Conservative Veeky Forumsstorian

studying history made me a marxist commie. maybe we didn't read the same books

Please elaborate. What in particular brought you to that view?

You got it backwards, I study history to validate my ideological inclinations.

J.D. Unwin actually present extensive case studies in "Sex and Culture".

Well thats too bad

reading the history of working people, reading about reasons for revolutions, reading about class distinctions changing overtime, reading about what role technological development played in all this, etc

And you still believe in the classmeme?
I would say im more of a liberalconservative, the 19th/20th century develipement was made possible by free enterprise and free individuals. USAs history proves how powerful individualism can be backed by strong moral

t. degenerate swed socialist

Here also.

Yes but has it ever worked? If so when and here?

What book should I start if I want to read Burke?

I always viewed them very negatively, open wikipedia page for any authocratic figure in history, first and foremost they inform you about the atrocities they've commited no matter how small they were and disregarding the fact that some were necesarry to supress the opposition in the early moths of struggle for power. Take Franco for example: I know few elderly people that live in Spain that remember his regime, they view him positively and say that he was conservative and truly cared for his country and that life under his rule was normal withouth any opression whatsoever. On the other hand wikipedia is telling me he was bloody nazi dictator and that all he cared about was killing innocent people; also side note -main criticism for Franco's regime comes from new generations aka people who didn't live under him.

I find it totaly absurd that when I want to get a clue about how day-to-day life was in pre-WWII Germany I have to search for hours just to find that it wasn't actually so bad as wikipedia wants you to believe. How many people know that Hitler saved German economy or that he financed first German Autobahn (highway), in heart he was a traditionalist and a very clever politician (it was not that much of a fault of Germans that they've elected him, it was mainly because of his political cleverness), not some blood-thirsty maniac. Also just because he behaved "insanely" due to continuous drug abuse in 1940's doesn't mean he was the same person in 1930's.

I don't know really how to describe my beliefs. I'm American and for American values such as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and capitalism, but I'm very much against things such as polygamy, welfare and other undesirable qualities of the like. I guess I'm Constitutional Right Wing.

Op here. Yeah... Im american too and pretty much agree. Would you say we are classical liberal?

Well, I think maybe Right Wing, since we don't believe in freedoms such as polygamy and such, but we seem to be more traditional American values - so yeah, I guess Right Wing.

Personally I more describe myself as a Nationalist.

Can you faggots tell me what the fuck the difference between a libertarian and classical liberal is? Google is giving me no help.

Honestly some form of welfare for the unemployed or universal living wage makes sense in the light of western deindustrialisation (we will likely at some point slow down in creating new jobs for those we make obsolete if that point hasn't been reached already) and also the fact that somewhere around 3-4% unemployment is an ideal target for governments in order to dampen inflationary pressure and stop people from being choosy.

>universal living wage makes sense
Wouldn't that lead to massive inflation?

Theres none really, people are to dumb to understand "classical liberal", so the term libertarian is used.
Dont wanna confuse with liberals(US term) or socialliberals(EU term)

>le classical liberal meme

aka the 'i'm a conservative but want to avoid a bit of social stigma from it'

People typically become conservative when they are invested in the status quo remaining the way it is.

Not a lot of people seem to realize this, but in America, both parties have liberal and conservative elements. Dems slightly more liberal, Reps slightly more conservative.

individualism was just a by product of diminishing class distinctions
has communism ever worked? it's never been implemented in the sense that marxist meant

marx*

Depends on what you mean by conservative. I believe in my family's traditional values, but these values are not based on western or abrahamic traditions.

>Historians are generally more conservative
[citation needed]

You do know you can edit Wikipedia, cite sources and talk about pre war Germany right? That's how Wikipedia works.

Collectivism has always ended in ruin, one way or another. Centralizing so much power in government is asking for them to abuse it. Wherever this is a gross concentration of power, a powerful strongman will find his way into it.

