In my view the roots of Western conservatism lie with Plato.
This myth of returning to a glorious past is a smokescreen for the return to a stratified society where some are born to be philosopher-kings and others are born to be workers.
When colonisers went to Africa and elsewhere, they took with them Platonic ideals and emphasised existing tensions between groups. Hence divide-and-conquer.
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
What about the roots of non-Western conservatism? And the roots of Plato?
It's simply not natural, not possible, to be that fair.
“There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
― Frank Wilhoit
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
― Ronald Reagan
Not 'Private sufficiency, public luxury: land is the key to the transformation of society' George Monbiot
or, to put it another way,
Public luxury for all or private luxury for some: this is the choice we face George Monbiot
Jubilate!
Mods can you remove the previous version of this post as I messed it up sorry.
Yes political Conservatism means more individual freedom and less centralised government.
These are code for less or no help when needed and privatisation of public services such as train that are now run for profit and the shareholders not for the customers.
I do not equate Conservative with self preservation ofre selfishness. I believe that it's about preserving good things as they are for the good of everyone,
Privilege, wealth, land ownership, power. Or the NHS?
The NHS and everything else financed by taxes raised by governments.
I have only traced my anscestors back as far as the 19th century. None of them were capitalists but they were employed by capitalists. None of them would have had the vote untill after WW1
Your point being?
The Conservatives are not just about Privilege, wealth, land ownership, power.
Ok. But unless I'm missing something I don't see that as implicit or explicit in your post.
All you've told us is something we already know, that conservatism isn't restricted to toffs.
As Marx taught us, working class conservatism is essentially false consciousness. A veritable Stockholm Syndrome of casting your lot in with your oppressors.
As Marx taught us, working class conservatism is essentially false consciousness. A veritable Stockholm Syndrome of casting your lot in with your oppressors.
As Marx taught us, working class conservatism is essentially false consciousness. A veritable Stockholm Syndrome of casting your lot in with your oppressors.
Is it just me, or is this thread turning into that scene from Monty Python and The Holy Grail?
'Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!'
I know what you are getting at @Caissa but my guess would be that @Telford probably feels he's been sufficiently remunerated. Which almost certainly wasn't the case for his 19th and early 20th century ancestors. Nor mine.
Working class Conservatism is a thing. So is social conservatism among traditional Labour voters. Hence the collapse of the Red Wall in many traditional Labour areas back in 2019.
I don't think the current Conservative government has any chance of repeating that. But the fact remains that deplore it as much as we may, some of these folk are going to vote Reform next time or other whacky fringe-group candidates.
I think we need to look at issues of this kind in broader terms than the purely economic, although without ignoring that of course.
Someone who works in financial services observed to me the other day that in relative terms your average working class person in Britain today has the equivalent wealth of a medieval king - in terms of material possessions - but without the power of course.
It's also the case that many people from rural Wales preferred to move to the industrial valleys than remain on the land. Why? Despite the harsh conditions there was a regular wage, more chance of finding a life partner and groups to get involved with - chapels, choirs, and eventually trades unions etc.
My own ancestors moved from tied cottages and agricultural labour to the tinplate works and from there to running drapers shops or working their way up in the timber yard or school-teaching.
Within a generation or two they were living on 'piano row' - a terrace of houses where people had begun to afford to buy pianos, that symbol of aspiration in early 20th century South Wales.
Capitalism can lift people out of poverty. But there is a lot of collateral damage.
In my view the roots of Western conservatism lie with Plato.
This myth of returning to a glorious past is a smokescreen for the return to a stratified society where some are born to be philosopher-kings and others are born to be workers.
In so far as the roots of most Western ideologies lie with Plato, yes, which is quite far but easily overstated. The idea of philosopher kings has had just as much influence on progressive and radical thoughts as on conservative thought. (That's assuming Plato meant anyone to take the idea seriously which I have my doubts about.)
I don't think it's right to blame everything one disapproves of in Western culture on any thinker.
When colonisers went to Africa and elsewhere, they took with them Platonic ideals and emphasised existing tensions between groups. Hence divide-and-conquer.
