The essence of Rightism?

In order to answer, I'd need to understand what you mean by rightism.

 

You shuldn't look at it that way. Conservatism is about gradual change as opposed to revolution, and seeing as there's not many revolutions as compared to conservative gradual change; the cons are winning.

 

No it's not. nazi germany didn't have a monarchy, just one example. And neither does russia, for a contemporary one. It's imply not true.

Look it up on wikipedia or whatever. Fascism =/= totalitarianism/authoritarianism. Not saying it doesn't posses those atributes, but that they are just that; attributes, and fascism is a whole ideology.

 

whatever you regard as right. I was thinking about conservatism, fascism, libertarianism, and capitalist anarchism. and their various sub divisions. Putting out the idea of a common philosophy behind them.

 

Granny singin' When yer Right - yer Right...

... to the tune of When yer Hot - yer Hot.

 

The American Revolution may have been a significant example of leftist impetuousness, but I don't recall the obdurate conservatives of that era proclaiming that they merely wished to postpone independence until 1876 or 1976. Your opining that conservatives are merely slow people does not account for the historical record.

The same may be said of less monumental liberal advances - child labour laws, workplace safety codes, women's suffrage, etc. Who were the rightist swells expostulating, "Smashing idea! Let's get around to it later!"?

Only slavery evidenced some conservatives begrudgingly willing to gradually abandon their benighted institution, but the hidebound hardcore extremists resisted the progress with a futile, treasonous frenzy.

True to form, it's difficult to find many of the ideological sticks-in-the-mud now accepting the inevitable further inclusionary step of ending gender-discrimination with a resigned, " Mañana" as progress proceeds despite them - as ever.

 

Add both islamic and biblical thumperism to the rightist mix.

 

I think at it's core the principles of conservatism are establishing and respecting authority, order for social stability, and individual responsibility. All are good things but can become problematic when the authority seeks, by force, a hegemony of centralized power over uncooperative bodies or individuals.

 

The conservatives of that day would be burke and the royalists, who didn't support revolution. But What I see as left and right hadn't really been defined at that time anyways.

How do you know that child labour laws and that wasn't enacted 'later' as the conservatives wanted? *wink* *wink*.

anyways, reform and cahnge isn't incompatible to conservatism as I've said. Burke, the founder in many ways, wanted gradual change. What it's about is that no one wants a bloody revolution.

- - - Updated - - -

I'd put that with conservatism actually. Conservatism is really broad.

 

So...for my last post before I head off into the Memorial Day Weekend...

Have we captured the essence of rightism?

Do we have enough to create a perfume called "Essence eau conservateur"?

 

I was asking what policy positions you would considered to be "right". Fascism and capitalist anarchism aren't even on the same planet with respect to policy recommendations.

 

Ah. The 1800's. A time of the most corrupt American government in history, the highest number of deaths in the workplace, blacks either enslaved or unable to have rights, Asians and Hispanics treated only mildly better, children working 10 hour days, workers being shot for striking, the Irish literally starving in the slums...

Yeah, it was a peach! I mean, if you were a white Anglo land owner that is...

 

Nah, that would be the Woodrow Administration, y'know, the one that took political prisoners and started the Federal Reserve?

A time when Americans had the definitive highest standard of living in the world.

Children, unlike anywhere else on the planet, actually having the expectation to end up better than their parents.

And yet all three were STILL living longer here than they did anywhere else, and with more prosperity to boot.

Evidently someone thought it was, seeing as how our population exploded from little more than a few million, to 30 million in less than 50 years.

The Market Revolution, a part to the period so many overlook. The threads of innovation, of Women's suffrage, of Religious plurality, all began because of the gains we made in the market. Never in our history did the state of the common man improve so dramatically as it did during that time. It's the tip off that unabashed liberty works, and it's mind boggling to speculate how much better off we'd still be today if we had continued on that path.

 

um yeah okay I get it. Seen this brand of kool-aid before. Our slaves lived longest so it was GREAT to be a slave. Child and sweatshop labor wasn't bad! And Americans had the highest standard of living in the world!What a load of BS. But you believe every bit of it so to argue would be as productive as argue with the guy pushing the shopping cart, complaining about the aliens who probed him. The Reality bus has left the station.
It's all good man. I'm sure the people in the slums dying of twenty different diseases just didn't appreciate how well they had it!

 

I'd buy that one in an instant!

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not talking about policy position, i'm talking about underlying pihlosophy, deep down.

