I'm not sure if this is actually the case or if it's just been my experience, but I'm in my 20s and the proportion of social conservatives among other blind people in my age group seems much higher than among sighted people I've met. I live in Canada, so even if it is more prevalent it could be country-specific.
Hey guys,
I've been studying about nationalism and social conservatism and I wonder what is the ideology that is the stark opposite.
Goals of both nationalism and social conservatism(I'm going to throw a bunch of adjectives, I'm not saying there's a 100% correlation but there are big ideas:
Speak one language, move to the suburbs, don't travel, focus on wealth acquisition, be very religious, be in traditional marriage relationship, have on passport home base, owe one home, have loyalty to your nation state and see it a crucial to your identity.
Goals of the opposite ideology:
Learn multiple languages, live in big cities, travel the world, focus on life experience, be an atheist, be in multiple relationships or none at all, don't believe in marriage, have multiple passports, possibly own multiple homes. See your nation state as only a temporary business partner.
Conclusion: Of course, there are different levels of this latter ideology, if you don't have much money you can also experience it but to get the full benefits you would have to have more wealth.
What can cons do to preserve traditional social values?
I hope this question doesn’t come off as too loaded, if my starting assumption is wrong please tell me.
Anyway from what I can tell, at least in the US and Western Europe where I live, socially conservative parties (more likely to oppose abortion or minority rights for example on the basis of tradition or religion, defending traditional family values) are often the same as those who promote economic liberalism (the European meaning of the word liberal) such as loosening financial regulations and labor rights, slashing social security and redistribution programs etc. This still applies today but as far as I know this has been the case for over 20 years.
I want to know how the political spectrum came to be that way, as for example some religions condemn greed and promote selflessness and helping the poor, while also being very conservative in terms of social norms.
Is there, historically, a common philosophy behind social conservatism and economic liberalism or is it more of a strategic alliance? When did it start?
I'm wondering what values are most important to you when viewing issues from the social and economic sphere? Which issues related to conservatism are you the most passionate about?
Would it be conservative social beliefs? (strong families/borders, traditional morality, patriotism, sense of community life, etc)?
Or would it be related to the economic principles of conservatism? (pro-business, limited government involvement in markets, lower taxes, less welfare, free trade, etc)
The beliefs I included are just a few examples of what I imagine a lot of conservatives believe, but feel free to go into your own reasoning for why you find either social conservatism or fiscal conservativism more important currently.
The question is for people who knows politics.
As an anarchist myself, I'm very curious to hear your answers to this question. I wouldn't consider myself conservative but lately I have become very disillusioned with the "woke" progressive crowd and have been looking into alternative viewpoints. I believe it's entirely valid to live a conservative lifestyle and be an anarchist, as long as your beliefs do not involve any forms of coercion, yet, many anarchists these days are part of the "woke" crowd and believe that having conservative attitudes simply promotes unjustified hierarchies and therefore is mutually exclusive from "true" anarchism. Can socially conservative anarchists exist, and if so, how are those two beliefs compatible? Discuss.
tl;dr: Socially conservative working people are victims of a predatory economic structure and it’s pathological cultural manifestations; they are NOT fascists or nazbols or reactionaries.
As MLs we can often be dismissive of the superstructure. This leads many of us to be dismissive of culture-war nonsense like Idpol, representation in media, the demographics of CEOs, how many women are serving as drone pilots, etc.
For us these cultural issues are symptoms, they are merely manifestations of the class contradictions inherent to capitalism and are at best distractions. They can only be resolved by addressing the material conditions at their base.
Take racism for example. Race is an invention of liberal capitalism’s earliest and most brutal tool: colonialism. Racism and racialized violence not only facilitate international capital’s accumulation of new land and labour, they also discourage class solidarity across racial lines. When society’s productive forces are socialized and the exploitation of labour by the bourgeoisie is ended we have seen that racism and racialized violence are all but eradicated. (See: the end of pogroms in eastern europe after 1917, the massive social programs in Xinjiang, and the abolition of racial castes in Cuba.)
