• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does this video explain conservatism accurately?

Does this video portray conservatism accurately?


  • Total voters
    16
Sorry, not going to watch a 10 minute video as a teaser-OP by a noob not saying anything about it.
 
Does the video point out modern American conservatism is essentially an exercise in justifying the sociopathic tendencies of many conservatives?
 
My point is the Tea Party, and conservatives are very vocal about what they are against, but they become, of necessity, evasive about what they like, because they aren't for freedom, they are just against anyone running the show but themselves........................
Not true. There are those trying to hijack the Tea party label for their gain. Also keep in mind, very few republican politicians are real conservative. Most of them, I call RINO's. They just aren't as liberal as democrats. There are even democrat voters joining the Tea Party movements.
 
Well, aside from much of American conservative history (Federalists, Whigs, Early and post-Civil War GOP, and so on and so forth)......

Hawkish foreign policy conservatives, domestic policy neoconservatives, Bush "compassionate conservatism," Theoconservatives, Culture warriors.....

For the sake of argument, a decent chunk of the Tea Party.

I know a lot of conservatives, and exactly zero of them have expressed any wish for more government, well at least not federal gov't. State gov't I could easily imagine, but not federal.
 
....and its the premise on which socialist democracy operates. Too bad they don't understand that belief is destructive to true liberty.

Libertarians are shallow thinkers??? Guess I need big gubment to tell me what to do now.

His entire point is that the existence of things like rape, murder, theft, etc is proof that natural rights is wrong. It's the same argument people like him always make and have been making since the 18th century.

I doubt they will ever see that it was largely the point. ;)

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
Marx's "Socialism" described in the transitions of Communism is not actual Socialism, but just a title Marx used for his thesis. Marx could never clearly describe true Socialism and the closest he came was in the final stage of Communism he described.

Socialism itself is still a broader subject than just Marx's and Engle's manifesto. Effectively Marx's perfect Communism is equal to a general perfect Socialism.

So you were right in the specifics to Marx, I was just thinking too broadly.

Well every moderate step you could say is a watered down version of it's extreme alternative. I see many parallels to Anarchy and libertarianism just as you see parallels between Progressivism and Socialism. I still appreciate freedom and believe it is something that we should preserve and cherish, but at the same time I feel we need to take appropriate actions to make sure the irresponsible actions of a few don't have negatives consequences for the many.

You make a good point. Here's the way I sort of see it.

Anarchy is an extreme of libertarianism, but their basic premises arent the same. Libertarians believe government had a specific, narrowly defined role to play. Anarchists believe government has zero roles to play and must be completely eliminated. Different premises, similar conclusion- shrink government.

However, I find that Marx's premises and the premises of progressivism are mostly the same. Marx created the premises for progressivism. They just differ on the "revolutionary" concept and the conclusions differ alittle.
 
I know a lot of conservatives, and exactly zero of them have expressed any wish for more government, well at least not federal gov't. State gov't I could easily imagine, but not federal.

Listen more carefully. Could their stance on social issues call for more federal regulation? Could their stance on educational progress be considered on a national, rather than state, level? Do they consider the Great Society-era programs largely good? How do they wish to conduct the War on Terror?

I am not one to argue against the concept of bigger government, so I do not take it as a bad thing in of itself.
 
However, I find that Marx's premises and the premises of progressivism are mostly the same. Marx created the premises for progressivism. They just differ on the "revolutionary" concept and the conclusions differ alittle.

Why would you think that? They are entirely different. Most were shaped by the social gospel and anti-party machinery. These were reformers who did not take on the gradualism of some socialists, let alone accept the idea of revolution.
 
Last edited:
You make a good point. Here's the way I sort of see it.

Anarchy is an extreme of libertarianism, but their basic premises arent the same. Libertarians believe government had a specific, narrowly defined role to play. Anarchists believe government has zero roles to play and must be completely eliminated. Different premises, similar conclusion- shrink government.

However, I find that Marx's premises and the premises of progressivism are mostly the same. Marx created the premises for progressivism. They just differ on the "revolutionary" concept and the conclusions differ alittle.

I can see where you'e coming from with that. Though I still personally disagree.

I do agree that in many cases Marx influenced the creation of progressivism, however I don't believe that the premises are necessarily the same. I will always support capitalism over communism. I do believe however that we need to employ appropriate regulations in order to maintain the stability of our economy and the general well-being of our citizenry. I believe that if we make substantial and effective economic and educational reform we can gradually wean much of our population off of much of the welfare we offer today.

I would assume though that you as a libertarian and I as a progressive, carry fairly opposite views on what those economic and social reforms should be.
 
Why would you think that? They are entirely different. Most were shaped by the social gospel and anti-party machinery. These were reformers who did not take on the gradualism of some socialists, let alone accept the idea of revolution.

I think the Gospel of Wealth is something that is not mentioned nearly enough today. Look at how much good Andrew Carnegie did following that philosophy.
 
I can see where you'e coming from with that. Though I still personally disagree.

I do agree that in many cases Marx influenced the creation of progressivism, however I don't believe that the premises are necessarily the same. I will always support capitalism over communism. I do believe however that we need to employ appropriate regulations in order to maintain the stability of our economy and the general well-being of our citizenry. I believe that if we make substantial and effective economic and educational reform we can gradually wean much of our population off of much of the welfare we offer today.

I would assume though that you as a libertarian and I as a progressive, carry fairly opposite views on what those economic and social reforms should be.

