On the Subject of Progressivism and Conservatism

[New haven america]

I support whatever the fuck I want because I feel like it.

[Napkizemlja]

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia are all in the same league and more conservative than them. The United States also has a higher HDI than Finland. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

Hellooo, Australian here. If we’re conservative in the sense of universal healthcare, marriage equality, legal abortion, and well funded welfare, what the hell is a progressive nation like? It’s almost as if with the other examples their HDI isn’t even close to proportional considering the distribution of those wages amongst the general populace

Edit: see above post for objective data backing that up. Rather funny that after the adjustment factors, the highest HDI is still the most progressive out of the lot you listed (Australia)

You guys basically just legalized same-sex marriage; even the United States beat you guys. Not to mention your massive issues with racism (need I mention you guys just dumping refugees into another country). There are also a lot of conservatives that support universal healthcare and social welfare (both now and historically); it's almost like you have a meme tier idea about politics.

Japan is hardly progressive and is neck and neck with both Norway and Iceland.

[New haven america]

Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia are all in the same league and more conservative than them. The United States also has a higher HDI than Finland. It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

Hellooo, Australian here. If we’re conservative in the sense of universal healthcare, marriage equality, legal abortion, and well funded welfare, what the hell is a progressive nation like? It’s almost as if with the other examples their HDI isn’t even close to proportional considering the distribution of those wages amongst the general populace

Edit: see above post for objective data backing that up. Rather funny that after the adjustment factors, the highest HDI is still the most progressive out of the lot you listed (Australia)

I mean, the casual racism and obscene housing market could have some work done.

[Kaedijork]

Once inequality is factored in howewer, the HDI rankings change drastically, with America falling all the way to #24, essentially tied with my country of Slovakia, and Hong Kong along with Singapore drop to #21 and #19 respectively, while Australia sits at #7:

With good old Japan at number 2. Compared to the other Nordic countries, Switzerland is also more conservative. What you see in the top quartile is a mix of both considerably conservative

And even on the normal HDI without inequality being factored in, Iceland handily defeats Hong Kong, Singapore, and the United States, and Norway tops the chart at number 1:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ment_Index

And yet they also rank higher or are basically neck and neck with Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland with the only two countries coming close to Norway both being considerably more conservative than it.

It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

What are you trying to argue mate? Youre disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, back it up with an ideological argument for us to consider other than CONSERVATISM GOOD, PROGRESSIVE BAD

Also, I'd just like to see that logic fares if I used that argument against a conservative. There were millions of deaths in the Soviet Union. But as correlation doesn't equal causation; its not the fault of communism, its the fault of the KGB and Stalin.

[Kaedijork]

Hellooo, Australian here. If we’re conservative in the sense of universal healthcare, marriage equality, legal abortion, and well funded welfare, what the hell is a progressive nation like? It’s almost as if with the other examples their HDI isn’t even close to proportional considering the distribution of those wages amongst the general populace

Edit: see above post for objective data backing that up. Rather funny that after the adjustment factors, the highest HDI is still the most progressive out of the lot you listed (Australia)

I mean, the casual racism and obscene housing market could have some work done.

Reply: I do not for a second believe we are anywhere near progressive enough. Not even close to Scandinavia or even Canada. We're going bloody backwards at the moment, especially under the Liberal Party. But it was a pointed comparison to how we're more progressive than the other countries he mentions.

[Napkizemlja]

Hellooo, Australian here. If we’re conservative in the sense of universal healthcare, marriage equality, legal abortion, and well funded welfare, what the hell is a progressive nation like? It’s almost as if with the other examples their HDI isn’t even close to proportional considering the distribution of those wages amongst the general populace

Edit: see above post for objective data backing that up. Rather funny that after the adjustment factors, the highest HDI is still the most progressive out of the lot you listed (Australia)

I mean, the casual racism and obscene housing market could have some work done.

