Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is Conservatism taken to its most extreme? Watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Hunter gatherer?

    Oddly primitivism is generally a left wing ideology :holmes:
    It's not odd. I think you have good intentions but I generally believe the left thing responsible for tremendous monstrosity, concrete brutalism, awful poetry, welfare dependence.

    I'm talking more about the new left though, the old ones are alright
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorWot)

    Reactionaries look to the past and try to revert society to its previous state, despite popular belief fascism rejects this, which is why fascism often rejects religion and monarchy.
    Isn't that what the current neocons are doing though? Neoliberalism is all about going back to the pre post world war 2 then there wasn't any of this Keynesian mixed economy nonsense.

    Doesn't that also make old labour types who want to go back to the more statist nationalization and government involvement in the economy conservatives?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Isn't that what the current neocons are doing though? Neoliberalism is all about going back to the pre post world war 2 that was dominated by the Keynesian mixed economy.

    Doesn't that also make old labour types who want to go back to the more statist nationalization and government involvement in the economy conservatives?
    I consider old labour conservatives in a sense, at least they were in the 50s, 60s and 70s. I have scorn for some of their social security and post war rebuilding plans though (The Town and Planning Act can go **** itself) which have seen cities like Coventry which were once beautiful replaced with awfulness.

    I have a lot of respect for Attlee and Bevan, as well as figures like Henderson and many others, they understood the distinctly British constitution, its traditions and combined it with a real desire to change rather than just the spoilt egotism of the current left.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanteTheDoorWot)
    You couldn't be more confused about ideology,

    Libertarianism is liberalism taken to its most extreme (which is why classical liberals identify as libertarians)

    Fascism is revolutionary and rejects conservatism (which is why most conservatives were anti fascists)

    Communism is socialism taken to its most extreme (which is why moderates are called social democrats and reformers, or social-ists, e.g Clement Attlee, a socialist but not a communist)

    There is no anarchism taken to its extreme, anarchism is a naturally extreme position.

    Conservatism taken to its extreme would be absolutely no change whatsoever. Reactionary conservatism would depend on the country, in this country most conservatives would be liberal imperialists supporting a mixed constitution, rule of law and empire, possibly with imperial preference instead of free trade.
    I agree with all that apart from the relationship between social democracy and communism. Social democracy crew out of the Marxist left that thought there didn't need to be or it would be better to get to some kind of socialism, including communism (which is a form of socialism), via a none revolutionary path. They were going to replace capitalism as the main mode of production with socialism but by slowly changing society rather than having any proletarian revolutions.

    In the 20th century, especially after world war two, Social Democracy came to mean a none socialist form of left with politics. Basically use the state to trim away the extreme of capitalism by taxing and creating welfare programs and reducing inequality by providing education and services to the working class. They may well be keeping it a good secret but I don't think most self described social democrats are trying to slowly steer society to communism any more.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ChaoticButterfly


    Meh I'm not so sure.

    I think you could theoretically have a non hierarchical yet right wing society- for instance if it's people had extreme religious views and had unpleasant foreign relation. Some if Thomas More's utopia was quite right wing I'd say despite by your measure being very left wing, so I'm not convinced it works unless applied on a global level.Left/right wing is only really relevant economically speaking. I think that time is important to consider.

    For the most part gradualism is the best course of action. I too want a non hierarchical (world) society but I only think this would be possible far to the future when technological innovation is way beyond present and our global population is massively reduced (through liberal eugenics), this like Marx (but not as extreme) I think some hierarchy is justified at the present time.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.