As above, Platonic ideals can cover a multitude of different values. Furthermore, non-Western traditions and cultures have their own takes on conservative thinking and hierarchy without much help from Plato. There were indigenous African empire-builders before the Europeans got there. (The idea that Africa had no indigenous imperialism seems to me the flip side of the belief that Africans couldn't have built cities like Great Zimbabwe.)
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
Can't speak about who the oppressors are in Great Britian/
But I do have a pretty big list in the US, starting with those who insist on a minimum wage of $7.50 and ending with those who want to restict women's reproductive rights and a whole lot in between.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
― Ronald Reagan
Reagan was mistaken, or possibly disingenuous (though I don’t believe he was thoughtful enough for that). Libertarianism is one version of conservatism, and it has been the most popular version in the USA for the past century or so, but it’s only one. Conservatisms differ in their ideas about how hierarchy should be preserved—Libertarianism, which locates freedom primarily in the right to property, believes that the best way is for government to protect property and to allow those with property to assert their power without restriction. Other types of conservatives believe the government should take a more active role and be the agent of elite domination. For the lower orders, this amounts to a choice between being beaten by cops or private security guards.
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals — if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
― Ronald Reagan
Reagan was mistaken, or possibly disingenuous (though I don’t believe he was thoughtful enough for that). Libertarianism is one version of conservatism, and it has been the most popular version in the USA for the past century or so, but it’s only one. Conservatisms differ in their ideas about how hierarchy should be preserved—Libertarianism, which locates freedom primarily in the right to property, believes that the best way is for government to protect property and to allow those with property to assert their power without restriction. Other types of conservatives believe the government should take a more active role and be the agent of elite domination. For the lower orders, this amounts to a choice between being beaten by cops or private security guards.
The critical anti-social concept is in italics, the rest is just context.
This discussion gives an interesting sidelight on the 1916 referendum.
Leave - conservative (small 'c', please note.).
Remain - liberal.
I understand the term 'liberal' has different connotations on my side of the pond than it does in the US.
I know what you are getting at @Caissa but my guess would be that @Telford probably feels he's been sufficiently remunerated.
Correct. I chose to be in a job and I could have left it at any time
That is not the main thing though. In my life time there have been times when there have not been jobs for the unemployed to take let alone anyone who is already in a job. It may not be possible to move jobs. You may have to take a job that is a pay cut if you do.
Also there is the idea of a fair wage. We have minimum and living wages because when we didn’t people were not paid fairly. I remember seeing a report in the late 80s of a bar worker in a busy bar being paid £1:50 an hour. Even then that way very low. But we only had a recommended minimum wage then so companies could pay what they wanted.
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
That’s as maybe, but in my opinion the biggest problem with the contemporary Left is that they want to tell people what their interests are (and therefore how they should vote) rather than letting people set their own priorities and make their own decisions.
This discussion gives an interesting sidelight on the 1916 referendum.
Leave - conservative (small 'c', please note.).
Remain - liberal.
I understand the term 'liberal' has different connotations on my side of the pond than it does in the US.
You can also go back to the English Civil War, and see the same political contours today. Thus, London was Parliamentarian, and today is mainly Labour.
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
That’s as maybe, but in my opinion the biggest problem with the contemporary Left is that they want to tell people what their interests are (and therefore how they should vote) rather than letting people set their own priorities and make their own decisions.
Nope, there's a quantitative and qualitative difference between the two positions.
The Right want people to vote for privatised medicine even though most voters will get poorer healthcare. The Left want universal healthcare because of the belief that all voters should be able to access healthcare.
The Right's position is only achieved when a majority vote for poorer healthcare coverage for themselves.
This discussion gives an interesting sidelight on the 1916 referendum.
Leave - conservative (small 'c', please note.).
Remain - liberal.
I understand the term 'liberal' has different connotations on my side of the pond than it does in the US.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist.
... The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
― Frank Wilhoit
Can a "rules without rulers" anarchy resemble anti-conservatism? Or is it ultimately unobtainable (or even paradoxical)?
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
That’s as maybe, but in my opinion the biggest problem with the contemporary Left is that they want to tell people what their interests are (and therefore how they should vote) rather than letting people set their own priorities and make their own decisions.
