Is conservatism the political middle ground?

[monoglot]

What is the the cultural character of society which they identify with - who are 'they'? With regard to the US and UK.

I can only state my own views, the cultural character is that determined by the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses.

 

[gorski]

My heart bleeds for you, poor Nationalists/Fascists/Nazis... The most exclusivist twats on Earth are now playing the "diversity" card, trying to play to the inclusivist impulse we [the rest of us non-Nazis] have, so as to include them, the poor discriminated lot... Only so that they, once in power, could exclude all of those who dare 'diversify' from their "mainstream" thinking, which allegedly knows what is "natural" and moreover "human nature"...

Awwwwwwwwwwwww...............

 

[butchersapron]

I can only state my own views, the cultural character is that determined by the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses.

Vhich are?

 

[untethered]

I can only state my own views, the cultural character is that determined by the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses.

The problem is, those things don't really exist any more. That's why British conservatism is in the doldrums.

The cat's out of the bag.

Thatcherism just put the final nail in the coffin.

 

[nosos]

I use the term liberalism in the sense of it being a progressive philosophy which promotes concepts of social justice based on materialist ideas with Marxism being a dogmatic distillation of that philosophy. The common element being their aspiration to equality over potential with nationalism and Fascism being their complement and who share the complementary aspiration.

On the cultural Marxism point, western society increasingly employs the law to force its citizens to respect the principle of equality on an increasing number of grounds and discriminates against those who do not conform to that principle, so to my mind arguably it is culturally Marxist.

You understand that the way you're using these terms runs entirely contrary to the way everyone else uses them? In your own terms, I'd certainly accept that Conservatism is the political 'middle ground' and that liberalism and marxism are of a kind, likewise nationalism and fascism. It's just that your own terms don't match up to what anyone else anywhere refers to with them so it's somewhat difficult to know how to respond to you.

 

[Kaka Tim]

What is it with this poster?

Its like hes using the language of Gramsci to promote the ideology of 'disgusted of tunbridge wells'.

Defending the status quo is the middle ground?

Hmm - does that make the Stasi or the South African Apartheid Regime or the Taliban the middle ground becasue they defended their own 'status quo'?

 

[obanite]

Isn't the main difference between Marxist and fascist ideologies more to do with the distribution of capital and political power? I don't think it's a materialist Vs cultural thing. Nationalism was just as strong in the USSR as it was in Nazi Germany.

 

[Fruitloop]

I don't think that was a result of the Marxist influence, since the whole idea is pretty anti-nationalistic. For a long time previously there was a strong streak of Russian Nationalism, not to mention Russian Messianism, which the USSR just piggy-backed on because it was popular.

 

[obanite]

Fair enough... got a link to show how Marxism is "anti-nationalist" though?

 

[butchersapron]

Depends if by marxism you mean ideally or simply what took place in the USSR, China etc which then opens up another whole argument...

 

[Fruitloop]

The basic reason is that Marxism sees the whole world as divided by class, not nationality. Nationalism is a result of capitalist imperialism, both as a focus of resistance in oppressed countries and as a justification for imperialism in the advanced capitalist ones. It perpetuates the myth that I have more in common with the ruling class in my own country than the workers abroad, when in fact the reverse is the case.

 

[obanite]

I see your point, and you're probably right. However I think your definition of nationalism is quite narrow, i.e. that it has to be about sympathy for the ruling class... nationalism can be expressed in other ways, e.g. sport.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well I don't think that sympathy for the r/c is necessarily the definition of it, in terms of a definition I would say that it is an imagined community, i.e. a group of people with whom I think I share some commonality even though I may never meet them through a shared, national aspect of our identity. Nationalism tends to be promoted by the state because the state substitutes itself for the nation in order to take advantage of people's allegiance to the nation.

I think that there are entirely natural kinds of belonging, like what the Maori would call turangawaiwai, which means your sense of belonging to a particular place, but these inherent dispositions are co-opted by the state in the interests of securing its own continuation.