Most of the Western world suffers from "Not Americaitis" where everything is viewed and compared to the US when it comes to self-analysis and people can get away with hand-waving issues away and meme tier introspection because "At least we aren't America". It's rather sad and kind of pathetic. Some countries are worse than others *cough*Canada*cough* but generally speaking for whatever reason all conservatives, worldwide, are compared to the GOP.

[Napkizemlja]

With good old Japan at number 2. Compared to the other Nordic countries, Switzerland is also more conservative. What you see in the top quartile is a mix of both considerably conservative

And yet they also rank higher or are basically neck and neck with Sweden, Denmark, and Iceland with the only two countries coming close to Norway both being considerably more conservative than it.

It's almost like correlation doesn't equal causation.

What are you trying to argue mate? Youre disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, back it up with an ideological argument for us to consider other than CONSERVATISM GOOD, PROGRESSIVE BAD

Also, I'd just like to see that logic fares if I used that argument against a conservative. There were millions of deaths in the Soviet Union. But as correlation doesn't equal causation; its not the fault of communism, its the fault of the KGB and Stalin.

My dawg, you're the one trying to push X is good, Y is bad. I'm here telling you correlation doesn't equal causation since there are both very well developed progressive and conservative countries.

Yeah it wasn't the fault of communism in of itself, there have been communist parties in power that haven't engaged in that kind of widespread barbarity. Political ideologies can have tendency to push people towards extremes more than others, but it is not an absolute given and communism ranks below fascism when it comes to the pushing to extremes front.

[Kaedijork]

I mean, the casual racism and obscene housing market could have some work done.

Most of the Western world suffers from "Not Americaitis" where everything is viewed and compared to the US when it comes to self-analysis and people can get away with hand-waving issues away and meme tier introspection because "At least we aren't America". It's rather sad and kind of pathetic. Some countries are worse than others *cough*Canada*cough* but generally speaking for whatever reason all conservatives, worldwide, are compared to the GOP.

Cool, we're just gonna skim over the other points I made that explained why I said that, and addressed your 'CORRELATION ISNT CAUSATION!!111!1'

[Napkizemlja]

Most of the Western world suffers from "Not Americaitis" where everything is viewed and compared to the US when it comes to self-analysis and people can get away with hand-waving issues away and meme tier introspection because "At least we aren't America". It's rather sad and kind of pathetic. Some countries are worse than others *cough*Canada*cough* but generally speaking for whatever reason all conservatives, worldwide, are compared to the GOP.

Cool, we're just gonna skim over the other points I made that explained why I said that, and addressed your 'CORRELATION ISNT CAUSATION!!111!1'

You didn't address it lmao.

[Kaedijork]

Cool, we're just gonna skim over the other points I made that explained why I said that, and addressed your 'CORRELATION ISNT CAUSATION!!111!1'

You didn't address it lmao.

Also, I'd just like to see that logic fares if I used that argument against a conservative. There were millions of deaths in the Soviet Union. But as correlation doesn't equal causation; its not the fault of communism, its the fault of the KGB and Stalin.

[Napkizemlja]

You didn't address it lmao.

Also, I'd just like to see that logic fares if I used that argument against a conservative. There were millions of deaths in the Soviet Union. But as correlation doesn't equal causation; its not the fault of communism, its the fault of the KGB and Stalin.

Yeah dawg you should check my reply to that. Also it wasn't really addressing it, more just going "No but you".

[Napkizemlja]

I'm sure having the world's largest sovereign wealth fund has nothing to do with Norway's development, fueled by its oil production. Oddly, it was created in 1990 and not long after that, almost as if by magic, Norway soared to the top of the HDI list where it remains today. This isn't also mentioning that the Nordic model incorporated both left and right wing factors into its creation. For instance, all of them have little product regulation, operate on a corporatist model (corporatism being a traditionally right-wing concept), having strong property rights and flexible labour laws.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

I'm sure having the world's largest sovereign wealth fund has nothing to do with Norway's development, fueled by its oil production. Oddly, it was created in 1990 and not long after that, almost as if by magic, Norway soared to the top of the HDI list where it remains today. This isn't also mentioning that the Nordic model incorporated both left and right wing factors into its creation. For instance, all of them have little product regulation, operate on a corporatist model (corporatism being a traditionally right-wing concept), having strong property rights and flexible labour laws.

