Back
to top
'Conservatism is merely ruling class ideology.'
WatchPage 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Would people agree with what I've written?
Conservatives have argued that society is ‘organic,’ or that it is naturally hierarchical - all classes have a certain ‘role’ to play, with some people being more equipped to rule than others, on account of their background and upbringing. Without a class system, society would essentially collapse. This explanation as to why there should, therefore, be a class system, with few people at the top and most at the bottom has, however, been viewed (by Marxists, for instance) as a mere smokescreen, designed to keep a privileged elite in power at the expense of everybody else. However, the idea that inequality is natural (and thus the support of a society that is hierarchical) does not necessarily favour any particular individuals - support is for a ruling class, generally. Although traditionally this ruling class has indeed been determined by birth/background, it is still possible (especially since the increased influence of liberal ideas) for a person to become part of this ruling class, which is underpinned by a belief in meritocracy. In this sense, support for hierarchy is not necessarily something only a person ‘at the top’ would support; the poorest of people might support the idea of a ruling class, perhaps because they themselves strive to become part of it. This of course rests on the assumption that it is actually possible for anybody to 'reach the top' - if a person's social class is decided entirely by birth, and is therefore entrenched, then it would perhaps be more accurate to think of this aspect of Conservatism as being very 'ruling class ideology' in nature.
Conservatives have argued that society is ‘organic,’ or that it is naturally hierarchical - all classes have a certain ‘role’ to play, with some people being more equipped to rule than others, on account of their background and upbringing. Without a class system, society would essentially collapse. This explanation as to why there should, therefore, be a class system, with few people at the top and most at the bottom has, however, been viewed (by Marxists, for instance) as a mere smokescreen, designed to keep a privileged elite in power at the expense of everybody else. However, the idea that inequality is natural (and thus the support of a society that is hierarchical) does not necessarily favour any particular individuals - support is for a ruling class, generally. Although traditionally this ruling class has indeed been determined by birth/background, it is still possible (especially since the increased influence of liberal ideas) for a person to become part of this ruling class, which is underpinned by a belief in meritocracy. In this sense, support for hierarchy is not necessarily something only a person ‘at the top’ would support; the poorest of people might support the idea of a ruling class, perhaps because they themselves strive to become part of it. This of course rests on the assumption that it is actually possible for anybody to 'reach the top' - if a person's social class is decided entirely by birth, and is therefore entrenched, then it would perhaps be more accurate to think of this aspect of Conservatism as being very 'ruling class ideology' in nature.
2
reply
Report
#2
1
reply
Report
#3
^^
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
0
reply
(Original post by Erebos)
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
0
reply
(Original post by Diaz89)
^^
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
^^
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
0
reply
Report
#6
(Original post by Erebos)
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
(Original post by Diaz89)
^^
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
^^
All your points are good but you should differentiate Conservative social policy and Conservative economic policy which ironically borrows many of it aspects from Liberal laissez-faire economics
0
reply
Report
#7
(Original post by chloeee!)
Only the last bit about meritocracy is more capitalism than Conservatism, I'd say.
Only the last bit about meritocracy is more capitalism than Conservatism, I'd say.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by Erebos)
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
0
reply
(Original post by Erebos)
Well, in that case, I would question your understanding of conservatism and capitalism. A large proportion of your OP describes Marxist critiques of the capitalist system. Das Kapital, the book you loosely quote from, is a critical analysis of capitalism, not conservatism.
Well, in that case, I would question your understanding of conservatism and capitalism. A large proportion of your OP describes Marxist critiques of the capitalist system. Das Kapital, the book you loosely quote from, is a critical analysis of capitalism, not conservatism.
0
reply
Okay, what about this? Not very well written, I know:
The emphasis Conservatives have placed on tradition has translated to support of institutions such as the monarchy and the House of Lords, both of which serve to keep the ‘ruling class’ in power, but perhaps only incidentally; it is more because Conservatives believe in preserving the status quo - an attitude embodied in the general saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” - that they support such institutions. In other words, it is not that Conservatives support these institutions for them themselves, but rather because they have stood the test of time and shown to ‘work’.
The emphasis Conservatives have placed on tradition has translated to support of institutions such as the monarchy and the House of Lords, both of which serve to keep the ‘ruling class’ in power, but perhaps only incidentally; it is more because Conservatives believe in preserving the status quo - an attitude embodied in the general saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” - that they support such institutions. In other words, it is not that Conservatives support these institutions for them themselves, but rather because they have stood the test of time and shown to ‘work’.
0
reply
Report
#11
You're all wrong. You think you're talking about "Conservatism" when you really are talking about "conservatism". The modern Conservative party has very very little to do with conservatism.
1
reply
Report
#12
(Original post by Stefan1991)
You're all wrong. You think you're talking about "Conservatism" when you really are talking about "conservatism". The modern Conservative party has very very little to do with conservatism.
You're all wrong. You think you're talking about "Conservatism" when you really are talking about "conservatism". The modern Conservative party has very very little to do with conservatism.
0
reply
Report
#13
(Original post by chloeee!)
Okay, what about this? Not very well written, I know:
The emphasis Conservatives have placed on tradition has translated to support of institutions such as the monarchy and the House of Lords, both of which serve to keep the ‘ruling class’ in power, but perhaps only incidentally; it is more because Conservatives believe in preserving the status quo - an attitude embodied in the general saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” - that they support such institutions. In other words, it is not that Conservatives support these institutions for them themselves, but rather because they have stood the test of time and shown to ‘work’.
Okay, what about this? Not very well written, I know:
The emphasis Conservatives have placed on tradition has translated to support of institutions such as the monarchy and the House of Lords, both of which serve to keep the ‘ruling class’ in power, but perhaps only incidentally; it is more because Conservatives believe in preserving the status quo - an attitude embodied in the general saying “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” - that they support such institutions. In other words, it is not that Conservatives support these institutions for them themselves, but rather because they have stood the test of time and shown to ‘work’.
0
reply
Report
#14
The question the OP is asking all depends on the extent to which she wants to discuss conservatism as a moral ideology or as a political system.
0
reply
Report
#15
(Original post by Erebos)
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
No. Conservatism is based on respect for tradition and the collective wisdom of past generations. What you've described is capitalism.
0
reply
Report
#16
(Original post by L i b)
You're quite right to make the distinction, but there is still a strong strand of conservatism within the Conservative Party. It ebbs and flows with the balance of power: David Cameron doesn't seem particularly conservative in any way - he supports reforming the House of Lords for example - and Margaret Thatcher was probably the most radical British PM in the post-war period. Rarely, however, does a party's leadership do a great job of reflecting its supporters or even its MPs.
You're quite right to make the distinction, but there is still a strong strand of conservatism within the Conservative Party. It ebbs and flows with the balance of power: David Cameron doesn't seem particularly conservative in any way - he supports reforming the House of Lords for example - and Margaret Thatcher was probably the most radical British PM in the post-war period. Rarely, however, does a party's leadership do a great job of reflecting its supporters or even its MPs.
0
reply
Report
#17
He is referring to the new right of conservatism headed by Thatcher, which openly promoted meritocracy and also broke the post war consensus in an attempt to make people more atomistic and self sufficient whilst trying to eliminate welfare dependancy. This is a valid argument for conservatism being a ruling class ideology as people can freely move about the class system depending on the amount of work they put in, this means that someone can gain a position of power over another individual by having more monetary influence, an example of power being asserted through monetary dominance is the Burnee Ecclestone afair, thus showing that conservatism is a ruling class ideology. Even within the new right strand of the ideology.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