The biggest problem with the liberal, bourgeoise, right wing, capitalist lackey Left (not centre Left, Corbyn took that), is that they will not, dare not address social injustice at source.
I think that while in general conservatism does favour the established elite there have been authentic conservatisms that have opposed power grabs by the elite. There are also more ecological conservatisms.
The poles on my political quadrant would be, progressivism, conservatism, authoritarianism, libertarianism.
Aye @Caissa. Oaks live much longer for polling. But it's good to see a few be given their head. And as I doubtless wrongly recall, they are diffident, showing crown shyness. Particularly American reds. Must go and check in Victoria Park in a few months. That's a great song, completely missed out on Rush. If the pedunculate oaks are rampant capitalists, or even One Nation Tories, then they've got to be kept in check, by being fair to the field maple little people. You feed in to my unwritten masterpiece, Sap. Being a tree freak I can't help wanting to pick at the metaphor.
Conservatism is necessarily reactionary--at its core it's less a philosophy than an attitude, the assumed worldview of the ruling class (the ur-conservatism is divine right monarchism). When democratizing movements from below threaten established hierarchies, conservatism becomes an ideology (Burke only invented the word as a reaction to the French Revolution). The opposite of conservatism is democracy.
Conservatism is necessarily reactionary--at its core it's less a philosophy than an attitude, the assumed worldview of the ruling class (the ur-conservatism is divine right monarchism). When democratizing movements from below threaten established hierarchies, conservatism becomes an ideology (Burke only invented the word as a reaction to the French Revolution). The opposite of conservatism is democracy.
Conservatism is necessarily reactionary--at its core it's less a philosophy than an attitude, the assumed worldview of the ruling class (the ur-conservatism is divine right monarchism). When democratizing movements from below threaten established hierarchies, conservatism becomes an ideology (Burke only invented the word as a reaction to the French Revolution). The opposite of conservatism is democracy.
Divine right monarchy was an innovation of the early modern era. In Britain it was always attacked on the conservative grounds that it was an overreach that overruled ancient rights. The Parliamentary army in the English Civil War claimed with some justification to be the conservative side.
Conservatism is necessarily reactionary--at its core it's less a philosophy than an attitude, the assumed worldview of the ruling class (the ur-conservatism is divine right monarchism). When democratizing movements from below threaten established hierarchies, conservatism becomes an ideology (Burke only invented the word as a reaction to the French Revolution). The opposite of conservatism is democracy.
Divine right monarchy was an innovation of the early modern era. In Britain it was always attacked on the conservative grounds that it was an overreach that overruled ancient rights. The Parliamentary army in the English Civil War claimed with some justification to be the conservative side.
Really? There wasn't a sense that Roman/Greek/Egyptian Caesars/Pharaohs were appointed by the gods?
Divine right monarchy was an innovation of the early modern era.
Really? There wasn't a sense that Roman/Greek/Egyptian Caesars/Pharaohs were appointed by the gods?
I don't know a lot about Egyptian ideology. I believe there are the usual near eastern monuments proclaiming that the monarch has done what is pleasing to the gods and has crushed his enemies under his chariot wheels.
But, no, I don't think ancient kingship did generally claim that the king had been appointed by the gods. The king may have done what is pleasing to the gods - if he hadn't he wouldn't have been successful - but divine favour to individuals in the ancient world was fickle and easily alienated, and in any case there are a whole lot of gods who may favour different candidates.
The job of the king in the Greek world is to win battles, resolve disputes, and perform the rituals that please the gods. The king is no more guaranteed success in the third than he is in the first.
I'm not aware of any invocation of any theory of divine right in either Latin or Greek literature.
Aeneas in the Aeneid has the support of Venus but the enmity of Juno. He wins, and Augustus is destined eventually to become emperor, not because of divine appointment, but because of fate. But opposing fate doesn't make Aeneas's enemies such as Turnus wicked or evil. Jupiter may tell Juno to stop opposing Aeneas because of fate, but he doesn't tell the mortal Rutuli (who are fighting the Trojans).
Well this is outside of my wheelhouse so every day is a school day for me.