Corporatism is a principle of social democracy though, and is not a solely rightwing concept given that historical social democratic parties did incorporate some forms of corporatism within their economic policies, effectively implementing regulated welfare capitalism along Keynesian lines within their nations. In addition, Norwegians, along with other Nordic countries, have a high amount of workers being unionized, which is one of the main reasons for their higher social mobility and average wages, even if the Nordic Model doesn't mandate a national minimum wage, and conservatives are generally hostile to labour unions. And the myth about "Norway only achieving development due to oil" has been debunked here:
https://medium.com/@Jernfrost/no-norway ... b58dd365e5
Further reading about social corporatism and its relation to social democracy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_corporatism
Rosser & Rosser 2003, p. 226: "Liberal corporatism is largely self-organized between labor and management, with only a supporting role for government. Leading examples of such systems are found in small, ethnically homogeneous countries with strong traditions of social democratic or labor party rule, such as Sweden’s Nordic neighbors. Using a scale of 0.0 to 2.0 and subjectively assigning values based on six previous studies, Frederic Pryor in 1988 found Norway and Sweden the most corporatist at 2.0 each, followed by Austria at 1.8, the Netherlands at 1.5, Finland, Denmark, and Belgium at 1.3 each, and Switzerland and West Germany at 1.0 each".

[Plzen]

As a social-democrat, the social ideals that I uphold come from two distinct yet related intellectual traditions: the the liberal traditions of the enlightenment, and the socialist ideals that evolved out of the liberal tradition in the 19th Century. Let's examine the basic motivations of each as turn.

---

First, the liberal tradition. I see the basic principle of the liberal intellectual tradition as exists today thus:

Anthropocentrism.

We do not recognise as legitimate any aspect of social organisation that serves an external and fictitious power. God and other spiritual powers? Conservative notions of "morality"? If these things wish to have any influence on how we live our lives as human beings, then they can feel free to argue their own case at our parliamentary floors - humans shouldn't argue their corner for them. If a person is impoverished and cannot afford a decent home, that makes our real, observable universe less pleasant. If a person suffers a crippling injury in battle in some pointless war, that makes the real, observable universe less pleasant.

On the other hand, there's nothing observably real about offending God. So why should we care? Society is a matter of practical organisation, and any abstract imaginations we build around us should serve this end of real, practical organisation.

We do not accept that there is anything inherent about power. Power and authority, as it exists in modern society, is essentially a matter of faith. The people who have power have power because we believe them to have power. Presidents, CEOs, and cardinals have power because we as people are willing to listen to and obey them. All it would take to bring all of them crashing down is for people to just stop obeying. Power is inherently the affair of human beings, and so are controlled exclusively by human action.

Similarly, just as we do not believe that invisible abstractions should dictate what goals our society should strive towards, we do not believe that invisible abstractions should have anything to do with how we achieve them. We believe in the industry and ingenuity of the human being. People in the past prayed to their spirits and their Gods for relief from sorrow and tragedy in their lives. Well, we liberals believe that God helps those who help themselves, as the saying goes. When we have difficulties in our lives, from deeply personal difficulties unique to each person to the larger, social evils like poverty and strife, we are not content to simply let it be, or trust that some outside authority will solve them for us. We demand that we ourselves, our government officials, scientists and engineers - that is to say, human beings - fix them, and preferably soon, please.

In the age of the scientific method, when ever greater secrets of the natural world unravels before us, there's no reason why humanity can't pick up its own hammer to solve its own problems.

