On the Subject of Progressivism and Conservatism

[Sartov]

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understandimg, but it is the most relevent nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

[US-SSR]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

[Sartov]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

An interesting note to start the debate on!

Are we to measure, by this standard, that the United States during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (a true Golden Age, especially for the Free Market) was a failure, and that Cambodia during it's Revolution summarily executing anyone who posed a threat to their ideals was a success?

Or that the British Empire, a state upon which the sun never set, and indeed brought great prosperity to Europe and new technology to foreign lands through tade, was a failure while China under Mao Zedong, which attempted to erase its very heritage and identity as a people, was a success?

That Germany under the Kaiserreich, a rapidly growing industrial and colonial power at the dawn of the 20th century, was a failure while later Socialist leadership (First under the NSDAP then under Soviet occupation) which committed great atrocities against that very same nation, was a success?

[Rojava Free State]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

An interesting note to start the debate on!

Are we to measure, by this standard, that the United States during Theodore Roosevelt's presidency (a true Golden Age, especially for the Free Market) was a failure, and that Cambodia during it's Revolution summarily executing anyone who posed a threat to their ideals was a success?

Or that the British Empire, a state upon which the sun never set, and indeed brought great prosperity to Europe and new technology to foreign lands through tade, was a failure while China under Mao Zedong, which attempted to erase its very heritage and identity as a people, was a success?

That Germany under the Kaiserreich, a rapidly growing industrial and colonial power at the dawn of the 20th century, was a failure while later Socialist leadership (First under the NSDAP then under Soviet occupation) which committed great atrocities against that very same nation, was a success?

The American gilded age was a time of great inequality and poverty in america. It was a great time for a few people and a real hellhole for many others. I don't think communism works or ends on a happy note, but Jesus Christ crony capitalism is good at putting people six feet underground

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would consider myself a traditionalist anarchist. In that I support the principles of traditionalism, but believe that they align more closely to anarchy than with powerful states. I think that we need tradition because our desire for it is natural and beneficial. If you do not give the appetite for tradition something that will strengthen people, then it will find something that will weaken them.

[Pacomia]

Wait, what are we supposed to talk about?

I’m not a traditionalist because I think tradition is based not in fact but in religious belief and superstition, which is nothing to build a culture around.

[The Wasatch]

I support democratic socialism/social democracy because it is the best way to have a legal and economic organization that benefits all members of society and it is the most fair socioeconomic system. The law is best if it represents all members of a society, and as of such, truly just laws flourish under a democracy where all citizens are given the right to participate. Also, corporations must be regulated for the good of society. I do value tradition, however.

[Rojava Free State]

Wait, what are we supposed to talk about?

I’m not a traditionalist because I think tradition is based not in fact but in religious belief and superstition, which is nothing to build a culture around.

I love me some traditions and all but dead set trads can be so annoying. They're the real death of the party.

[Pacomia]

And another thing: Morals are subjective. There is no one true set of morals, instead many, many different sets of morals, each different from each other. Many of them overlap greatly, and there’s many things pretty much universally accepted as not a good thing to do (i.e. murder, theft, torture, etc.), but you can’t just take your beliefs and call them universal morals.

[Sartov]

There's another common argument I hear often, Equality. Equality under what, I ask? In a just world, is it right to reward a man who does nothing as much as a man who works hard every day? Is it just to offer responsibility to a man who either cares nothing for leadership, or is utterly inept as one, when a far more capable man is kept from rising above his mediocre peers because we're an "equal" society? Who do we answer to without a hierarchy to paint a clear picture of who stands above or below us? Is a pyramid great if it's only a base layer, as it's then equal, with nothing above it?


Consider that perhaps we may all be regarded as equal under the law, suffering not the rule of the mob, and thereby allowed to rise or fall as far as we, as individuals, may take ourselves. Consider the responsibility in the hands of a man to make good choices, to be responsible and realistic, not blame an unchanging or uncaring sociey for his misfortunes.


As for morals, yes you can bind a group under such things. Those are called ethics, which is a moral elevated to a societal level, and a good indication that harmonization between individualist and collectivist thinking is possible on some superficial level.

[Kaystein]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

[Hon Gong]

I support Liberalism (Not the American kind) because the government has no duty interfering in the private lives of citizens as long as they aren't harming others.

I'm against monarchy as no one has a 'divine' right to rule over others, and quite frankly many royal families have ended up quite inbred.
I'm against communism as it almost certainly leads to a marxist-leninist dictatorship and is inefficient in controlling the economy.

[-Ocelot-]

I support socialism because capitalism has failed in every nation where it has been tried.

Under socialism the government would seize the computer/phone you used to write this message and send you to a work camp for being too rich. You'd die from being excessively abused by guards who would perceive you as the privileged oppressor.