We see the same thing with gender issues. 53% of Cuba’s legislative bodies are women - one of only three majority female legislatures in the world. The USSR was the first country on the planet to legalize abortion. The words and deeds of Alexandra Kollentai, Assata Shakur, and Valentina Tereshkova reaffirm the inseparability of women’s liberation from class struggle.
We rightfully resist liberal pressure to condemn the working class and it’s leaders for failing to pass purity tests on cultural issues. We acknowledge that hundreds of years of exploitation by reactionary institutions (bourgeois governments, conservative churches, liberal schools, private workplaces etc.) have resulted in a culture - in a superstructure - that victimizes the most vulnerable. And we don’t blame the only-slightly-less-vulnerable for falling prey to those forces. Socially conservative working people are victims of a predatory economic structure and it’s pathological cultural manifestations; they are NOT fascists or nazbols or reactionaries.
That said, as MLs we must stand with the most vulnerable. We must stand with racialized groups, LGBTQ communities, indigenous peoples, drug users, the houseless, and the differently abled. We fol
... keep reading on reddit ➡Ever since I got more into politics, I saw the trend of right-wing social ideas taking off when COVID hit, and I think they've already taken off quite well in Romania. I've peeked at the situation of other European countries, and some seem to be hit less than others with this, but I still want some insight from people from those countries themselves.
First, i would like to acknowledge his massive contribution to modern economics in the words of the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke:
>Friedman's monetary framework has been so influential that in its broad outlines at least, it has nearly become identical with modern monetary theory … His thinking has so permeated modern macroeconomics that the worst pitfall in reading him today is to fail to appreciate the originality and even revolutionary character of his ideas in relation to the dominant views at the time that he formulated them.
We have to complement this with some other points though. Economic theory is inherently political. As a consequence it's not only appropriated for political purposes, but it's discussion and creation is marked from the beginning on by an ideological tone. I have heard it argued, that this is because modern economics is a counter-reaction to Marx, which makes for a really good story (and is, as I just noticed, a rather marxist/materialist way of looking at it), but this is probably not the underlying reason. It's rather that science too has it's internal mechanics, a dependance on incentives and a susceptibility to dogma.
As a consequence economists often proposed theories with an underlying claim of totality; economic theories of everything. I would argue Friedman falls into this category. Despite his proclaimed sympathy for classical liberalism, his ideas moved away from a humanist liberalism (within which state-guaranteed individual rights where central and which was progressive in its time) to a coporate economic liberalism (that implies strong hierarchies within families and corporations and declared the state, in its current extent, the greatest enemy).
>The business of business is business.
might work in a world, where Companies aren't political agents, that distort lawmakers ability to set incentives appropriately. In our world - the real world - it's a sorry excuse for a total abdication of moral responsibility by corporate entities.
Let's look at a few other examples, where behind a supposedly liberal argument lurks a rather conservative idea of hierarchy.
In his opposition to inheritance taxes Friedman said the following:
>As you grow up you will discover, that this is really a family society and not an individual soci
... keep reading on reddit ➡Cross posting this from r/AskHistorians as I’m not sure which sub fits this question the best. (Haven’t seen anything against that in the rules so I hope it’s ok.)
I hope this question doesn’t come off as too loaded, if my starting assumption is wrong please tell me.
Anyway from what I can tell, at least in the US and Western Europe where I live, socially conservative parties (more likely to oppose abortion or minority rights for example on the basis of tradition or religion, defending traditional family values) are often the same as those who promote economic liberalism (the European meaning of the word liberal) such as loosening financial regulations and labor rights, slashing social security and redistribution programs etc. This still applies today but as far as I know this has been the case for over 20 years.
I want to know how the political spectrum came to be that way, as for example some religions condemn greed and promote selflessness and helping the poor, while also being very conservative in terms of social norms.
Is there, historically, a common philosophy behind social conservatism and economic liberalism or is it more of a strategic alliance? When did it start?
This is a question for all people in this community.
What is the exact difference between Cultural Conservatism and Social Conservatism? Do you have to be both simultaneously or can you be one and not the other?
