next step, which is closer to us today, is the Frankfurt School and all those postmoderns it influenced. They use a Marxist platform (oppressor and oppressed) and translate it into cultural terms. This takes the form of male as oppressor- female as oppressed; white man as oppressor - non-white as oppressed; Western civilization as oppressor, non-Western as oppressed; employer as oppressor, employee as oppressed (they still cling to this old one); pretty much anything that dominates is an evil oppressor, and by default the oppressed are really, deep down, good people who only have become bad by their so-called oppressor.
The rage from the lefty arises here is because he truly believes he really can transcend authority and be 'free.' This naive fantasy he will use to justify all his rage against the machine.

Whereas a conservative is much more likely to understand the conflictual nature of history and life in general, and that authority figures are necessary and are usually there because they earned the right to be there. This understanding will see him being much more pragmatic when it comes to conflict resolution. He is also much more likely to have pride in his past and himself, which sees himself giving thanks to past institutions for granting him the life he leads today. He sees himself as a link in the chain of hundreds of generations stretching back as far as civilization itself, and then stretching forward into the future. He embodies the practices of the past and will maintain them as it is prideful to do so. 'Change' is only required if there is something drastically wrong. Change for the sake of change has no place anywhere.

[Moreno]

It's much deeper than that. Political allegiance here is very important.
Today's lefty ('liberal' for Americans) has his ideological roots going as far back as Rousseau, with their dislike of private property, some of the arts and sciences, and even questioning the whole edifice of civilization itself. This is where the love of that myth comes from, the 'noble savage.' That civilization itself corrupts man and that he is 'naturally good' in the wild.

In my world, many conservatives are skeptical of too much civilization, soft men, dependence on technology, and the corrupting influence of various media. They often root for the nobel savage lead roles in all sorts of movies, but the cop vs. bureaucracy (read too much civilization) is a common example.

The next step here is Marxism. That the evils of bourgeoisie society can be remedied by a worker's revolution. (The destruction that this resulted in needs no further elaboration).

Or the evils of bourgeosie society are remedied by a state of war, more religious influence in daily life and less freedoms. In my world conservatives are extremely skeptical of bourgious society.

The next step, which is closer to us today, is the Frankfurt School and all those postmoderns it influenced. They use a Marxist platform (oppressor and oppressed) and translate it into cultural terms. This takes the form of male as oppressor- female as oppressed; white man as oppressor - non-white as oppressed; Western civilization as oppressor, non-Western as oppressed; employer as oppressor, employee as oppressed (they still cling to this old one); pretty much anything that dominates is an evil oppressor, and by default the oppressed are really, deep down, good people who only have become bad by their so-called oppressor.
The rage from the lefty arises here is because he truly believes he really can transcend authority and be 'free.' This naive fantasy he will use to justify all his rage against the machine.

In my world conservatives are extremely skeptical of authority, especially government, but also experts in many fields. In fact this is one strong area of overlap I have with conservatives.

Whereas a conservative is much more likely to understand the conflictual nature of history and life in general, and that authority figures are necessary and are usually there because they earned the right to be there. This understanding will see him being much more pragmatic when it comes to conflict resolution. He is also much more likely to have pride in his past and himself, which sees himself giving thanks to past institutions for granting him the life he leads today. He sees himself as a link in the chain of hundreds of generations stretching back as far as civilization itself, and then stretching forward into the future. He embodies the practices of the past and will maintain them as it is prideful to do so. 'Change' is only required if there is something drastically wrong. Change for the sake of change has no place anywhere.

In my world conservatives look back on experts and authorities who radically changed things, not just in the liberal reform process, but are disturbed by even slow changes away from how they imagine it was in the 50s. This is why conservatives at the time of the US revolution stayed loyal to the King for precisely the argument implicit above in why men should be in charge in the family etc.

[uglypeoplefucking]

An essential difference between the two is pride and resentment. Conservatives feel pride in their cultural past and themselves, whereas liberals loath the past and themselves. It's why the former wants to preserve the past and the latter wants to uproot and destroy it.

i think that's simply what you want to believe.

there are any number of things about the past that liberals would seek to preserve and conservatives seek to "destroy", as you put it.

if anything, liberals are generally (sort of) less wary/fearful of change than conservatives, but that's really only in principal, in the abstract. truth is it totally varies from person to person, regardless of what side of the political spectrum they may pledge allegiance to.