---

Second, the socialist offshoot. I see the basic principles here as below:

Pragmatism.

When a problem arises, socialists ask themselves: why did this happen? We also tend to ask, how do we as a society solve this? What we tend to not ask is, "who is to blame for this?" Throwing around blame and pointing fingers, while emotionally satisfying, solves nothing.

We are disinterested in personal responsibility, in judging people as "good" or "bad," because these are concepts that only apply if you accept to the fullest extent the concept of individual autonomy. By blaming a criminal for a crime, you are accepting implicitly that the individual criminal person is the ultimate reason the crime was committed.

We, as socialists, do not accept this perspective. We believe in the power of nurture to shape people and shape individual behaviour. People do not live in a void, they live as a part of a society. Someone's so-called "character," his personality, attitudes, emotions, and behaviours, reflect to a very large extent the environment in which he lived and continues to live. In society, a very large part of this environment is other people - the thing that we abstract as "society."

If it is our intention to actually solve - or at least reduce - social ills like poverty, crime, etc., then we believe it must first be accepted that these are social ills, that we can act on and fight as a society, instead of leaving it to individual people doing their individual things. After all, the steam engine wasn't engineered by treating gas as a multitude of molecules in random Brownian motion. It was engineered by treating a gas as a gas, finding out how it behaves as a whole then engineering with that knowledge of gas behaviour.

The strong faith in equality that many people associate with socialists comes from here as well. Socialists are very averse to punishment. We believe in isolation, keeping dangerous people away from society, or perhaps in rehabilitation, making dangerous people less dangerous. But hurting dangerous people because "they deserve it?" That runs contrary to the socialist ideal. Once it is accepted how absurd and counterproductive it is to blame people for their character traits, and we socialists accept this, then things like treating people as if their opinions matter more than everyone else's just because they're successful and powerful becomes much more difficult to justify.

---

Why am I a social-democrat? Simply put, because I agree with these principles.

[The Galactic Supremacy]

Yeah, funny how the only objective measure of 'human flourishing' is highest in the least conservative and most progressive countries on the planet (i.e. the nordic countries; Sweden, Denmark, and Scandinavia in general)

What is it with you and the rest labeling specific countries as either progressive or conservative? How can they nicely fit into such criteria?

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Yeah, funny how the only objective measure of 'human flourishing' is highest in the least conservative and most progressive countries on the planet (i.e. the nordic countries; Sweden, Denmark, and Scandinavia in general)

What is it with you and the rest labeling specific countries as either progressive or conservative? How can they nicely fit into such criteria?

Progressive countries as defined by him generally mean countries practicing Keynesian economic policies and socially progressive laws, such as federal anti-discrimination laws, women's rights, full marriage equality, legal abortion, separation of church and state, decriminalization and/or legalization of narcotics, along with universal healthcare, universal public education, generous welfare benefits, unemployment insurance, labour rights, high minimum wages, regulation of big business, subsidizing green energy, and of course, good pensions. Conservative countries on the other hand would mostly favour free-market capitalism, little to no regulations on private enterprise or fossil fuels, reduction or outright elimination of welfare, a privatized healthcare system, restrictions towards abortion, no federal anti-discrimination laws, restriction of LGBTQ rights, pro-business policies, emphasis on the role of religion within society, and culturally conservative values.

[Kowani]

Though I consider myself to be more pragmatic than ideological in my political views, I am a conservative through-and-through.

And to be a conservative is to understand that there are certain universal things that must be preserved and promoted within society, for the wellbeing of the individual and the betterment of society as a whole, whether that be morally, economically, politically or otherwise.

These 'things' are evident in Man's very static nature, whose biological composition and physiological needs have not significantly changed over time. And by catering to them to-the-letter, we work towards objectively sustaining and advancing civilization.