 

[monoglot]

You understand that the way you're using these terms runs entirely contrary to the way everyone else uses them? In your own terms, I'd certainly accept that Conservatism is the political 'middle ground' and that liberalism and marxism are of a kind, likewise nationalism and fascism. It's just that your own terms don't match up to what anyone else anywhere refers to with them so it's somewhat difficult to know how to respond to you.

Given that what I'm trying to do is to express my views on how I would redefine the political spectrum, it's surely no surprise that conventional terms and definitions may not fit precisely with my model.

The conventional perception of the political spectrum are, in my view, influenced by the prevailing social orthodoxy something which I have consciously tried to avoid.

 

[gorski]

You are the conventional "thinker" by definition, so kindly buzz off with identifying yourself falsely all the time...

 

[butchersapron]

Given that what I'm trying to do is to express my views on how I would redefine the political spectrum, it's surely no surprise that conventional terms and definitions may not fit precisely with my model.

The conventional perception of the political spectrum are, in my view, influenced by the prevailing social orthodoxy something which I have consciously tried to avoid.

Why?That's a very anti-conservative way of going about it isn't it? You should be embracing the tried and tested prevailing social orthodoxy.

 

[articul8]

monoglot - stop ducking the question. What are "the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses" that determine the "cultural character" of the nation (in a British or any other context).

 

[rhys gethin]

Well I don't think that sympathy for the r/c is necessarily the definition of it, in terms of a definition I would say that it is an imagined community, i.e. a group of people with whom I think I share some commonality even though I may never meet them through a shared, national aspect of our identity. Nationalism tends to be promoted by the state because the state substitutes itself for the nation in order to take advantage of people's allegiance to the nation.

I think that there are entirely natural kinds of belonging, like what the Maori would call turangawaiwai, which means your sense of belonging to a particular place, but these inherent dispositions are co-opted by the state in the interests of securing its own continuation.

Fruitloop - yes - the average community - people you see at least once a week, say - is quite small, whereas 'political' groups are now very big, so that we get 'imagined communities' of all sorts. Inevitably different groups of people do things in different ways, talk different languages, dialects and so on, and it is 'natural' to suppose the stuff we do is 'right'. So it is right to eat fish and chips, bad to eat frogs' legs or horses - big deal. Such differences are easy to see, like religious/irreligious customs, skin colour and so on. Everything, on the other hand, is designed to hide the otherwide obvious fact of economic similarity - we have, obviously, a much greater interest in common with those who are exploited than we have with exploiters who speak the same language as us or know the same songs. Since the State is the boss-class organised it must look after the boss-class; since it can't admit that it has to make high drama about whether you get circumcised or not, work on Friday or not, wear headscarves, whatever. It is our job to keep pointing to the less obvious - but immensely more real - 'imagined community' - class. All the rest is blather.

 

[gorski]

The essential difficulty with nationalism/racism/etc. is - it's self-limiting! That is extremely obvious in such a "mind"-set...

I don't want a world without the "other", without the "difference"! From sex/gender-wise onwards!

Moreover, nationalism, in the end, turns inwards, towards a perfect homogenisation...

See if you like that sort of "unity"... when they start knocking on yer doors...

...if you don't subscribe to the same "idea" of the "white" or "black" etc. "community"...

...in the middle of the night... or broad daylight...

It's a despicable political option!!!!!

Sociopaths...

 

[monoglot]

monoglot - stop ducking the question. What are "the shared instincts, beliefs and loyalties of the masses" that determine the "cultural character" of the nation (in a British or any other context).

I can only give my own personal view as I said earlier and they are irrelevant to this discussion. If my personal views on this are so important to establishing your own views of what I say then perhaps this is simply indicative of your own preconceptions.