It's much deeper than that. Political allegiance here is very important.
Today's lefty ('liberal' for Americans) has his ideological roots going as far back as Rousseau, with their dislike of private property, some of the arts and sciences, and even questioning the whole edifice of civilization itself. This is where the love of that myth comes from, the 'noble savage.' That civilization itself corrupts man and that he is 'naturally good' in the wild.
The next step here is Marxism. That the evils of bourgeoisie society can be remedied by a worker's revolution. (The destruction that this resulted in needs no further elaboration).
The next step, which is closer to us today, is the Frankfurt School and all those postmoderns it influenced. They use a Marxist platform (oppressor and oppressed) and translate it into cultural terms. This takes the form of male as oppressor- female as oppressed; white man as oppressor - non-white as oppressed; Western civilization as oppressor, non-Western as oppressed; employer as oppressor, employee as oppressed (they still cling to this old one); pretty much anything that dominates is an evil oppressor, and by default the oppressed are really, deep down, good people who only have become bad by their so-called oppressor.
The rage from the lefty arises here is because he truly believes he really can transcend authority and be 'free.' This naive fantasy he will use to justify all his rage against the machine.

Whereas a conservative is much more likely to understand the conflictual nature of history and life in general, and that authority figures are necessary and are usually there because they earned the right to be there. This understanding will see him being much more pragmatic when it comes to conflict resolution. He is also much more likely to have pride in his past and himself, which sees himself giving thanks to past institutions for granting him the life he leads today. He sees himself as a link in the chain of hundreds of generations stretching back as far as civilization itself, and then stretching forward into the future. He embodies the practices of the past and will maintain them as it is prideful to do so. 'Change' is only required if there is something drastically wrong. Change for the sake of change has no place anywhere.

in America, at least, conservatives are just as likely to cling to a "we are being oppressed" of "they are trying to oppress us" narrative as anyone else. they are constantly "raging against the machine" and encouraging others to do the same.

change for the sake of change is desirable to some, and undesirable to others, both sides are necessarry for progress to occur, or, more specifically, the interplay between the two is what directs the natural engines of change in such a way that they benefit people. neither side necessarily corresponds all the time with a liberal or conservative political view.

i look at adopting strict allegiance to one side or another as a wrench in the works of progress. it will always interfere with and impair one's ability to recognize a good idea when one is presented.

[Typist]

Uccisore, a quite interesting opening post. Nice job. I like the way you had me agreeing, agreeing, agreeing through the description of ecological conservatism, and then hit me with the punch line. Skillful.

I would be interested in your perspective on what we could perhaps call "Technological Conservatism".

The argument here is that we are operating on an assumption of "the more knowledge the better, the faster the better".

This assumption was entirely rational for thousands of years of human history, as we could barely feed ourselves, were being ravaged by diseases etc.

Now we've reached a point where the rate at which new knowledge is being developed is dramatically accelerating, as the system feeds back upon itself. The Internet is a handy example.

Technological Conservatism might state that we are now operating with an outdated assumption, as "more is better" is no longer necessarily true. Accelerating knowledge development feeds rapid technological change, which creates social stresses which we may not be able to manage.

If it's judged that we are managing social changes adequately now, the question still remains. How fast should these knowledge/technology/social changes be allowed to accelerate? If the current rate is ok, how about 10 times faster? 100 times faster?

Technological Conservatism might state that it's time to take control of this process. Not stop it, but be more careful and conservative in managing the development of knowledge.

I've heard stories on NPR about how the genetic engineering industry is following a path similar to what happened in the computer industry. Computers used to be huge, very expensive, and limited to trained elites. Now everybody has a computer.

This same process is unfolding in genetic engineering. Do we want the typical forum poster to be creating new life forms? Many other examples are likely available. How long will it be until super rich drug cartels buy access to nuclear weapons, and so on.

How conservative should we be with knowledge?

Are our current assumptions on this matter becoming dangerously outdated?

[Uccisore]

Thanks for the compliment, Typist. I am sympathetic with concerns about the limits of technology- other than a few remaining medical advances and perhaps space exploration, it really seems like new technologies (especially those in the name of convenience) are causing more harm than good. So while I agree with you, I can't say such sentiments are inherently conservative in nature. The idea of State or global controls on what new technologies can be invented/marketed would be pretty anti-conservative.
I think, contra-Marx, what we really need is the prevailing of good ideas and good people to make our technological future a good one. As long as people are convinced that the greatest moral good is to leave each other alone and that the role of the State is to take care of their every need, the advances that come will screw us over, and how we use what we have will suffer. At the same time, as personal power increases (what if everybody can make/buy a nuclear weapon?), the threat to us of an individual starts to compare to the threat posed by an unchecked State.

