What a bizarre statement. If I want to conserve social democracy, workers rights, unions, public infrastructure, etc. where as my political opponents want to ‘liberalise’ or downgrade them, that makes me a left-wing conservatist.
Conservatism is an ideology based on the idea of family-first policies, nationalism and religious values. You might as well claim that anarchism is anything that creates chaos or that liberalism is anything that makes you free. You have misunderstood what the word means in a political context.
Conservatism means wanting to keep the society as it is. It is the antonym of being progressive. And that’s it.
A party that wants things to to just remain stable as they are is a conservative party. A party that wants to make dramatic changes is a progressive, or maybe also regressive, party. But absolutely not conservative.
Yes, in USA some people have started using the word “conservative” in a different meaning. That doesn’t alter what the word really means. Those who want to conserve what exists.
(And in USA the Democratic party has taken the conservative role, whereas the Republican party has taken an anti-conservative role, driving radical changes to things. Changes to a direction I see as very damaging for everyone, but changes all the same. Wanting such huge changes makes you an anti-conservative.)
Conservatism means wanting to keep the society as it is.
Conservatism has never been that. It has always been about defending the privilege of the unaccountable elite, against meritocracy and rule of law. Throughout history, conservatives supported vast social changes, as long as they were at the expense of working people. Consider the enclosure of the commons in Britain as one big example, that led to destitution, famine and mass emigration.
So it’s important to keep in mind what’s being conserved: it’s not the status quo, it’s the rich’s ability to do what they want without being held accountable. The actual policies promoted by conservatives have been widely changeable over time, but that key principle remains the same.
i don’t think our political views differ much. But I wouldn’t let them have this word, for it has a meaning that is bigger than them. You say conservatism has never been wanting to keep society as is, I’d say it is exactly that, and I would fight these so called conservatives by pointing out that, as you said, they’re only conservative when it comes to their positions of power. If you allow them to own, so to speak, the term conservatism, then people might fall for these movements, because they feel the world is moving to fast, things of importance are being lost and should be conserved. It doesn’t work to say: but anyone who knows about politics knows that the conservatives don’t actually conserve anything of importance, because many voters know very little about politics. They need to be called out, we shouldn’t except the frame that they’re the ones conserving, while they’re destroying the planet, the wellfare state, society.
I’m actually a member of the dutch green and workers-parties, which are fusing into one new party this year and will then change their name to Progressief Nederland, and despite being happy with the party, I am strongly uncomfortable with this name. For I don’t feel I am progressive in many if not most senses of the word.
Within politics these words are still context dependent and used to describe all sorts of stances and are open to various interpretations. It’s an umbrella term. To claim otherwise is simply besides the facts. I know lots of leftwingers who call themselves conservative. About liberalism and anarchism, yes you might use those terms in those ways, and that is actually being done all the time.
In most of Europe, “liberal” means being in favor of free trade, and of unregulated capitalism in general. Conservative parties in many countries are called Liberals. Even in the UK Conservatives, there’s a strong liberal (by the above definition) faction, along with the racists, authoritarians and religious reactionaries (the last of which are a much smaller minority here than in the US).
What is even funnier to me is that it lists the Swedish party Liberalerna as a “Conservative Liberal” party. That party has voted 100% (not 99% or 98%, exactly identical) to Moderaterna, a conservative party, during this latest four-year period. Nobody is going to vote for them in the upcoming election because they are a fundamentally unnecessary party that just does whatever Moderaterna tells them to do.
“Conservative liberalism” is an oxymoron. Centre to centre-right means social liberalism and an acceptance/approval of the welfare state.
Conservatism of any kind is right to far-right.
What a bizarre statement. If I want to conserve social democracy, workers rights, unions, public infrastructure, etc. where as my political opponents want to ‘liberalise’ or downgrade them, that makes me a left-wing conservatist.
Conservatism is an ideology based on the idea of family-first policies, nationalism and religious values. You might as well claim that anarchism is anything that creates chaos or that liberalism is anything that makes you free. You have misunderstood what the word means in a political context.
Conservatism means wanting to keep the society as it is. It is the antonym of being progressive. And that’s it.
A party that wants things to to just remain stable as they are is a conservative party. A party that wants to make dramatic changes is a progressive, or maybe also regressive, party. But absolutely not conservative.
Yes, in USA some people have started using the word “conservative” in a different meaning. That doesn’t alter what the word really means. Those who want to conserve what exists.
(And in USA the Democratic party has taken the conservative role, whereas the Republican party has taken an anti-conservative role, driving radical changes to things. Changes to a direction I see as very damaging for everyone, but changes all the same. Wanting such huge changes makes you an anti-conservative.)
Conservatism has never been that. It has always been about defending the privilege of the unaccountable elite, against meritocracy and rule of law. Throughout history, conservatives supported vast social changes, as long as they were at the expense of working people. Consider the enclosure of the commons in Britain as one big example, that led to destitution, famine and mass emigration.
So it’s important to keep in mind what’s being conserved: it’s not the status quo, it’s the rich’s ability to do what they want without being held accountable. The actual policies promoted by conservatives have been widely changeable over time, but that key principle remains the same.
i don’t think our political views differ much. But I wouldn’t let them have this word, for it has a meaning that is bigger than them. You say conservatism has never been wanting to keep society as is, I’d say it is exactly that, and I would fight these so called conservatives by pointing out that, as you said, they’re only conservative when it comes to their positions of power. If you allow them to own, so to speak, the term conservatism, then people might fall for these movements, because they feel the world is moving to fast, things of importance are being lost and should be conserved. It doesn’t work to say: but anyone who knows about politics knows that the conservatives don’t actually conserve anything of importance, because many voters know very little about politics. They need to be called out, we shouldn’t except the frame that they’re the ones conserving, while they’re destroying the planet, the wellfare state, society.
I’m actually a member of the dutch green and workers-parties, which are fusing into one new party this year and will then change their name to Progressief Nederland, and despite being happy with the party, I am strongly uncomfortable with this name. For I don’t feel I am progressive in many if not most senses of the word.
Within politics these words are still context dependent and used to describe all sorts of stances and are open to various interpretations. It’s an umbrella term. To claim otherwise is simply besides the facts. I know lots of leftwingers who call themselves conservative. About liberalism and anarchism, yes you might use those terms in those ways, and that is actually being done all the time.
Then you know lots of people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
deleted by creator
Funnily enough, the wikipedia page for conservative liberalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism) lists Fidesz as the prime and only example of Hungarian conservative liberal parties.
In most of Europe, “liberal” means being in favor of free trade, and of unregulated capitalism in general. Conservative parties in many countries are called Liberals. Even in the UK Conservatives, there’s a strong liberal (by the above definition) faction, along with the racists, authoritarians and religious reactionaries (the last of which are a much smaller minority here than in the US).
What is even funnier to me is that it lists the Swedish party Liberalerna as a “Conservative Liberal” party. That party has voted 100% (not 99% or 98%, exactly identical) to Moderaterna, a conservative party, during this latest four-year period. Nobody is going to vote for them in the upcoming election because they are a fundamentally unnecessary party that just does whatever Moderaterna tells them to do.