4 ms·

»John Barlow argues that Robin's view is that conservatism/reaction is the characteristic of those who have power and wish to keep it, along with the satisfacti

»John Barlow argues that Robin's view is that conservatism/reaction is the characteristic of those who have power and wish to keep it, along with the satisfaction of having it. Yet Barlow argues that this claim is vulnerable to the fact that "at any given time, yesterday’s victors are today’s conservatives" which Barlow argues is an issue since it makes it difficult to distinguish a characteristically distinct reactionary attitude. Barlow argues that the root of "conservative" is one who wishes to conserve; humans have a tendency to want to keep what they have or have fought or worked for but this is not a new observation, thus Barlow argues that Robin's essays invite a response of "so what?"«

jfengel 3y ago
It sounds as if Barlow and Robin are talking about different phenomena going under the same name. Barlow is talking about a tendency for people to have difficulty reacting to change that occurs within their lifetime. They may have fought for change when they were young, but they get attached to the specific changes they were fighting for, rather than to broader principles. Robin is talking about a broader cultural phenomenon, where some people feel entitled to rule, and present some historical time when they did rule as utopian. That is often not entirely backwards-looking. They don't just want the ideals of their youth, but a broad set of changes that will entrench their power and suit their personal tastes. The backwards-looking language can be similar, but governance they propose is very different. Confusing it further is that many "revolutionaries" are in fact conservatives, trying to take power for themselves even while claiming to represent broader freedoms. Among other things, this makes it hard to discuss the Russian revolutions in progressive/conservative and left/right terms. The entire thing ended up just entrenching a different conservative power base, who used progressive language but implemented little of it.

jfengel 3y ago

It sounds as if Barlow and Robin are talking about different phenomena going under the same name. Barlow is talking about a tendency for people to have difficulty reacting to change that occurs within their lifetime. They may have fought for change when they were young, but they get attached to the specific changes they were fighting for, rather than to broader principles. Robin is talking about a broader cultural phenomenon, where some people feel entitled to rule, and present some historical time when they did rule as utopian. That is often not entirely backwards-looking. They don't just want the ideals of their youth, but a broad set of changes that will entrench their power and suit their personal tastes. The backwards-looking language can be similar, but governance they propose is very different. Confusing it further is that many "revolutionaries" are in fact conservatives, trying to take power for themselves even while claiming to represent broader freedoms. Among other things, this makes it hard to discuss the Russian revolutions in progressive/conservative and left/right terms. The entire thing ended up just entrenching a different conservative power base, who used progressive language but implemented little of it.