[Typist]

So while I agree with you, I can't say such sentiments are inherently conservative in nature. The idea of State or global controls on what new technologies can be invented/marketed would be pretty anti-conservative.

Yes, the word "conservative" could be used in either way. Politically conservative, or conserving the current status quo.

I think, contra-Marx, what we really need is the prevailing of good ideas and good people to make our technological future a good one.

Doesn't this bring us right back to controlling things, bad people in this case? I might argue that as technological power increases, the need for state control will increase along with it. Look what's happening in airports for example. Underwear bombs equals TSA clerks exploring your underwear.

At the same time, as personal power increases (what if everybody can make/buy a nuclear weapon?), the threat to us of an individual starts to compare to the threat posed by an unchecked State.

Both the individual and state will be empowered by the development of knowledge. Most of the time this will be used for good in both cases.

But what about the minority of cases? What happens when Ted Kazinski gets a nuke, a bio weapon, or a dangerous new life form? The balance of power is shifting to the looneys.

[Uccisore]

Doesn't this bring us right back to controlling things, bad people in this case? I might argue that as technological power increases, the need for state control will increase along with it. Look what's happening in airports for example. Underwear bombs equals TSA clerks exploring your underwear.

That is the balance. On the one hand, you have the need for state control seeming to increase. On the other hand, you have the fact that humans can't be trusted to 'mold history', so tampering with genetic modifications and so on is as bad as tampering with social order. It's a paradox, or a set of conflicting values. Luckily, a conservative doesn't need to resolve this in the same way that a more ideologically-centered person would. A conservative can let conflicts be conflicts, and manage them.

[Uccisore]

I think you can and should go further - conservatism requires environmentalism. Moderation in change, and cautious policy where change is detected and likely to be harmful/costly.

Yes that's basically true. In order for the traditional ways to make sense, the world has to be about like it was, including the ecology. With the caveat that the exploitation of resources is a primary motivator for preserving those resources in the first place.

That's not really environmentalism, though. That would hold that the yellow-bellied sapsucker population in the local forest isn't to be preserved because it can be exploited, but because a) it fills a niche in a delicately-balanced ecosystem and we don't know what knock-on effects its disappearance would have, and/or b) it can't be easily replaced once it's gone. Both are conservative reasons.

Well, you're slipping into a bit of a liberally-minded ideology there. You have to balance the conflicting values- one, that nature should be tampered with and exploited as little as possible, and two, that human beings thrive by tampering with and exploiting nature as much as possible. You have to acknowledge both- that nature ought to be preserved, because of all the risks to not doing so- among them, the potential loss of resources to exploit.

Yeah, if they are truly anti-environmental, then yes that is certainly true. An example that comes to mind is cap-and-trade. The great failing of Marxism is that economies aren't zero-sum games. Wealth is actually created, not merely passed around.

Marx didn't say any different... have you read "Capital"? You may well disagree with his economic prescriptions (I know I do), but his descriptions are not as wide of the mark as you seem to think.[/quote]

Marx endorses capitalism as a wealth-creator insofar as it's a necessary step after Feudalism to build infrastructure and technology. But any present day Marxist that's actually trying to DO something treats economics as a zero-sum game. I mean, I don't disagree with you, I've read some that say that the US as it exists is pretty much all Marx was after, so people pushing for Higher Communism are missing the point entirely.

I think it would behove those conservatives to understand Marx better.

Marx is dead. What people are doing in his name is the issue.

The implication of your phrasing is that capitalism is somehow the fair or natural way of controlling the means of production.

Actually, the implication is that State-control of the means of production is a mistake, and a reference to 'fairness' is just one of the BS justifications of doing so. There's a reason why capitalism is called the free market.

But insofar as they disagree in principle with state intervention in industry, they're not really conservative (or environmental).

The evangelicals are in no small part so because they want to bring Christ's kingdom to Earth. They want (worldly) law and policy to be influenced by (not to say dependent upon) scripture. Society guided by natural law. I don't think they do so out of a gritty pragmatism.

It IS pragmatic, though- they want society guided by Scripture because they think that's the best way to guide society. Compare to the Communist ideal where the end goal is a 'post justice' society where legal concerns are moot because human nature has been completely reshaped, or a libertarian view in which people will all just do the right thing if you let them. It seems to me that any imagined society where the rule of law is so important isn't utopian by definition...