 

Not at all, but there being slaves is a problem with Gov't policy, not markets.

The more free the nation, the less need for child labor there is.

Child labor is the result of having few choices, none of them ideal. To work past that, requires a time of development for human capital.

It's this that defines what many perceive of the industrial revolution, the hard labor, long hours, and atrocious working conditions. This is a necessary process every nation must go through at least once. However, as we can see with nations like Botswana, it no longer takes 70 years as it did with us or the other Western nations, you can do it now within a generation. This is due to technology and processes already existing, so all that Botswana had to do was a adopt and re-tread what the Western nations had already gone through.

... We did. First nation to have broad availability of electricity, first to have mass transit, first to capitalize on oil. All of this lead to consumption far and above what the average citizen in the other parts of the world could afford.

The American diet since the late 18th century consisted of copious amounts of meat, an expensive commodity before refrigeration. American also had more land, and were more likely to be educated.

Name a place at the time where this wasn't occurring. It's easy to fall short if you're comparing the 19th century U.S. in a vacuum against perfection, but compare us against the rest of world at the time, and we were practically paradise, hence why 1/3 of Norway's population came here, and nearly all of the Ethnic German Russians.

 

Still no.

Fascism is about a unified state, with broad, sweeping powers, emphasizing the collective, national identity.

Fact is, Fascism can arise from the right or left, it isn't tethered to either side, it only requires the state and a national identity to be emphasized above all else, which politicians on both sides have done.

Anarchism in any sense would be its antithesis, as it decries the state, decries a collective identity, emphasizing instead the individual.

 

I'm well aware of that. So, why do fascism want a big state? Why do anarchist want no state? We're still notgoing deep enough here, this is still policy.

 

They think Nationalized Collectivism is the key to success and happiness, and individual motives only gets in the way of that.

They think unmitigated Individualism is the key to success and happiness, and Gov't motives only gets in the way of that.

Again, assigning Fascism strictly to the right is a misnomer, Mussolini started out as Marxist, became a socialist, and he codified Fascism.

 

I still don't see how fascism and capitalist anarchism can be lumped together.

What do you consider to be the underlying philosophy and principles of "the right", and how are these shared by conservatism, fascism, libertarianism, and capitalist anarchism? I don't see these ideologies sharing ANY principles.

 

Burke was sympathetic to the cause of American independence and, in that regard, could not be numbered amongst most hardcore rightists of his day who vehemently opposed it.

When you indicated, "I'm not talking about policy position, i'm talking about underlying philosophy, deep down," I had presumed such a philosophical predilection would predate the particulars.

Whilst conservatives throughout a period of humanitarian social reform vehemently opposed the self-imposition of decent standards through the vehicle of self-governance, I do believe conscience would have eventually provoked change. Even the institution of slavery, championed by the most recalcitrant rightists to the point of initiating an horrific war against the United States, would have eventually given way to a communal expression of respect for one's fellow man. One may well speculate as to when.

No sane person wants bloody revolutions. The pattern has been that a pampered elite is adamantly resistant to social process until the oppressed have endured enough. When have conservatives ever promoted significant egalitarian measures, either those I have mentioned - child labour laws, workplace safety regulations, workman's compensation, women's suffrage, civil rights legislation, ending gender discrimination, or others? Invariably, rightists have resisted such progress in the advancement of equality, inclusiveness, and community cohesion. Rightists in control - whether they take the form of repressive fascists, exploitive capitalists, theocratic fanatics, or knee-jerk status quosters, resist in vain, but they do resist..

 

Relatively speaking, it was best to be a slave in the states, based on working conditions and life expectancy. For a long time in the West Indies, life expectancy after arrival was about 5 years, and the slave population in the states was the first to become self-sustaining.

That being said, being a slave generally isn't cool. Such a statement (as the one you were responding to) is as asinine as saying, "paralytics have it better in the US than in anywhere else, so it's great to be a paralytic."

 

Don't you mean the most hardcore statists of his day? Because statism isn't a left v. right thing, it's an entirely different line.

 

No, both left and right accepted the need for governance. The leftists favoured America's progressing to self-rule, the rightists in perpetuating monarchical dominion.

 

My thesis is that they both adhere to 'masculine' things, albeit in different ways. You know, strength and self reliance, repsectively. Although, it probably can't be the definitive answer to all this, just an interesting observation. And it elaves the question, whence commeth leftism?

- - - Updated - - -

Because they are based on masculinity, but in different ways. Interesting though ain't it?