[Kowani]

Conservatism is to pick the side of the loser. To win, the society would need to remain static, but such a thing is impossible.

[Sartov]

Conservatism is to pick the side of the loser. To win, the society would need to remain static, but such a thing is impossible.

Please elaborate, as I'm having a hard time understanding how abstract concepts, such as society, can claim victory or defeat, let alone what conditions warrant such status.

It may apply to individuals, specifically to those who seek the end of commitment to higher powers (God, Kings, Aristocrats, etc...), to those who seek the destruction of the family structure and the purity of the rural community, and to those who seek to upset the Natural Law by imposing mob rule, thereby ushering in tyranny of the majority

Then it might well be a victory to such men, to destroy Conservatism and all which is good that it stands for.

[Kowani]

Conservatism is to pick the side of the loser. To win, the society would need to remain static, but such a thing is impossible.

Please elaborate, as I'm having a hard time understanding how abstract concepts, such as society, can claim victory or defeat, let alone what conditions warrant such status.

It may apply to individuals, specifically to those who seek the end of commitment to higher powers (God, Kings, Aristocrats, etc...), to those who seek the destruction of the family structure and the purity of the rural community, and to those who seek to upset the Natural Law by imposing mob rule, thereby ushering in tyranny of the majority

Then it might well be a victory to such men, to destroy Conservatism and all which is good that it stands for.

There is no such thing as natural law. It’s a convenient fiction. Beyond that. A society does not win (except maybe in a war of extinction), society is a battleground. A battleground between many disparate interests, yet with mutually exclusive victory conditions. For monarchists, the continued existence (and usually power) of the monarchy. For Republicans, the abolition thereof. Both cannot be satisfied. One must lose.

That said, on the grand scale of history, conservatism always loses.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Please elaborate, as I'm having a hard time understanding how abstract concepts, such as society, can claim victory or defeat, let alone what conditions warrant such status.

It may apply to individuals, specifically to those who seek the end of commitment to higher powers (God, Kings, Aristocrats, etc...), to those who seek the destruction of the family structure and the purity of the rural community, and to those who seek to upset the Natural Law by imposing mob rule, thereby ushering in tyranny of the majority

Then it might well be a victory to such men, to destroy Conservatism and all which is good that it stands for.

There is no such thing as natural law. It’s a convenient fiction. Beyond that. A society does not win (except maybe in a war of extinction), society is a battleground. A battleground between many disparate interests, yet with mutually exclusive victory conditions. For monarchists, the continued existence (and usually power) of the monarchy. For Republicans, the abolition thereof. Both cannot be satisfied. One must lose.

That said, on the grand scale of history, conservatism always loses.

Not necessarily. It's tough to find any grand narrative of history, and we should always be cautious about looking for something like that.

[Kowani]

There is no such thing as natural law. It’s a convenient fiction. Beyond that. A society does not win (except maybe in a war of extinction), society is a battleground. A battleground between many disparate interests, yet with mutually exclusive victory conditions. For monarchists, the continued existence (and usually power) of the monarchy. For Republicans, the abolition thereof. Both cannot be satisfied. One must lose.

That said, on the grand scale of history, conservatism always loses.

Not necessarily. It's tough to find any grand narrative of history, and we should always be cautious about looking for something like that.

Oh, of course. Things are not written.
That said, the general trends are clear-and even more depending upon where you draw your line.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not necessarily. It's tough to find any grand narrative of history, and we should always be cautious about looking for something like that.

Oh, of course. Things are not written.
That said, the general trends are clear-and even more depending upon where you draw your line.

Disagree. The past 600 years or so are not long in the grand scheme of history.

[Technoscience Leftwing]

A simple question has been on my mind for some time now, and I feel a great need to understand the rationale behind it. The forum may not be the best place to seek such understandimg, but it is the most relevent nevertheless.

Progressives, Democrats, Socialists (National and Marxist), Populists, and Liberals alike. Share with me this, why do you uphold the beliefs that you do? To what end do they serve you individually, or satisfy your basic human needs?

Fellow Monarchists, Republicans, Traditionalists and advocates of all that is tried, true, and of the Natural Law and Heavenly Order. What are your individual reasons for standing with the foundation of Western society? Elaborate, if you will, on what draws you to the morals and virtues that have stood true for centuries, and how you feel we could benefit best by returning to such noble principles.

If people stopped in development on the traditional and proven, then we still lived in caves. Or under feudalism. And life in a primitive and feudal society is primarily technical backwardness and despotism (monarch, feudal lord, taboo, conformism, custom). And this leads to the suffering of most people: there is no medicine, much effort is required to extract food and fuel, there is no reliable knowledge about the threats and opportunities of the world. As a result, everyone lives poorly.

