No, Conservatives are not on the losing side of history

Left and right have some silly stereotypes of each other but I think that "conservatism is losing because society changes over time" is one of the silliest ones.

 

While conservatism is useful at putting the brakes on the most radical of thinking, this has little to do with the sort of reactionary politics of the modern American right.

Conservatism used to be thoughful. It defended business interests and urged restraint against moving too fast with radical ideas.

The truth be told, most of the utopian ideas that were favored over the last century never took much hold in this country.

But, unfortunately ,the movement that once was the home of principled conservatives like William F Buckley, is not the home of Ted Cruz and Rush Limbaugh.

 

It makes sense that a Jew would want to limit others freedom.

 

With regards to this debate wheter hitler was on the left or right, or a socialist or corporatist, my view is that he was a nationalist. A very revolutionary and extreme form of nationalism is at the core of nazism. All policies the nazis had were judged by how the thought it would work towards their goal, which was this nationalism. They wanted a strong state for that reason, and they had very conservative social views on things like prostitution and homosexuality for that reason, but at the same time they had a socialistic welfare state and much control over the economy, they didn't like free unions because it worked against their nationalist goal, and they didn't go full planned economy because they saw private property as useful. i.e., nazism was truly a mix of positions. It was socialist in one sense, yet anti socialist in another, because their goal was not that of socialism, but extreme nationalism.

In their critique of how capitalism had failed, in how they agreed that the government must control the economy via price controls etc., and because of their welfare system.

If you reached that conclusion from reading the OP, you must have read it wrong. You are wrong.

That's a strawman though, because most conservative people do not hold that morality, and the conservative ideology certainly does not. It is quite simply wrong.

Firstly, conservatism doesn't only exist in the USA. This OP might as well be about conservatism in Sweden. Secondly, I actually know very much about american politics because I read and listen to many US political scholars.

It's easy to look back at history and agree with conservatives. In retrospect, who wouldn't be opposed to a planned economy? But the thing is, that some of the thing conservatives oppose today might be viewed in the same manner be people of the future, even if you can't see it right now yourself.

 

Conservatives today look back fondly on the 1890s....some even look back fondly on the 1850s.

And yet few of them can explain why the conservatism of the late 19th Century....was rejected and abandoned by the American people.

Why even REPUBLICANS like Teddy Roosevelt saw danger in a plutocracy, exploitation of workers and consumers by laissez-faire, and sought to remedy it.

 

To be honest, Hitler was as far left as he was far right. Nationalizing industries is not right wing. Nazi is short for National Socialist. Anti-religion is left wing as well. Hitler really can't be defined on right/left, according to American understanding.

 

He also was loved by Big Business like Krupp for lots of defense spending. And was beloved by those who felt a religious minority were a "threat" to their country and needed to be "dealt with".

 

What does any of that have to do with socialism?

I didn't reach the conclusion from the OP, but it is the correct conclusion.

 

Aren't you the most clueless socialist if you don't know what a critique of capitalism, government control of the economy, and a welfare system has to do with socialism?

No, it's wrong. Very wrong.

 

Do you even understand why it is Jews vote democrat over republican? Jews are far more interested in their faith (Jewish values) than they are support of their state. Their faith dictates more liberal philosophies that purposely go opposed to Christian beliefs. These values fall more in line with liberal FISCAL leanings: more government spending, benefits and entitlement programs, greater regulation on business, and unions.

It should be noted that because of Obama’s blatant animus towards Israel there was a stark drop in support between the 2008 and 2012 elections (78% Obama – 21% McCain to 69% Obama – 30% Romney). So it seems the Jewish community is getting fed up with all the anti-Semitism within the democrat party. The survival of the Jewish state may become a core factor in these upcoming elections.

But I do find it odd the diametrically opposing sentiments between the democrat party and their lack of support for Jews and Jewish devotion to the democrat party. It falls more in line with long-standing tradition and what their faith drives them to do.