What lies at the centerpiece of such an idea is the intention for 'human flourishing' ( "eudaimonia" as Aristotle or Nimbus put it)

Whether you be a follower of New Age Natural Law theories - the likes that occupy the minds of the late John Finnis - or are more acquainted with the Maqasid Theory of Islamic Law, or are captivated by the modern calculation of the Human Development Index, the idea that there are universal principles (or fixed factors) that collectively explain societal progress and individual wellbeing is overwhelming in scientific or economic literature.

Probably the best iteration of these universal principles are reflected in the words of Islamic scholar Al Ghazali, who reckons them to be the promotion and preservation of religion, life, intellect, wealth, and family/progeny.

As a whole, this serves to articulate a conservative notion of progress as well as an adequate response to those who value 'change-for-the-sake-of-change' forms of "progress" (I'm looking at you Kowani).

This would be a good argument if conservatism actually worked that way. But in the vast majority of cases, it doesn’t. It’s the clinging to old, outdated theories, to arbitrary moral principles, and the preservation of religion. None of which are good things. It’s never against my sort of progress, it’s always against any sort of progress.

[Nakena]

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?

I stand with the late western society because it is, for all its many flaws, has generated and gave birth to an immensely rich and diverse culture, various scientific advancements a world civilization and is still the best chance with it's still present faustian and promethian spirit that will ultimatively lead us to the next level of human development and evolution on this world and beyond amongst the stars.

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.

For all my support of "the West" I am unsurprisingly oppposed to it's judeo-christian and nowadays "liberalist" morals and virtues for their enduring dominance and prerelevance is an force contrary to the spirit I mentioned before. Therefore they need to be subverted and ultimatively replaced with forms that are more... suitable to the afromentioned objective.

[Washington Resistance Army]

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

I'm a fairly staunch anti-capitalist in a number of ways myself but this post is just pretty lol worthy. Capitalism hasn't failed, quite the opposite it has worked too well and spawned a plethora of issues.

[Cekoviu]

I generally hate change - I follow the same schedule for each day of the week every week, wear the same hat, coat, and shoes, and listen to the same music. But what I hate even more than change is unjustness. The way we've done things for centuries is unjust and unreasonable, and the costs of changing political traditions are lower than the costs of keeping them. That's why I'm a progressive.

[Cekoviu]

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

I'm a fairly staunch anti-capitalist in a number of ways myself but this post is just pretty lol worthy. Capitalism hasn't failed, quite the opposite it has worked too well and spawned a plethora of issues.

Much like chytrid fungi.

[Pacomia]

I still don’t understand how there are actual monarchists in the world. Nor do I understand how people can support that medieval European aristocracy of the nobles. What’s the point of those? Would good do they do to society? They’re pointless if the monarchy/aristocracy ends up being constitutional, and they’re just general a bad system if it becomes absolute. We should strive for more political equalisation, not less.

[The Emerald Legion]

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?

Again with the "Nazis are progressive socialists!1!1!1!1!!11" meme? I thought that shit died months ago after historians comprehensively debunked it, but I guess I was wrong. Here is a comprehensive debunking video of the myth of the Nazis' supposed "socialism":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI

Why don't you just... Make the arguments yourself and then post the video as a source?

You do realize that if you turn in a college paper titled "This thing is True Facts." And it's nothing but YouTube links you're gonna have a bad time right?

Why should this be any different? Give us your REASONING.

[Nakena]

We should strive for more political equalisation, not less.

And whats were you're (slightly) wrong.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Again with the "Nazis are progressive socialists!1!1!1!1!!11" meme? I thought that shit died months ago after historians comprehensively debunked it, but I guess I was wrong. Here is a comprehensive debunking video of the myth of the Nazis' supposed "socialism":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUFvG4RpwJI

Why don't you just... Make the arguments yourself and then post the video as a source?

You do realize that if you turn in a college paper titled "This thing is True Facts." And it's nothing but YouTube links you're gonna have a bad time right?

Why should this be any different? Give us your REASONING.