Therefore, you need to get away from the traditional way of life to a more comfortable and joyful one. And this is done through the development of technology, egalitarian access to the fruits of technology, and the emancipation of ascetic taboos. This is progress.

P.S. Сколько тут дореволюционных российских флагов.. И один я с красным.

[Kowani]

Oh, of course. Things are not written.
That said, the general trends are clear-and even more depending upon where you draw your line.

Disagree. The past 600 years or so are not long in the grand scheme of history.

And? We were not static before that, either.


The culture of the Neolithic was not that of Sumer, and that of Sumer different from Akkadia.
An Olmec would live a different life from an Aztec, etc.

[Sartov]

I would beg to differ. The Natural Law, if you are not aware, is that all men depend on a hierarchy to some extent. No man is an island, and society merely serves as a Common Law to which those who live under it are held accountable.

Choosing between Republic and Monarchy is to choose between Apples and Oranges. You can have libertarian Kingships just as much as tyrannical Republics, case and point being Democracy and its inevitible degradation into.a tyranny of the majority.

That said, while Conservative governments may be defeated, these are but temporary setbacks. Populist demagogues may manipulate millions to lead them from the light and into dark places, but the principles and virtues which are right and good will always prevail so long as there are men who remember what is good.

Conservatism, as a principle is the foundation of a healthy society, and can never be defeated. Much as we will never be rid of self-absorbed cynics who lose faith in Heaven, in family, and in the Natural Law. Nothing ever changes, it always has been, and ever will be, a perpetual war between those who accept reality, so seeking to conserve a stable way of life, and those tempted to pointlessy chase after fantasies that the nature of Man can ever be changed.

As a student of Psychology, who wholeheartedly rejects Sociology, I can assure you that there really is nothing new under the sun. No forward progress, nor point of regress. Society already is, as you said, static in its nature.

Now technology, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Disagree. The past 600 years or so are not long in the grand scheme of history.

And? We were not static before that, either.


The culture of the Neolithic was not that of Sumer, and that of Sumer different from Akkadia.
An Olmec would live a different life from an Aztec, etc.

My point is, that progress is not set in stone. What we have now could collapse just as easily as anything else. It's really all very recent. Yes, change is constant, but it's not necessarily upward progress.

[Kowani]

I would beg to differ. The Natural Law, if you are not aware, is that all men depend on a hierarchy to some extent. No man is an island, and society merely serves as a Common Law to which those who live under it are held accountable.

Ahh. My bad. I thought you see using Natural Law in the “life liberty, property” Enlightenment sense. In this case, I would agree.

Choosing between Republic and Monarchy is to choose between Apples and Oranges. You can have libertarian Kingships just as much as tyrannical Republics, case and point being Democracy and its inevitible degradation into.a tyranny of the majority.

The issue is not liberty or tyranny, such a thing is irrelevant. The only matter of a state is the material conditions of life.

That said, while Conservative governments may be defeated, these are but temporary setbacks

The return of the puritans is right around the corner. Wait.

. Populist demagogues may manipulate millions to lead them from the light and into dark places, but the principles and virtues which are right and good will always prevail so long as there are men who remember what is good.

There are good principles, nor good virtues, both goodness and virtue are inventions of the mind. They serve as nothing but distractions.

Conservatism, as a principle is the foundation of a healthy society, and can never be defeated. Much as we will never be rid of self-absorbed cynics who lose faith in Heaven, in family, and in the Natural Law. Nothing ever changes, it always has been, and ever will be, a perpetual war between those who accept reality, so seeking to conserve a stable way of life, and those tempted to pointlessy chase after fantasies that the nature of Man can ever be changed.

Wring. Conservatism is the principle of a cherry-picking society. These “self-absorbed cynics” as you call us, are those who dare to take a step further. Stability is of no inherent value.

As a student of Psychology, who wholeheartedly rejects Sociology, I can assure you that there really is nothing new under the sun. No forward progress, nor point of regress. Society already is, as you said, static in its nature.

Congratulations, you win the grand prize-the most factually incorrect thing ever said on NSG.

[Kowani]

And? We were not static before that, either.


The culture of the Neolithic was not that of Sumer, and that of Sumer different from Akkadia.
An Olmec would live a different life from an Aztec, etc.

My point is, that progress is not set in stone. What we have now could collapse just as easily as anything else. It's really all very recent. Yes, change is constant, but it's not necessarily upward progress.

If it were all to collapse, that which would rise from the ruins would eventually be better than that of today-assuming we didn’t irreparably damage the environment or commit omnicide. The very instincts of humanity, and the nature of physical reality make it so.