Even more interesting is your lack of denial of the growing anti-Semitic sentiments within the democrat party.

 

Reactionaries are, and that's why right-wingers are on the losing side of history.
They are the ones who try to tar actual conservatives as rinos.
This whole left/right obsession is silly. Any adult realizes that you need both sides to work in society. What we don't need are the extremists, and that's what's been growing on the right.

 

Name a single socialist movement that got power and didn't eventually resort to nationalism.

Ill wait.

You have now power therefor you have the luxury of theory.

A socialist without power is a socialist as socialist with powet is a fascist.

If you ever got power you would quickly become a fascist.

 

I didn't ignore the socialist part. I simply explained its meaning. An attack submarine is still a submarine, you're acting as if it becomes a battleship. Socialism is a method of organizing economics, not a political ideology and changing an ideology's economics does not change it into something it is not.
Going by what Naziism said it was is a mug's game anyway, as the Nazis were well known to say whatever was to their advantage, whether it was true or not. (For instance, they would often call their opponent's socialists when they were nothing of the kind, say they hated Germany, etc)

I admit that the notion of protecting my right to fail or starve is ridiculous, nevertheless I know many conservatives who think their doing so is the reason I should vote for them.

 

Critiques of capitalism are as old as capitalism itself. Feudalists critiqued capitalism. The pope critiqued capitalism. Is the pope a socialist?

"government control" is not synonymous with socialism. Nazi Germany still had private ownership, wage labor, and generalized commodity production. It was a capitalist state.

Almost every presently existing capitalist state has welfare. America has welfare. Prussia had welfare. Are/were these socialist states?

It's just wrong hmm? No explanation required?

 

Not all right wingers are reactionaries, so I don't think it's right to say that right wingers are on the losing side of history because of reactionaries.

Also, no, both sides are not necessarily good for society. What you have done right there is an argument to moderation, which is a logical fallacy. An individual operating within the false compromise fallacy believes that the positions being considered represent extremes of a continuum of opinions, and that such extremes are always wrong, and the middle ground is always correct.

Perhaps you did, but my point is that you explained it wrong. See, the way english works is that adjectives are descriptive words and when placed in front of another word they modify that word. In this case, the adjective is national and it modifies socialist. It is not as you that "since national comes first, it is thus more important". It is in fact the reverse, that socialist is the most important, modified by national which gives the meaning "Socialist in a nationalist manner" as I said. You got it totally backwards. Practice your english.

Socialism is an ideology (or a big family of ideologies) and a way to organise the economy. Confusing I know, but it is true.

Yes, as I've said, the nazis would have been more properly described as socialist nationalists, where nationalist is the main word modified by socialist, with the meaning of "nationalist in a socialist manner". That would fit better, as they were more nationalist than socialist. But, I wasn't there to tell Hitler he should change the name, and the point is that ignoring what would be the proper description of nazism, you were still wrong in your explaination.

No, no, no, that's not what the ridiculous notion is. The ridiculous notion is what you think conservatives stand for.

No, but a critique of capitalism is socialism's raison d'etre. Not seeing how that has anything to do with socialism is just silly.

I never said government control is synonymous with socialism, but it's true that many forms of socialism wants to control the economy via the government. A capitalist system is one in which capital and means of production are owned and controlled by private actors. Even though there was private ownership, there wasn't necessarily private control. Therefore, it is misleading to call nazi germany a capitalist country. It had a mixed economy, a command economy.

No, not in the sense of having the economy and means of production collectively managed. I'd just say these countries are capitalist countries with socialistic elements.

No, not just wrong. It is also a ridiculous strawman.

 

Yes, yes, that's all very nice but my point - sarcastic but correct - still stands. Jews in America vote Democrat, not GOP and liberal, not conservative. Which is just the opposite of what the clueless post I was responding to averred.

 

"Losing side of history" is one of those incredibly stupid phrases that means nothing but sounds oh, so meaningful.

Firstly, history has no side. It is what it is.

