5 ms·

The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time m

by cnasc 4y ago

The United States used to have a strong union culture in various industries, which has been worn down tremendously over the past century. Throughout that time many people in various places on the left end of the political spectrum have expressed their concern about that change. Is that conservatism?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jaywalk 4y ago
No, they only call it that when it's an opinion they don't like.
woodruffw 4y ago
> Is that conservatism? No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right, nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were." History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible.
- bslorence 4y ago
  This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently. I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    Nobody thinks that change is inherently good. Change is a product of time, not a moral dimension. I don't consider myself a progressive per se, but I think their framing would be something like this: change, if not good in itself, frequently begets opportunities to make things better.
    - bslorence 4y ago
      Similarly I would doubt that anyone actually thinks that the past was good simply because it came before the present. The desire to return to "the way things were" is born of a critique of specific aspects of "the way things are", combined with a sense that tradition is likely to embody hard-earned wisdom that may not be immediately apparent or perfectly defensible by abstract argument.
- AinderS 4y ago
  - izietto 4y ago
    Aren't there no-vax in US?
    - AinderS 4y ago
      And antibiotics? And anti-X-ray? There's a million different medical advances, you can always find someone against (or suspicious of) a few of them. That doesn't mean all of conservatism is against all of them, as woodruffw would have you believe.
      - woodruffw 4y ago
        I don't understand where you believe it's been claimed that conservatism is unilaterally against all technological progress. It isn't. Conservatism is best understood as a social phenomenon that interacts with technological progress varyingly, depending on the effect that whatever particular technology has on social values any particular group of conservatives happen to priotitize. X-rays do not particularly threaten any social scheme.
- cnasc 4y ago
  My comment addressed gingerrr's assertion that "being worried about societal change" is the defining point of conservatism. I provided a counterexample; of course adherents of any ideology would be concerned about changes that indicate increasing currency of a competing ideology. > what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible I'm wary of any attempt to sum up an ideology in a one-liner, since they tend to be lossy and dismissive. Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar). In general people live their lives based on what they are convinced is ethically right, they aren't brainless automatons following a simple algorithm of "old good, new bad" or "new good, old bad"
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    > Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar). Anarcho-primitivism is a discrete variant of the overarching conservative phenomenon: when an-prims go say "go back" they mean a specific and particularly reactionary set of social transformations. This doesn't mean that ordinary conservatives don't desire social regression; it just makes them not as openly reactionary as the most reactionary social conservatives. You're right, of course: any short and pithy summary of an ideology is going to have gaps. American conservatism is "funny" in the sense that it admits of additional gaps: there is a significant (although continually diminishing) population of "purely fiscal" conservatives who have dominated American intellectual conservatism, for example. And this is true for progressive movements as well, particular in the context of labor.

by cnasc 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jaywalk 4y ago

No, they only call it that when it's an opinion they don't like.

woodruffw 4y ago

> Is that conservatism? No, because it doesn't rest on the fundamental assumption that the past was right, nor the corresponding political will to return to "the way things were." History is a record of advances and regressions. Referencing history does not fundamentally result in a conservative political outlook; what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible.

bslorence 4y ago
This is an interesting take on conservatism. I suppose it must be a fairly common take among people who consider themselves progressive, and helps makes sense of some things I've observed recently. I consider myself generally conservative but would sum up my outlook more along the lines of "change isn't necessarily/automatically good" than "the past was right". Chesterton's Fence etc.
- woodruffw 4y ago
  Nobody thinks that change is inherently good. Change is a product of time, not a moral dimension. I don't consider myself a progressive per se, but I think their framing would be something like this: change, if not good in itself, frequently begets opportunities to make things better.
  - bslorence 4y ago
    Similarly I would doubt that anyone actually thinks that the past was good simply because it came before the present. The desire to return to "the way things were" is born of a critique of specific aspects of "the way things are", combined with a sense that tradition is likely to embody hard-earned wisdom that may not be immediately apparent or perfectly defensible by abstract argument.
AinderS 4y ago
- izietto 4y ago
  Aren't there no-vax in US?
  - AinderS 4y ago
    And antibiotics? And anti-X-ray? There's a million different medical advances, you can always find someone against (or suspicious of) a few of them. That doesn't mean all of conservatism is against all of them, as woodruffw would have you believe.
    - woodruffw 4y ago
      I don't understand where you believe it's been claimed that conservatism is unilaterally against all technological progress. It isn't. Conservatism is best understood as a social phenomenon that interacts with technological progress varyingly, depending on the effect that whatever particular technology has on social values any particular group of conservatives happen to priotitize. X-rays do not particularly threaten any social scheme.
cnasc 4y ago
My comment addressed gingerrr's assertion that "being worried about societal change" is the defining point of conservatism. I provided a counterexample; of course adherents of any ideology would be concerned about changes that indicate increasing currency of a competing ideology. > what makes an outlook conservative is the one-dimensional (and frequently reactionary) analysis that things must go back to how they were, or as closely as possible I'm wary of any attempt to sum up an ideology in a one-liner, since they tend to be lossy and dismissive. Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar). In general people live their lives based on what they are convinced is ethically right, they aren't brainless automatons following a simple algorithm of "old good, new bad" or "new good, old bad"
- woodruffw 4y ago
  > Your definition lines up more neatly with anarcho-primitivism than conservatism (at least modern American conservatism, with which I'm most familiar). Anarcho-primitivism is a discrete variant of the overarching conservative phenomenon: when an-prims go say "go back" they mean a specific and particularly reactionary set of social transformations. This doesn't mean that ordinary conservatives don't desire social regression; it just makes them not as openly reactionary as the most reactionary social conservatives. You're right, of course: any short and pithy summary of an ideology is going to have gaps. American conservatism is "funny" in the sense that it admits of additional gaps: there is a significant (although continually diminishing) population of "purely fiscal" conservatives who have dominated American intellectual conservatism, for example. And this is true for progressive movements as well, particular in the context of labor.