Progressives are idealists to a fault and need us to keep their fantasies in check before they inevitably bring about collapse.

>studies history
>millions and millions killed
>over and over and over again
>all for some bullshit ideology

If you are getting an ideology from history you are fucking doing it wrong.

*wherever there is

>Conservative Historian

That's a bit of a contradiction. It's like saying you like football AND you support Fulham.

The more you know, the more you tend to the left or at least centrist positions.

Conservatism isn't a definite ideology.

>killing is inherently wrong and the structure of the state should reflect that

>How many people know that Hitler saved German economy or that he financed first German Autobahn (highway)
He didn't though

>Centralizing so much power in government is asking for them to abuse it
>what is separation of powers

this
It all depends on context. In western europe and USA, conservatives are generally right wing. In some eastern european countries, the most socially and culturally conservative members of society tend to be socialists.

This. If I had any integrity I wouldn't be on Veeky Forums.

Yes.

>has communism ever worked? it's never been implemented in the sense that marxist meant
There it is. There's the meme.

I am right wing conservative libertarian, but he is kind of correct. Communism presumes no state - and all of the communist regimes were pretty much the exact opposite of that. Now, arguably, communism now means these exact regimes (much like liberalism today is not what real, classical liberalism is)

>Communism presumes no state

>>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
[...]
>>Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.
[...]
>5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
>7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

>The more you know, the more you tend to the left or at least centrist positions.
Absolutely disgusting.
I don't know how you can look at history and come away with anything other than the impression that leftists are amoral cultural vandals.

tbqh marx was literal retard that contradicted himself more often he did not, but you cant dispute that there are far-left, near anarchist definitions of communism that include drastic limitation or complete destruction of the state

Yeah, but you know very well we're not talking about those.

Same

No. Studying history has reinforced my left-wing views.

>tfw the most prestigious place to study history is a conservative catholic university
Should I?

this, in spades

Not him, but has conservatism ever worked? Like has a society latched onto conservatism for decades and it worked out?

If history has shown me anything, it's that progressive movements are inevitable and conservative ideology never lasts more than a few decades.

t. user whose conception of history only extends back as far as the enlightenment at best.

i find most historians are centrists/conservatives and that scientists are liberals

Modern Liberals or Classical Liberals?

And I wonder how much the former do to the science community being shammed about politics beyond belief.

Show me a conservative society that has maintained its conservatism since its inception.

China :^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^)

So going from an empire to maoism was a continuation of China's conservatism? Fascinating take.

Conservatism can't be considered a dogmatic ideology like liberalism, socialism and communism. It means different things in different countries.

For example, in the United States, conservatism means free markets and small government, while in France it means protectionism and statism.

If you define conservatism, I'll take a half ass'd potshot at it.

How so?

The shamanism of the Xia is gone, the Mandate of Heaven of the Zhou is gone, legalism of the Qin is gone, the proto-turkish nomad traditions and Buddhism heavily influenced the north and led to counterculture such as calligraphy, Confucianism has tremendously changed, Taoism has tremendously changed, Christianity is spreading, the emperor is gone, Communism is gone, et cetera.

Even aspects that have survived, like the culture surrounding the Three Kingdoms period, i.e. what you'd deem "conservative", are just yesterday's progressive changes. There is nothing that has stuck since the beginning.

Conservatism is a myth.

Actually why don't you show me a society which is able to maintain it's liberalism in times of economic scarcity and struggle. You never noticed how the history books are littered with examples of "society X was incredibly enlightened and progressive, isn't tragic that they collapsed?"

Liberalism is the political equivalent of gold and marble cladding on a palace. It adds nothing to it's structural stability, often detracts from it when overdone, and cannot stand on it's own. In times of strife it's the typically the first thing to go as only an idiot would tear up the floorboards for firewood before selling off the silverware. Conservatism is the foundation upon which later generations of spendthrifts build their pleasure palaces of liberal fantasy.

>maintain its liberalism

That's not how it works friend.