Can you clarify what the actual difference is between the "divine right" of monarchs, and the claim of being divine/gods? I'm fairly sure that various dynasties around the world claimed to be divine (per Wikipedia) going back milennia.
I'm clearly missing something of the subtlety of difference between a monarch stating that they are in a position because they were appointed by a god (therefore presumably disagreeing with them means disagreeing with the deity) and actually claiming to be a deity (disagreeing with them presumably means disagreeing with the deity).
Well this is outside of my wheelhouse so every day is a school day for me.
Can you clarify what the actual difference is between the "divine right" of monarchs, and the claim of being divine/gods? I'm fairly sure that various dynasties around the world claimed to be divine (per Wikipedia) going back milennia.
I'm clearly missing something of the subtlety of difference between a monarch stating that they are in a position because they were appointed by a god (therefore presumably disagreeing with them means disagreeing with the deity) and actually claiming to be a deity (disagreeing with them presumably means disagreeing with the deity).
As far as i understand it God is ultimate power and kings rule at his appointment. That is passed to the next generation. Rome did nit have one all powerful god so kings could be gods. It is down ti the belief system.
In a polytheistic system the gods have no intrinsic moral authority. The Greeks for example seem to have thought of Ares, god of war, as a stupid brute. The problem is that he's a really powerful stupid brute and if you don't keep him happy you lose your next battle.
Yes, making the king unhappy is a bad idea generally, in obvious concrete ways, but that doesn't create a moral obligation to keep the king happy. That the Emperor or Pharaoh is divine means that they are lucky and victorious - but their luck can desert them. The moral obligation is created by the fact that the king does their job successfully.
Medieval kingship doesn't merely inherit these kinds of concepts, it adds the concept of vassalage. The king's vassals swear to serve the king but not in unlimited ways, and in return the king gives them land and resolves their disputes with other vassals justly and comes to their aid if they are unjustly attacked and generally protects their rights. The king's right to his vassals' loyalty is dependent on the king's loyalty to his vassals.
Your oppressors are those who do not pay you the full value of your labour.
What is the full value of my labour? The cost to my oppressor if he had to do the work himself? My oppressor needs to drain his septic tank as it's backing up his manorial dunnies. The task value is therefore his time at his rate of earnings, fifty guineas an hour (24 7 of course, his portfolio never sleeps), plus equipment hire or depreciation? What if he pays above that for all my labour as his full time 2,560 acre estate labourer? He's not my oppressor surely?
On the 'Divine Right' thing. It's generally associated with the Stuarts of course but Louis XIV of France had similar ideas.
One could argue that it went hand in hand with the idea of the monarch as titular head of the Church in any given territory. So the monarch replaces the Pope.
Ok, that didn't apply to Catholic France but 'Gallicism' meant that French kings often felt they had the right to oppose, overrule or even boss the Pope around.
That's got a long history. Goes back to the time of Charlemagne.
But for the purposes of this discussion it's very much a 17th century thing.
The Puritans had their equivalents. I can't remember who said it now, but one historian wrote that what Cromwell did was effectively replace the Divine Right of Kings with the Divine Right of Cromwell.
You could start with the idea that God gave the Israelites a king in Saul, then David (be careful what you wish for). The Stuart absolutism certainly drew on that. But more broadly, the notion that God has ordained that everyone is born into their proper place on the great chain of being is the oldest "conservative" ideology. It is indeed revolutionary in its way, in being an assault on older assumptions of equality (see David Graeber's The Dawn of Everything). But it's the ground of conservatism as we can trace it over the last couple of millenia.
What strikes me is the conservatism of at least a strand of radical thought, expressed by those like John Ball; "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" English radicals referred to the "Norman Yoke"; Blake's socialist vision in "Jerusalem" invokes the Glastonbury legend; the Land Song, originating in the 1880s, was raised by Harold Wilson in the general election of 1964: "The Land! the Land!' twas God who gave the Land! The Land! the Land! the ground on which we stand! Why should we be beggars, with the ballot in our hand?"God gave the Land to the People!" Similarly, the Grand Old Cause of the Commonwealth is a paradise to be regained.