 

[nosos]

I can only give my own personal view as I said earlier and they are irrelevant to this discussion

no they're not. the entire thread is you discussing the internal coherence of your own personal views. you've offered no reasons why anyone should adopt your use of terminology. you've simply asked whether given that usage, the conclusions you've drawn make sense.

 

[gorski]

Never mind the terminology - it's what he's trying to sell here... That's THE issue here! And that is ugly!

 

[nosos]

He's not trying to sell anything. He's just crudely telling us how much he likes conservatism and how utterly plausible he finds it.

 

[gorski]

Well, it's a figure of speech - but I think it would be fair to say that his lot is selling... as it were... or trying to...

 

[monoglot]

Fruitloop - yes - the average community - people you see at least once a week, say - is quite small, whereas 'political' groups are now very big, so that we get 'imagined communities' of all sorts. Inevitably different groups of people do things in different ways, talk different languages, dialects and so on, and it is 'natural' to suppose the stuff we do is 'right'. So it is right to eat fish and chips, bad to eat frogs' legs or horses - big deal. Such differences are easy to see, like religious/irreligious customs, skin colour and so on. Everything, on the other hand, is designed to hide the otherwide obvious fact of economic similarity - we have, obviously, a much greater interest in common with those who are exploited than we have with exploiters who speak the same language or know the same songs. Since the State is the boss-class organised it must look after the boss-class; since it can't admit that it has to make high drama about whether you get circumcised or not, work on Friday or not, wear headscarves, whatever. It is our job to keep pointing to the less obvious - but immensely more real - 'imagined community' - class. All the rest is blather.

You are simply stating a materialist view which conforms to the prevailing cultural Marxist orthodoxy of British society.

Traditions and customs and how they are practised might be seen as a reflection of the innate character of the people who adhere to those traditions, so the perpetuation of those traditions serves implicitly to perpetuate the innate character of the people associated with those traditions. The marginalising of tradition therefore threatens the survival of those traditions and implicitly the people associated with those traditions.

 

[nosos]

Traditions and customs and how they are practised might be seen as a reflection of the innate character of the people who adhere to those traditions

They might be. You realise that you're supposed to offer reasons why that's the case?

 

[butchersapron]

So why aren't you upholding the the tried and tested prevailing social orthodoxy or 'cultural marxism'?

 

[gorski]

 

[articul8]

the perpetuation of those traditions serves implicitly to perpetuate the innate character of the people associated with those traditions. The marginalising of tradition therefore threatens the survival of those traditions and implicitly the people associated with those traditions.

But don't some traditions deserveto be marginalised - eg. the cultural tradition which holds that it is OK for a man to 'discipline' (ie. beat) his wife in any way he so chooses.

Are we traumatised at the prospect of having the survival of wife-beaters threatened?

 

[rhys gethin]

You are simply stating a materialist view which conforms to the prevailing cultural Marxist orthodoxy of British society.

Traditions and customs and how they are practised might be seen as a reflection of the innate character of the people who adhere to those traditions, so the perpetuation of those traditions serves implicitly to perpetuate the innate character of the people associated with those traditions. The marginalising of tradition therefore threatens the survival of those traditions and implicitly the people associated with those traditions.

Well, we've all been over this 'cultural marxism' fantasy enough, I think. All political parties and economic groups everywhere are 'marxist' in the sense that their material interest comes first except when their minds are being effectively muddled by the dominant groups, the ones with 'hegemony'. So much is obvious.

That is not at all to wave away cultural characteristics (though they are obviously not 'innate': move a newborn child from the Hebrides to Mexico, s/he will grow up to be a Mexican). I am a very keen supporter, for instance, of our language, Cymraeg, and a keen reader of English literature, but even if Mr Cameron could read Shakespeare intelligently or went to classes in Bangor to get civilized, that would not put him on 'my' side except on some very narrow cultural issues: I'd have more in common with a Polish or Somali worker, and so would anyone with any sense. You are playing either/or in a very propagandist way, I think. Politics is about priorities.