Was Hobbes a utopian?

[Only_Humean]

Marx didn't say any different... have you read "Capital"? You may well disagree with his economic prescriptions (I know I do), but his descriptions are not as wide of the mark as you seem to think.

Marx endorses capitalism as a wealth-creator insofar as it's a necessary step after Feudalism to build infrastructure and technology. But any present day Marxist that's actually trying to DO something treats economics as a zero-sum game. I mean, I don't disagree with you, I've read some that say that the US as it exists is pretty much all Marx was after, so people pushing for Higher Communism are missing the point entirely.

'Surplus value' and what is done with it is the fundamental variable in Marxist economics - the created wealth can either go to the workers or the capital-owners, where these are separated. Where they're united (Marx prescribes state collectives, but there are alternatives) the created wealth goes to the value-creators, not just the existing wealth-holders.

I don't know what the commentators who think the modern US would be Marx' ideal state have been smoking, but I hope they're not driving or operating heavy machinery. Even large segments of the right are complaining that the financiers have it all locked up.

I think it would behove those conservatives to understand Marx better.

Marx is dead. What people are doing in his name is the issue.

I'd certainly not disagree that a great many self-professed Marxists wouldn't benefit from such an understanding either, of course

The implication of your phrasing is that capitalism is somehow the fair or natural way of controlling the means of production.

Actually, the implication is that State-control of the means of production is a mistake, and a reference to 'fairness' is just one of the BS justifications of doing so. There's a reason why capitalism is called the free market.

But insofar as they disagree in principle with state intervention in industry, they're not really conservative (or environmental).

The evangelicals are in no small part so because they want to bring Christ's kingdom to Earth. They want (worldly) law and policy to be influenced by (not to say dependent upon) scripture. Society guided by natural law. I don't think they do so out of a gritty pragmatism.

It IS pragmatic, though- they want society guided by Scripture because they think that's the best way to guide society. Compare to the Communist ideal where the end goal is a 'post justice' society where legal concerns are moot because human nature has been completely reshaped, or a libertarian view in which people will all just do the right thing if you let them. It seems to me that any imagined society where the rule of law is so important isn't utopian by definition...

Was Hobbes a utopian?

No, but he wasn't an evangelical, was he? I'm not entirely sure on the matter. I don't honestly see that the evangelical approach is less utopian - or in fact any different - than the others: they all want their thing because it's the best way to run society, and if you think evangelicals don't have a rosy view of human nature under the coming reign of the Lord, you've been talking to different ones than I have.

[Uccisore]

But insofar as they disagree in principle with state intervention in industry, they're not really conservative (or environmental).

Somebody who's against any and all state intervention industry would be a libertarian, not a conservative, and anti-conservative in just the way you state. The trick to conservatism is to see the State as a necessary evil- not something to be opposed on principle, but not something to give unlimited power to so that it can solve all our problems, either.

No, but he wasn't an evangelical, was he?

My point in asking if Hobbes was a utopian was to point out that he obviously has a way in mind that he thinks a society should operate, and you definition of 'utopian' seems to be anybody who has one of those. My idea of 'utopian' would be a view that starts with the perfectibility of mankind, and works to achieve that through overhauling society. Kant would be a borderline case, because while he believes in perfectibility, he doesn't seem to advocate doing anything to achieve it beyond letting history run it's course. Even Marx himself can be read that way, it was his first generation of followers that started thinking society wasn't perfecting itself fast enough for their taste, and drastic measures needed to be taken. There might be some evangelicals that believe that if they've got just the right attitudes towards "God's Kingdom on earth", whatever that means, but the ones I talk to seem to think that mankind is going to be sinful and in need of regulation until the afterlife.

[SIATD v2]

I think, contra-Marx, what we really need is the prevailing of good ideas and good people to make our technological future a good one.

Doesn't this bring us right back to controlling things, bad people in this case? I might argue that as technological power increases, the need for state control will increase along with it. Look what's happening in airports for example. Underwear bombs equals TSA clerks exploring your underwear.

Except underwear bomber version 1.00 was some kind of hypnotised patsy and underwear bomber version 1.10 was a CIA spy.

I mean really, underwear bombers? Does this not sound like someone's taking the piss, seeing what they can put out there and still get taken seriously? What's next, butt implant bombers?

To be fair, Kim Kardashian could play a great butt-bomber because she's already a bit Arab looking anyway. Gotta be a script idea in there somewhere. Possibly for a comic porn film.