No, Conservatives are not on the losing side of history

Even according to Hitler himself he was not left wing or right wing,

"Today our left-wing politicians in particular are constantly insisting that their craven-hearted and obsequious foreign policy necessarily results from the disarmament of Germany, whereas the truth is that this is the policy of traitors [...] But the politicians of the Right deserve exactly the same reproach. It was through their miserable cowardice that those ruffians of Jews who came into power in 1918 were able to rob the nation of its arms.[10]"

He hated both sides, which is not very surprising.

 

Are you saying all liberals are hated by liberals but still vote democrat because they believe in liberal philosophies? Weird.

 

Seems you are making the assumption that the nobility of europe at this time were all following the ideology of conservatism. That is not true. Thus, there was no "conservative ways to change". That the nobility wanted to keep the status quo does not make them conservative in an ideological sense. As I've said, conservatism is not opposed to change.

 

They were most certainly conservatives, and the ones who cut their heads off were libertarians. The libertarians also destroyed the Churches and banned Christianity, obviously two things conservatives LOVE and libertarians, and liberal, hate. It was the rich vs the poor, just like it is today. Class warfare.

- - - Updated - - -

Im saying liberals who vote democrat are not necessarily all in favor of Hillary and Obama, the more socialist liberals such as myself much rather would have Elizabeth Warren as president rather than the centrist Hillary Clinton.

 

Conservatism, at its best, is the tail on the kite of progress. At it's worst, it's an anchor dragging along the bottom.

 

No, they most certainly were not conservatives, because the ideology was still in it's infancy at that time. As I've said, conservatism isn't the same thing as preferring the status quo. You do know that the modern ideologies of liberalism and conservatism hasn't always existed, but arose around this time, right?

No, there were no libertarians. They did not exist, and if they did they would certainly not ban christianity and burn churches.

Viewing changes in society as progress or regress is wrong because there's no pre-determined destination for society.

 

They called themselves liberals, and as we all know oldschool liberals are actually libertarians, modern day liberals were known as "Social-liberals" back in that time. So yes, it was indeed libertarians who executed the nobility and destroyed the Churches, along with banning Christianity.

"Conservatism (also known as classical conservatism) began as a reaction against the liberal ideas taking hold of Europe during the French Revolution in the late eighteenth century."
http://www.sparknotes.com/us-govern...olitical-ideologies-and-styles/section2.rhtml

Liberals of that time and conservatives of that time were different than they are now, but they called themselves conservative and liberal nonetheless and still retained many of the elements we still think of as liberal and conservative today.

"In France, the July Revolution of 1830, orchestrated by liberal politicians and journalists, removed the Bourbon monarchy and inspired similar uprisings elsewhere in Europe. Frustration with the pace of political progress in the early 19th century sparked even more gigantic revolutions in 1848. Revolutions spread throughout the Austrian Empire, the German states, and the Italian states. Governments fell rapidly. Liberal nationalists demanded written constitutions, representative assemblies, greater suffrage rights, and freedom of the press.[56] A second republic was proclaimed in France. Serfdom was abolished in Prussia, Galicia, Bohemia, and Hungary. The indomitable Metternich, the Austrian builder of the reigning conservative order, shocked Europe when he resigned and fled to Britain in panic and disguise.[57]"

As for the Church being destroyed by the liberals in the French Revolution,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianisation_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
"New policies of the Revolution
The programme of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included:[1][2][3]
confiscation of Church lands, which were to be the security for the new Assignat currency
destruction of statues, plates and other iconography from places of worship
destruction of crosses, bells and other external signs of worship
the institution of revolutionary and civic cults, including the Cult of Reason and subsequently the Cult of the Supreme Being,
the enactment of a law on October 21, 1793 making all nonjuring priests and all persons who harboured them liable to death on sight.
The climax was reached with the celebration of the goddess "Reason" in Notre Dame Cathedral on 10 November 1793.
The dechristianization campaign can be seen as the logical extension of the materialist philosophies of some leaders of the enlightenment, while for others with more prosaic concerns it was an opportunity to unleash resentments against the Church and clergy.[4]"

 

Point being that libertarianism is different from liberalism and didn't exist at the time.

So you give me yet another quote which confirms that I am right an you are wrong? Is that on purpose, or do you really have some difficulties understanding? As your quote says, conservatism "began as a reaction to the liberal ideas taking hold of europe..." which is exactly what I am saying. Conservatism didn't really exist at this time, hence why the nobility were not conservatives.

Are you aware of the fact that the french revolution of 1789 is in fact not the same thing as the july revolution of 1830? Of course not.

Point being that libertarians wouldn't go about dechristianise france in such a manner.

 

History is subjective. Always has been. If you want to bet that future generations of Americans will oppose marriage equality and advocate non-action on climate change, I'd happily make a wager.

 

The critique of capitalism is only half the battle. What comes after capitalism's defeat is the other half, and the Nazi's had quite a different picture in mind.

I

"Forms of socialism"? The problem here is that we have different definitions of both capitalism and socialism. Until we mutually agree on this we won't even make sense to each other.

You say conservatives are okay with change, but something tells me this change is never going to involve the destruction of hierarchy. Conservatives, in a way, are moderate revolutionaries. They exist solely to moderate change. You said as much yourself.

Of course, you're talking about Burke style conservatives. Many of the so-called conservatives on this board are what you might call reactionaries so it doesn't even apply to them.

 

The point I am making is that a critique of capitalism has something to do with socialism, and that is something shared with the nazis because they had borrowed from the socialist view of the economy.

Yes, forms of socialism. Social democracy, anarcho-syndicalism, communism... Not all forms of socialism sees a need for government. My definition of socialism is social ownership of the means of production and a co-operative management of the economy, and the ideology seeking to achieve that. Capitalism is is private ownership and control of the means of production, and the ideology which seeks to achieve that.

"something tells you that" huh? No, conservatives are not revolutionaries in any way because revolution inherently means some kind of abrupt change, which conservatives are inherently opposed to. And no, they don't only exist to moderate change. I never said they did.

Yes, I'm talking of burkean conservatism. Conservatism for the sake of preserving the status quo or wanting to go back to something isn't really an ideology.

 

The part where the Nazis rounded up all the left wingers and put them in death camps. I bet you took Bush's "Clear Skies Initiative" at name value alone didn't you? Its actually very common for LOW WAGE CONSERVATIVES to name something the exact opposite of what it really is. But if you track it none of their policies really amount to anything more than tactics to get labor without paying for it.

 

Hitler was a moderate obviously.

 

Fair enough, but that's a pretty loose connection. I would argue the Nazi regime had much more in common with capitalism, since they preserved capitalist class rule.

How is social democracy a form of socialism? Social ownership is distinct from state ownership.

In your own words:

It's not an ideology in and of itself but it is a belief that is based in various ideologies.

 

Here is what you theory guys do not get.

Ownership of the means of production means nothing. Its control of the means of production thst matters. Fascism does not seek public ownership it seeks public control.

 

they look to far back and fail to understand the parties flipped platform's decades ago.

hell in the 50's repubs were pro union and wages. not so today.

 

I'd argue the opposite. How did nazis view capitalism? As flawed, much for the same reasons socialists viewed it as flawed. i.e., they shared the ciritque of capitalism with socialism. What did they see as the solution? Government control of the economy, which is the same situation as the mainstream socialists of the time. They are obviously much more socialist than capitalist because of this.

How is it not a form of socialism? yes I know social ownership is different from state ownership, but some forms of socialism wants social ownership via the state.

Yes, that is an ideology, because it's based on the view of humanity as inherently flawed. Preserving the status quo just because, is not an ideology.