Reason #1: The Nazis enthusiastically endorsed social darwinism as their core ideology in social matters, and frequently emphasized the "natural inequality of man" within their literature, to the point that Jews, those mentally and physically disabled (Who were later massacred during Aktion T4), Roma, homosexuals, "asocials", along with lives deemed "unworthy of living" were barred from receiving any welfare benefits from the state, and were later forcibly sterilized and rendered unable to reproduce once eugenics were widely deployed, contrary to socialism's vision of an egalitarian society. Even Gregor Strasser, who is commonly regarded as being on the "left-wing" of the Nazi Party, had this to say regarding liberalism, democracy, and equality:

"The spirit of our National Socialist idea has to overpower the spirit of liberalism and false democracy if there is to be a third Reich at all! Deeply rooted in organic life, we have realized that the false belief in the equality of man is the deadly threat with which liberalism destroys people and nation, culture and morals. violating the deepest levels of our being! We have to reject with fanatical zeal the frequent lie that people are basically equal and equal in regard to their influence in the state and their share of power! People are unequal, they are unequal from birth, become more unequal in life and are therefore to be valued unequally in their positions in society and in the state!"
"Thoughts about the Tasks of the Future", by Gregor Strasser (June 15. 1926).

Reason #2: Contrary to the general consensus during the Great Depression, the Nazis did not expand public ownership over the means of production as had been done in most Western nations at this point. In fact, the Nazis privatized more than any other government during that time period, with banks such as the Commerz–und Privatbank , Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft , Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank, along with the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), which were up until that point the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), who were the second largest joint-stock company at that time in Germany, and the Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, which controlled all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. During the fiscal years 1934-1935 and 1937-38, privatization represented almost 1.4% of all government revenue. Social and labor-related services were also privatized by the Nazi regime, and were put under control of organizations that abided by Hitler's racial policy when it came to providing welfare services.

Hitler also regularly courted the support of big business during his election campaigns, stating that "private enterprise cannot be sufficiently protected in the age of democracy", and that "democracy will eventually lead to communism", and after such appeals were made, the Nazis received financial donations from over seventeen different companies, most notably I.G. Farben and Deutsche Bank. Employers and businessmen were granted unprecedented control over their employees after the Nazis took power, with collective bargaining being abolished, all independent trade unions outlawed, and any attempts at a strike or lockout being punished severely, while corporate profits and investments rose rapidly, with pro-Nazi businessmen receiving millions of marks in credits and subsidies from the Freudenkries der Wirtschaft. None of this resembles socialism, or even leftwing policy for that matter.
Sources:
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital ... rner06.pdf
Adam Tooze (2006). The Wages of Destruction: The Making and the Breaking of the Nazi Economy.

Reason #3:
Gregor Strasser and his anticapitalist faction within the NSDAP had several longstanding conflicts with Hitler, most notably in the early 1930s, where the evening edition of his "Nationaler Socialist" newspaper was banned by Goebbels on Hitler's orders after the Strasser brothers tried to agitate with their specific brand of Nazism in Berlin, with Goebbels complaining to Hitler that his own newspapers were "pushed to the wall" by Strasser's writings. After the ban, Strasser relinquished his position as a publisher of the newspaper in June of 1930, while his brother Otto has left the Nazi Party by that point. In 1932, Strasser and his supporters were denounced after it was revealed he was conspiring with Kurt von Schleicher to split the NSDAP by defecting with the more "leftwing" members over to the national conservatives, and Strasser himself resigned on December 8th, 1932, seven weeks before the Nazis took power in Germany. He later renounced his Reichstag seat in March 1933 after Hitler publicly repudiated him and his ideology, and during the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, Strasser, along with much of the SA Stormtroopers' leadership, were murdered by the SS and the Gestapo on Hitler's orders. Any remaining "socialist" thought within the Nazi Party has been extinguished at that point.
Source: https://www.britannica.com/story/were-t ... socialists