The thing about Marx, is he actually didn't really make a strong case for communism. Alot of his ideas on communism are just plain guesswork, which is why it failed so tremendously. His arguments about capitalism are really what defined him as a thinker, and he was much stronger at analyzing then he was at reforming. You can agree with every single one of his arguments, and still not believe in communism. That's what I see the progressive movement as being about, supporting Marxist ideas without necessarily supporting radical and revolutionary approach he favors.
 
The thing about Marx, is he actually didn't really make a strong case for communism. Alot of his ideas on communism are just plain guesswork, which is why it failed so tremendously. His arguments about capitalism are really what defined him as a thinker, and he was much stronger at analyzing then he was at reforming. You can agree with every single one of his arguments, and still not believe in communism. That's what I see the progressive movement as being about, supporting Marxist ideas without necessarily supporting radical and revolutionary approach he favors.

That is an interesting perspective. I agree with your comment on Marx not properly constructing Communism in his works and basing most of his writing off of critique.

I do believe that Marx was a tremendous political thinker of his time, I also though think the same of Niccolo Machiavelli. I cannot I say I support their ideas, but I do respect them.
Though I'd like to raise the point that Marxism without its revolutionary ideals is actually just Socialism. The Progressive movement itself though is not based off of pushing Socialism, but utilizing different mediums in order to make a political, economic, or social change. It is just happenstance today that many of the economic reforms we wish to make have perhaps a "socialist" connotation, resulting from The Cold War and the subsequent Red Scare which lingers far into today's ideologies.
 
That is an interesting perspective. I agree with your comment on Marx not properly constructing Communism in his works and basing most of his writing off of critique.

I do believe that Marx was a tremendous political thinker of his time, I also though think the same of Niccolo Machiavelli. I cannot I say I support their ideas, but I do respect them.
Though I'd like to raise the point that Marxism without its revolutionary ideals is actually just Socialism. The Progressive movement itself though is not based off of pushing Socialism, but utilizing different mediums in order to make a political, economic, or social change. It is just happenstance today that many of the economic reforms we wish to make have perhaps a "socialist" connotation, resulting from The Cold War and the subsequent Red Scare which lingers far into today's ideologies.

I have a lot of respect for him as a thinker. I think his most of his ideas were either wrong at a fundamental, don't apply today, or more accurately describe human nature rather then capitalism. For example, his entire idea of examining economics was that we should throw out use-value of objects and merely look at socially necessary time values. Well no, that was a fundamental flaw in his thinking, to only look at supply without understanding how it intersects with demand would obviously yield extremely different interpretations of how economic forces work. Not to mention, he saw the value of an commodity as strictly being an object how much time it takes to make it. Also wrong, he doesn't take any consideration in the value of natural resources, but merely sees it as being as function of how long it took to harvest it. The fundamental flaws here are glaring.

But as a thinker and the way he saw how different things were interwoven and interacted, he was brilliant. Brilliant, but still wrong.

I'm not saying progressivism means socialism. What I'm saying, is the results you seek as a result of social, economic, and political change is actually extremely similar to what socialists and marxists seek out of overthrowing the capitalist system. I take a much more functionalist approach to society, and seek changes that will increase the stability and maximize efficiency rather then setting arbitrary social standards. If the system is working properly, then much of the rest takes care of itself; but not the other way around.
 
IOW, it is unprovable and can only be accepted as a matter of faith.

You have to believe something or another is how things should be. You can't prove how things should be according to you.

It's kind of strangely pathetic how someone can create a thread about a political philosophy and then balkers say "prove it." WTF? Prove what? It's a philosophy.
 
I have a lot of respect for him as a thinker. I think his most of his ideas were either wrong at a fundamental, don't apply today, or more accurately describe human nature rather then capitalism. For example, his entire idea of examining economics was that we should throw out use-value of objects and merely look at socially necessary time values. Well no, that was a fundamental flaw in his thinking, to only look at supply without understanding how it intersects with demand would obviously yield extremely different interpretations of how economic forces work. Not to mention, he saw the value of an commodity as strictly being an object how much time it takes to make it. Also wrong, he doesn't take any consideration in the value of natural resources, but merely sees it as being as function of how long it took to harvest it. The fundamental flaws here are glaring.

But as a thinker and the way he saw how different things were interwoven and interacted, he was brilliant. Brilliant, but still wrong.

I'm not saying progressivism means socialism. What I'm saying, is the results you seek as a result of social, economic, and political change is actually extremely similar to what socialists and marxists seek out of overthrowing the capitalist system. I take a much more functionalist approach to society, and seek changes that will increase the stability and maximize efficiency rather then setting arbitrary social standards. If the system is working properly, then much of the rest takes care of itself; but not the other way around.

We appear to be fairly congruent on the subject of Karl Marx at least.

I believe that your functionalist approach is great idea and would be very successful if applied in the right circumstances. I think libertarianism is a great idea, but the world isn't ready for it yet.

I don't believe that the system we now have currently is functioning, so i couldn't personally feel alright about leaving it to itself. I believe we should work towards world with minimal government, and rely on trust between individuals, however in order to do that I feel we need to take a few steps in the opposite direction. I feel we need to reel in our current system and educate our citizenry, before giving them more freedoms and responsibilities.
 
You have to believe something or another is how things should be. You can't prove how things should be according to you.

It's kind of strangely pathetic how someone can create a thread about a political philosophy and then balkers say "prove it." WTF? Prove what? It's a philosophy.

I don't think one has to believe that things should be a certain way, though that is pretty common. And I agree that at a certain point, faith always comes into play. However, I do think it's important to note where faith comes into play, and not pretend that ones' philosophy is scientific. This way, people can decide if they share the item(s) of faith on which a philosophy is based.
 
Back
Top Bottom