Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Burkean conservatism

Announcements Posted on
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In the short time I've spent posting here, I've noticed that most right-wingers on TSR seem to have no identifiable political philosophy. Many of the most intelligent and perceptive right-wingers, perhaps the most intelligent and perceptive of all posters, are libertarians or classical liberals of some kind. Hayek, Friedman, and Rand seem to very popular among the TSR intelligentsia. I could be completely wrong, of course, but all the same I'm interested in what such people think whatever their preponderence among posters here.

    Whilst I've no particular dislike of any of their ideas when not taken to the extreme, I do think that the ethos of many libertarians is the very antithesis of real conservatism. They seem no less inclined to construct grand utopian visions and universal programmes of reform on an a priori basis divorced from practical considerations, and to place no less trust in our ability to solve problems through rational thought, then the socialists and anarchists. Indeed, many are in fact more thus inclined than moderate social democrats and Keynesians.

    I'm interested to know what these posters, or indeed any posters, think about Burke's arguments concerning tradition and prejudice. Arguably he wasn't a real political philosopher, but then that's in a sense the whole point. For those not familiar, in short he argued that our ability to reason is to weak and fallible to be trusted with great questions like how best to organise society or how to design a perfect set of constitutional arrangements; instead by applying reason only to small matters and accepting the traditions and prejudices of our culture without much questioning, we're able to gradually build up institutions that reflect the judgement of vast numbers of people and generations and thus come to embody more wisdom and understanding than anyone could hope to acquire in a single lifetime. Burkean conservatives therefore oppose any political or social reforms that are not consistent with the principles and the intention of what they seek to change, except in the very rare cases when institutions can be proven to be defective, and reject an excessively rationalistic approach to politics. Impartially weighing up the pros and cons of an argument doesn't do justice to the judgement, probably far greater than our own, of past generations; only the judicious application of prejudice can ensure we don't overstep our ability and make presumptuous decisions about things we don't truly understand.


    So, er, discuss!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Thatcherites Vs "the wets" played out on TSR.

    Gawd 'elp us all.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not really. Thatcher wasn't a libertarian; nor are Burkeans "wet". Or vice versa, for that matter.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The allusion passed you by, clearly.
    • Thread Starter
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It did indeed. Irony is lost on me...could you spell it out in words of one syllabul?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Burke was as confused as most people in the TSR politics forum. He started out as some kind of classical liberal and ended up as a authoritarian right wing Tory. His ideas on prejudice are pretty naive and were pretty outdated even when he was alive, let alone now. His views on tradition make a bit more sense though.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JacobW)
    It did indeed. Irony is lost on me...could you spell it out in words of one syllabul?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/de...ional-archives


    loosely - a battle between Thatcher's monetarist policies (influenced by Chicage school, i.e. libertarians) and the more "one nation (influenced by Burke) tories.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    If I had to identify with any type of Conservative, out of this list from Conservativepedia

    I'll explain any of these terms if anyone wants.

    Constitutionalist
    Neo-Conservative
    Paleo-Conservative/Old Right
    Traditionalist
    'Goldwater' Conservative
    Religious 'Right' or Religious conservatives
    Liberal Conservatives
    Classical Liberals

    And for any sny commentors, no , fascims and nazism (national socialists) are not conservative and they aren't right wing.

    In order, if I had to choose a government I would go for

    1. Classical Liberalism
    2. 'Goldwater' Conservatism
    3. Paleo conservative/Old Right
    4. Liberal Conservatism
    5. Constitutionalist
    6. Traditionalist
    7. Neo-conservative
    8. Religious Conservative/Religious right

    'Burkean' conservatism does not exist and all it means is traditionalism, or 'Toryism', pre-20th centry. I don't rate it very highly, since I don't rate the tory and whig parties of victorian Britain.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    If I had to identify with any type of Conservative, out of this list from Conservativepedia

    I'll explain any of these terms if anyone wants.

    Constitutionalist
    Neo-Conservative
    Paleo-Conservative/Old Right
    Traditionalist
    'Goldwater' Conservative
    Religious 'Right' or Religious conservatives
    Liberal Conservatives
    Classical Liberals

    And for any sny commentors, no , fascims and nazism (national socialists) are not conservative and they aren't right wing.

    In order, if I had to choose a government I would go for

    1. Classical Liberalism
    2. 'Goldwater' Conservatism
    3. Paleo conservative/Old Right
    4. Liberal Conservatism
    5. Constitutionalist
    6. Traditionalist
    7. Neo-conservative
    8. Religious Conservative/Religious right

    'Burkean' conservatism does not exist and all it means is traditionalism, or 'Toryism', pre-20th centry. I don't rate it very highly, since I don't rate the tory and whig parties of victorian Britain.
    :facepalm:
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/de...ional-archives


    loosely - a battle between Thatcher's monetarist policies (influenced by Chicage school, i.e. libertarians) and the more "one nation (influenced by Burke) tories.
    You think thatcher was a monetarist? And her practaces were in any way like what Partri (moreso than Milton) Friedman created?

    She was a neo-con (waring), social conservative (socially backward and religious), neo-liberal (crony capitalist)

    Friedman severely disliked reagan and thatcher and wrote them a series of letters telling them to change ... actually.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    You think thatcher was a monetarist? And her practaces were in any way like what Partri (moreso than Milton) Friedman created?

    She was a neo-con (waring), social conservative (socially backward and religious), neo-liberal (crony capitalist)

    Friedman severely disliked reagan and thatcher and wrote them a series of letter telling them to change ... actually.
    Thatcher certainly attempted monetarism - then backed down as its clearly nonsense.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    :facepalm:
    Do you really want me to explain to you why fascism is not right wing? I've been studying it for quite some time know, so I will condense on request.