,
Ok, that didn't apply to Catholic France but 'Gallicism' meant that French kings often felt they had the right to oppose, overrule or even boss the Pope around.
That's got a long history. Goes back to the time of Charlemagne.
I think Pope Gregory VII, if I've got the numbering right, a couple of centuries after Charlemagne, came up with the then revolutionary idea that bishops should be appointed by the Church (read Pope) and not by kings, emperors, or other rulers. That was largely a dispute between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor - the Popes largely won that one.
Ok. I imagine you're right. But I get the impression that he was trying to return to earlier precedent.
I get the impression that in Anglo-Saxon England rulers didn't actually 'appoint' church leaders - bishops, abbots and abbesses etc but that royal patronage certainly came into it.
It's no accident that Lindisfarne is within sight of the Northumbrian royal seat at Bamburgh.
In general terms, though, I think it's fair to say that royal influence or interference with the Papacy became more intense from Carolingian times. The Christian East had - and has - its own issues with Caesaro-Papism.
Comments
This myth of returning to a glorious past is a smokescreen for the return to a stratified society where some are born to be philosopher-kings and others are born to be workers.
When colonisers went to Africa and elsewhere, they took with them Platonic ideals and emphasised existing tensions between groups. Hence divide-and-conquer.
The horrifying lie of the contemporary Right is that they persuade people to vote against their own interests by inflaming tensions and scapegoating.
It's simply not natural, not possible, to be that fair.
“There is no such thing as liberalism — or progressivism, etc.
There is only conservatism. No other political philosophy actually exists; by the political analogue of Gresham’s Law, conservatism has driven every other idea out of circulation.
There might be, and should be, anti-conservatism; but it does not yet exist. What would it be? In order to answer that question, it is necessary and sufficient to characterize conservatism. Fortunately, this can be done very concisely.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
There is nothing more or else to it, and there never has been, in any place or time.
For millenia, conservatism had no name, because no other model of polity had ever been proposed. “The king can do no wrong.” In practice, this immunity was always extended to the king’s friends, however fungible a group they might have been. Today, we still have the king’s friends even where there is no king (dictator, etc.). Another way to look at this is that the king is a faction, rather than an individual.
As the core proposition of conservatism is indefensible if stated baldly, it has always been surrounded by an elaborate backwash of pseudophilosophy, amounting over time to millions of pages. All such is axiomatically dishonest and undeserving of serious scrutiny. Today, the accelerating de-education of humanity has reached a point where the market for pseudophilosophy is vanishing; it is, as The Kids Say These Days, tl;dr . All that is left is the core proposition itself — backed up, no longer by misdirection and sophistry, but by violence.
So this tells us what anti-conservatism must be: the proposition that the law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone, and cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.
Then the appearance arises that the task is to map “liberalism”, or “progressivism”, or “socialism”, or whateverthefuckkindofstupidnoise-ism, onto the core proposition of anti-conservatism.
No, it a’n’t. The task is to throw all those things on the exact same burn pile as the collected works of all the apologists for conservatism, and start fresh. The core proposition of anti-conservatism requires no supplementation and no exegesis. It is as sufficient as it is necessary. What you see is what you get:
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.”
― Frank Wilhoit
Mods can you remove the previous version of this post as I messed it up sorry.
Yes political Conservatism means more individual freedom and less centralised government.
These are code for less or no help when needed and privatisation of public services such as train that are now run for profit and the shareholders not for the customers.
BroJames, Purgatory Host
Ok. But unless I'm missing something I don't see that as implicit or explicit in your post.
All you've told us is something we already know, that conservatism isn't restricted to toffs.
Thank you
Who are my oppressors ?
Only you know that
'Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!'
I know what you are getting at @Caissa but my guess would be that @Telford probably feels he's been sufficiently remunerated. Which almost certainly wasn't the case for his 19th and early 20th century ancestors. Nor mine.
Working class Conservatism is a thing. So is social conservatism among traditional Labour voters. Hence the collapse of the Red Wall in many traditional Labour areas back in 2019.
I don't think the current Conservative government has any chance of repeating that. But the fact remains that deplore it as much as we may, some of these folk are going to vote Reform next time or other whacky fringe-group candidates.