>better keep on not changing things y'all
Ffs, naive reductionism pls go

I don't even know what I am anymore. I'd say I'm an American liberal conservative, if that makes any sense. I think both sides have merits to their arguments and it's just a matter of cherry picking what works and discarding what doesn't.

I sympathize with almost anybody, that's my problem. I grew up idolizing both the Wehrmacht and Red Army so I applied this concept of approaching both sides equally to every conflict I've studied since. I just don't want to take a concrete position when all ideologies have something to offer.

I've realised that democracy is a meme and it has never worked

underrated posts tbqh senpai

baka

It's true, idiots like you completely misinterpret the intent. It's generally not a denial but a simple statement of fact. The communist party of the soviet SOCIALIST republics strove for the development of a communist society, at least initially. The "lmao not real communism meme xd" meme is basically a billboard advertising how much of a retard you are. Not even a fucking Marxist, this is babby-tier history that anybody should know.

3 card molly faggot fuck off

I always considered myself quite conservative. However, The older I get, the less I truly grasp its actual definition. I just want to be left alone, not told how to live, don't bother other people, have opportunities to make money, and pay as little tax as possible.

>conservatism means never changing

The concept of change in history was introduced by conservative historians like François-René de Chateaubriand, Leopold von Ranke and Hippolyte Taine. Until then, liberals and socialists believed that society could be ordered in a rational way that was as fixed by "laws" as the Newtonian mechanics they were obssessed with, and some Marxists still believe that scientific laws move history.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historism

wtf is 3 card molly

Conservatism can mean whatever I want, if I define it as such. There are no "correct" definitions. There are only widely agreed upon definitions. That's why it's so important to define one's terms, which no one in this thread has done so far, making this discussion moot.

Chinese society has not only undergone changes, it has undergone radical (i.e., to the very core of their beliefs) changes on all levels over and over, in times of turmoil like the changing of dynasties quite rapidly even.

To be fair, it swings both ways. Full-on conservatism without progressive counterparts is far from ideal as well. Both need to be kept in check to the extent they can compliment eachother, though polarisation is ruining that possibility currently.

Central left, non USA, by the way.

It's made me extremely right wing. I've learned that might means right and objective morality doesn't exist so you should do what ever you can to exert yours onto others.

>I've learned that might means right
That's pretty much the first thing you learn to be wrong, if you get into political philosophy. (See: Plato's Symposium.)

Yes

>USA so successful.
>could it be that European explorers stumbled on an unexploited landmass larger than Europe in time for industrialization?
>nah it's muh individualism

So what's the matter with Mexico?

Then why isn't Canada, when distributed equal resources (e.g. oil, farmland, minerals, etc) not as successful as America?

Sure it is.
Liberalism implies consistent social "progress". If a society "regresses" socially then it hasn't maintained it's liberalism has it?

We Canadians are objectively superior, though

The picture says it all

I turned conservative because I actually got interested in politics.

>shoving individuals into little boxes because that's what muh progressive politicians do to win votes
>not treating everyone as an individual with their own personal experiences and ideas which differ greatly from your own but deserve as much respect as you think you are worth
Try to think more next time, bud.

Modern US liberals are really more of progressives, especially in the last few decades. They aren't so much of liberals in the sense that they believe it true liberty and enlightenment ideals, so many who associate with the left on some issues, and the right with others try to distance themselves from the US liberals.
Modern libertarians are mostly crazy nuts who want to abolish drivers liscenses and the like.

>US has separation of power
>both executive and judicial branches have slowly grown their power with every decade, subverting democracy and republicanism
Executive order really are cancer.
Marbury v Madison was a mistake

Studying history made me a Minarchist.
Also Hitler was a fag and ancap are literally a retarded

Started out very liberal but switched from Obama voter to Trump voter over 8 years of studying history both in college and on my own after. having a wider perspective on the history of peoples ideas and institutions totally shifted my understanding of what's important and how to achieve it