    And nazism as intended is not right wing, naitioal socialism is extremely authoritaran center left, Hilters nazism was right wing, no doubt.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Thatcher certainly attempted monetarism - then backed down as its clearly nonsense.
    And how did she 'adapt' monetarism?

    Even though it cannot be adopted unless from scratch.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Do you really want me to explain to you why fascism is not right wing? I've been studying it for quite some time know, so I will condense on request.

    And nazism as intended is not right wing, naitioal socialism is extremely authoritaran center left, Hilters nazism was right wing, no doubt.
    No please don't, it'll be really painful for both of us and full of ridiculous errors and lies, probably lifted from that ****e book by Jonah Goldberg.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    And how did she 'adapt' monetarism?

    Even though it cannot be adopted unless from scratch.
    I didn't say she adapted monetarism. Wtf are you on about?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    I didn't say she adapted monetarism. Wtf are you on about?
    Sorry meant attempted

    but you know what I meant, but your just being pedantic and arrogant, like all your responses.

    So s,s ... sowwy.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    No please don't, it'll be really painful for both of us and full of ridiculous errors and lies, probably lifted from that ****e book by Jonah Goldberg.
    FINE, Fu it, I'll lift this straight out of the saught after wikipedia entry which has been revised many-a-time

    And don't you dare Tl;DR me.

    Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.[5] Fascism promotes political violence and war, as forms of direct action that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[3][6] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system.[7] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism—communism and social democracy.[8] Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies.[9] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[10]

    The fascist party is a vanguard party designed to initiate a revolution from above and to organize the nation upon fascist principles.[11] The fascist party and state is led by a supreme leader who exercises a dictatorship over the party, the government and other state institutions.[12] Fascists reject conventional democracy that is based on majority rule.[13][14] Fascists claim to advocate an authoritarian democracy based on rule of the most qualified, rather quantitative majority rule, though multiple scholars are strongly skeptical of fascism's claims to be democratic.[14][15][16][17][18][19] Fascism supports a socially united collective national society and opposes socially divided class-based societies and socially-divided individualist-based societies.[20] Fascists claim it is a trans-class movement, advocating resolution to domestic class conflict within a nation to secure national solidarity.[21] While fascism opposes domestic class conflict, it favours a proletarian national culture and claims that its goal of nationalizing society emancipates the nation's proletariat, and promotes the assimilation of all classes into proletarian national culture.[21] It opposes contemporary bourgeois class-based society and culture for allegedly being based on selfish and hedonistic individualism that results in plutocracy and war profiteering at the expense of the nation.[22] Fascism claims that bourgeois-proletarian conflict primarily exists in national conflict between proletarian nations versus bourgeois nations; fascism declares support for the victory of proletarian nations.[23]

    Fascists advocate a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state, the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient, and autarky. It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial to the national community.[24]

    There is a running dispute among scholars about where along the left/right spectrum that fascism resides.[25][26][27][28] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[29][30] Benito Mussolini in 1919 described fascism as a syncretic movement that would strike "against the backwardness of the right and the destructiveness of the left".[31][32] Italian Fascists described fascism as a right-wing ideology in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century."[33][34] They also, however, officially declared that although they were "sitting on the right" they were generally indifferent to their position on the left-right spectrum, as being a conclusion of their combination of views rather than an objective, and considering it insignificant to the basis of their views, which they claimed could just as easily be associated with "the mountain of the center" as with the right.[35] A major element of fascism that has been deemed as clearly far-right is its goal to promote the right of claimed superior people to dominate while purging society of claimed inferior elements.

    Why not read "Position in the political spectrum" on wiki for yourself.

    I never said fascism was exlusively NOT on the right, and I would NEVER suggest fascism is left wing, it is synoptic, it can't be limited to the left-right dichotomy. It can't even be confined to the Authoritarian Left, Authoritarian Right, Libertarian Left, Libertarian Right axis. It is however, undoubtedly authoritarian, but it rejects and sort of civil liberties and free market and wants massive state control over the economy and social lives, so can't be libertarian right at all, it can't be libertarian left for those reasons aswell aside from private property and markets, it has some ideas of authoritarian leftism, state control over economy, revolution via a vanguard party, un-democratic, totalitarian and it takes from the authoritarian right with social conservatism, a strong nationalist ideal and national defence, but not necassarily interventionist, where the authoritarian left creeps back in (remember, most neo-cons can be closely linked by trotskyism today).
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    Do you really want me to explain to you why fascism is not right wing? I've been studying it for quite some time know, so I will condense on request.

    And nazism as intended is not right wing, naitioal socialism is extremely authoritaran center left, Hilters nazism was right wing, no doubt.
    How can we talk about 'intentions' with Nazism? There's no real definition of Nazism other than 'what the Nazis did'. And Hitler, in all essence, WAS Nazism, it's meaningless to separate the two.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    you're right about the Hayek circle jerk in these here parts...

    'Oh, yeah, yeah tell me about the failures of planned economys... **** yeah, you're the greatest academic of all time yeah, yeah, yeah uuuggghghfluuuuuugghhghhhh...'
    • 38 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Disraeli was an inspirational one-nation Conservative.

    Burke's influence was simply to emphasise a rejection of ideology in place of pragmatic, piece meal reform while preserving the institutions, hierarchy and tradition.

    But today's TSR users seem to all be inclined to New Right free-market ideals.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 29, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.