Secondly, it's safe to utter such stupidity because nobody will be around to prove it either right or wrong.

 

Although your characterization of Conservatism is ridiculous, I do agree that you're correct in that conservatism (the American version) as such is on the losing side of history. I disagree with the OP on this. This is just a historic observation. All great powers decline by being victims of their own success and forgetting how they became great powers in the first place. The US is in much the same tradition. Conservatives used to know this. When William F Buckley founded National Review, it's mission statement was "standing athwart history yelling stop." The Reagan era made conservatives forget this. They thought the Right could compete on an equal playing field with the Left. So the left is destined to win and grind the country into the dirt. It's entropy. And you can delay entropy, which is what the Right is trying to do, but entropy always wins.

 

Oh my god, you're one of those "communism as never really been tried" fanatics aren't you?

 

Fascism grew out of the Italian syndicalist movement. It was the result of the realization that a system where the janitor has a much of a say as the plant foreman was a bad idea. A fascist corporate is just a syndicalist syndicate with a more realistic power structure.

Antisemitism came naturally to fascists for this reason too. As an offshoot of syndicalism therly were already predisposed to antisemitism as the most well known syndicalist thinker Mikhail Bakunin was a raving antisemite.

 

None of this dismisses, and you have yet to deny, that liberals tend to loathe Jews. This sentiment has nothing to do with how Jews adhere to a liberal fiscal and social philosophy.

Maybe this is a better way of looking at it... I have been a Redskins fan since I was a kid. I can't stand Daniel Snyder (their owner), but I still love the Redskins. Just because Jews vote democrat doesn't mean they love the people that are running the democrat show. They believe in the philosophy, not the people; particularly the more radical liberals like Obama.

 

Leftists also selectively read.

The Nazi party had roots in the socialist & nationalist movements. Hitler and his associates intentionally merged socialist and nationalist concepts in order to attract more supporters, and to politically undermine the strict socialist movement. The Nazi Party was not "from the right" or "from the left" but from both.

The original party name was the German Workers Party, and in 1920 Hitler published the "25 Points" of the party platform and very deliberately renamed the party the National Socialist German Workers Party. Some of the 25 points are clearly "left" such as every citizen shall have a living wage, nationalization of trusts, national education standards and control of schools, war against "profiteers", and profit sharing of all industries (all of these should sound familiar to anyone who listens to modern "progressives"). Other points are clearly from the "right", and others are simply racist/nationalist.

Hitler once described the meaning of the Nazi flag:
"In the red we see the social idea of the movement, in the white the national idea, in the swastika the mission to struggle for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the idea of creative work, which is eternally anti-Semitic and will always be anti-Semitic."

Associating the Nazis with just the left or just the right is incorrect. What is correct is associating the direction the Nazi party moved the government and society with the direction "progressives" want to take America - top down control, centralized authority, a police state ruled by a political elite.

 

The only reason change happens Democratically now instead of through Revolution is precisely because the left wing HAS won. When the French Nobility were beheaded by the starving masses during the French Revolution, the English King got extremely scared and refused to raise arms against his own people, because he knew he would end up with his head on a stick just like the French Nobility. You dont need a revolution to happen everywhere for it to have an effect everywhere, the French Revolution coupled with a few other revolutions was enough for neighboring nations to change their conservative ways. Just like on Victoria II, when Socialists rise up in Ireland or Portugal countries around the world get scared of the "Specter that haunts Europe" which is Socialism, and they cave into Socialist demands without being beheaded themselves.

 

That goes for all liberals, not just the Jewish ones.

- - - Updated - - -

There are as many forms of Communism as there are Communists, Karl Marx did not create a step by step rule book on how to be a Communist.

- - - Updated - - -

At least you know your fight is futile, you are smart enough to know that much.

 

Not exactly, just look at Martin Luther King Jr. who is on the losing side of history there? MLK or the racist conservatives? Its possible to see who is on the losing side of history based on what has happened in the past, because history repeats itself.