Or not bother to vote at all.
My one great grandfather moved from North West Wales to work in Black Country pits. His choice.
My other great grandfather worked in the Black Country making bricks, probably because it was something he was good at.
Someone who works in financial services observed to me the other day that in relative terms your average working class person in Britain today has the equivalent wealth of a medieval king - in terms of material possessions - but without the power of course.
It's also the case that many people from rural Wales preferred to move to the industrial valleys than remain on the land. Why? Despite the harsh conditions there was a regular wage, more chance of finding a life partner and groups to get involved with - chapels, choirs, and eventually trades unions etc.
My own ancestors moved from tied cottages and agricultural labour to the tinplate works and from there to running drapers shops or working their way up in the timber yard or school-teaching.
Within a generation or two they were living on 'piano row' - a terrace of houses where people had begun to afford to buy pianos, that symbol of aspiration in early 20th century South Wales.
Capitalism can lift people out of poverty. But there is a lot of collateral damage.
I don't think it's right to blame everything one disapproves of in Western culture on any thinker.
As above, Platonic ideals can cover a multitude of different values. Furthermore, non-Western traditions and cultures have their own takes on conservative thinking and hierarchy without much help from Plato. There were indigenous African empire-builders before the Europeans got there. (The idea that Africa had no indigenous imperialism seems to me the flip side of the belief that Africans couldn't have built cities like Great Zimbabwe.)
That's true.
But I do have a pretty big list in the US, starting with those who insist on a minimum wage of $7.50 and ending with those who want to restict women's reproductive rights and a whole lot in between.
But I will just leave it at that.
Reagan was mistaken, or possibly disingenuous (though I don’t believe he was thoughtful enough for that). Libertarianism is one version of conservatism, and it has been the most popular version in the USA for the past century or so, but it’s only one. Conservatisms differ in their ideas about how hierarchy should be preserved—Libertarianism, which locates freedom primarily in the right to property, believes that the best way is for government to protect property and to allow those with property to assert their power without restriction. Other types of conservatives believe the government should take a more active role and be the agent of elite domination. For the lower orders, this amounts to a choice between being beaten by cops or private security guards.
The critical anti-social concept is in italics, the rest is just context.
Leave - conservative (small 'c', please note.).
Remain - liberal.
I understand the term 'liberal' has different connotations on my side of the pond than it does in the US.
That is not the main thing though. In my life time there have been times when there have not been jobs for the unemployed to take let alone anyone who is already in a job. It may not be possible to move jobs. You may have to take a job that is a pay cut if you do.
Also there is the idea of a fair wage. We have minimum and living wages because when we didn’t people were not paid fairly. I remember seeing a report in the late 80s of a bar worker in a busy bar being paid £1:50 an hour. Even then that way very low. But we only had a recommended minimum wage then so companies could pay what they wanted.
That’s as maybe, but in my opinion the biggest problem with the contemporary Left is that they want to tell people what their interests are (and therefore how they should vote) rather than letting people set their own priorities and make their own decisions.
You can also go back to the English Civil War, and see the same political contours today. Thus, London was Parliamentarian, and today is mainly Labour.
Nope, there's a quantitative and qualitative difference between the two positions.
The Right want people to vote for privatised medicine even though most voters will get poorer healthcare. The Left want universal healthcare because of the belief that all voters should be able to access healthcare.
The Right's position is only achieved when a majority vote for poorer healthcare coverage for themselves.
I assume you mean 2016..
The biggest problem with the liberal, bourgeoise, right wing, capitalist lackey Left (not centre Left, Corbyn took that), is that they will not, dare not address social injustice at source.
The poles on my political quadrant would be, progressivism, conservatism, authoritarianism, libertarianism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I18hPb9tXAI
There's no such thing as Wilhoit says.
Really? There wasn't a sense that Roman/Greek/Egyptian Caesars/Pharaohs were appointed by the gods?
But, no, I don't think ancient kingship did generally claim that the king had been appointed by the gods. The king may have done what is pleasing to the gods - if he hadn't he wouldn't have been successful - but divine favour to individuals in the ancient world was fickle and easily alienated, and in any case there are a whole lot of gods who may favour different candidates.
The job of the king in the Greek world is to win battles, resolve disputes, and perform the rituals that please the gods. The king is no more guaranteed success in the third than he is in the first.
I'm not aware of any invocation of any theory of divine right in either Latin or Greek literature.
Aeneas in the Aeneid has the support of Venus but the enmity of Juno. He wins, and Augustus is destined eventually to become emperor, not because of divine appointment, but because of fate. But opposing fate doesn't make Aeneas's enemies such as Turnus wicked or evil. Jupiter may tell Juno to stop opposing Aeneas because of fate, but he doesn't tell the mortal Rutuli (who are fighting the Trojans).
Can you clarify what the actual difference is between the "divine right" of monarchs, and the claim of being divine/gods? I'm fairly sure that various dynasties around the world claimed to be divine (per Wikipedia) going back milennia.
I'm clearly missing something of the subtlety of difference between a monarch stating that they are in a position because they were appointed by a god (therefore presumably disagreeing with them means disagreeing with the deity) and actually claiming to be a deity (disagreeing with them presumably means disagreeing with the deity).
As far as i understand it God is ultimate power and kings rule at his appointment. That is passed to the next generation. Rome did nit have one all powerful god so kings could be gods. It is down ti the belief system.
Yes, making the king unhappy is a bad idea generally, in obvious concrete ways, but that doesn't create a moral obligation to keep the king happy. That the Emperor or Pharaoh is divine means that they are lucky and victorious - but their luck can desert them. The moral obligation is created by the fact that the king does their job successfully.
Here's a blog post on the subject of ancient polytheism I've found illuminating; It addresses ancient understandings of rulers' divinity, and I think in passing addresses why divine right isn't a concept that applies.
Medieval kingship doesn't merely inherit these kinds of concepts, it adds the concept of vassalage. The king's vassals swear to serve the king but not in unlimited ways, and in return the king gives them land and resolves their disputes with other vassals justly and comes to their aid if they are unjustly attacked and generally protects their rights. The king's right to his vassals' loyalty is dependent on the king's loyalty to his vassals.
What is the full value of my labour? The cost to my oppressor if he had to do the work himself? My oppressor needs to drain his septic tank as it's backing up his manorial dunnies. The task value is therefore his time at his rate of earnings, fifty guineas an hour (24 7 of course, his portfolio never sleeps), plus equipment hire or depreciation? What if he pays above that for all my labour as his full time 2,560 acre estate labourer? He's not my oppressor surely?
One could argue that it went hand in hand with the idea of the monarch as titular head of the Church in any given territory. So the monarch replaces the Pope.
Ok, that didn't apply to Catholic France but 'Gallicism' meant that French kings often felt they had the right to oppose, overrule or even boss the Pope around.
That's got a long history. Goes back to the time of Charlemagne.
But for the purposes of this discussion it's very much a 17th century thing.
The Puritans had their equivalents. I can't remember who said it now, but one historian wrote that what Cromwell did was effectively replace the Divine Right of Kings with the Divine Right of Cromwell.
What strikes me is the conservatism of at least a strand of radical thought, expressed by those like John Ball; "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was then the gentleman?" English radicals referred to the "Norman Yoke"; Blake's socialist vision in "Jerusalem" invokes the Glastonbury legend; the Land Song, originating in the 1880s, was raised by Harold Wilson in the general election of 1964: "The Land! the Land!' twas God who gave the Land! The Land! the Land! the ground on which we stand! Why should we be beggars, with the ballot in our hand?"God gave the Land to the People!" Similarly, the Grand Old Cause of the Commonwealth is a paradise to be regained.
,
I get the impression that in Anglo-Saxon England rulers didn't actually 'appoint' church leaders - bishops, abbots and abbesses etc but that royal patronage certainly came into it.
It's no accident that Lindisfarne is within sight of the Northumbrian royal seat at Bamburgh.
In general terms, though, I think it's fair to say that royal influence or interference with the Papacy became more intense from Carolingian times. The Christian East had - and has - its own issues with Caesaro-Papism.