Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #46 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
As I said, it is a strawman to suggest I'm arguing for the removal of all government welfare. What I am arguing for is a conservative or traditionalist economic approach, that thinks first of the intermediate social associations that make up any flourishing society. This doesn't mean we need to get rid of all state welfare, but it does mean such support should be cautious and restrained and, as far as possible, decentralised. It also means much welfare won't be necessary. Social democracy has it backwards, as I said. It looks to state redistribution to cure problems that a more Distributist approach could prevent to begin with. Social democracy tends to look far too much to the centralised state to fix issues, without considering the effect on civil society, and is far too interventionist in that society. Family, community, etc. require an important degree of autonomy and even economic function to survive and flourish. Both the state and globalist economic forces are a threat to these little platoons. I do think that having the pendulum swing a little way back to social democracy might be a good thing, after the dominance of neoliberalism for a few decades, but neither of these are a proper economic solution to a conservative or traditionalist.

There's actually no need for the state to provide free tuition to allow those from disadvantaged backgrounds to go to university. All the state has to do is provide loans. I am not from a rich background, and yet I could go to university because of state loans. In fact, if we're talking of the most talented, scholarships would probably do, especially if encouraged and supported by the state. In my opinion, far too many people go to university. Many would be better going to trade schools, apprenticeships, and the like. And many courses shouldn't be offered at university, nor should many professions require university qualifications. Nurses, police officers, even accountants, to my mind, don't require a university education.


Also, perhaps you shouldn't try to go back to revive parts of the discussion that have been discontinued earlier on. The conversation went on to the topic of nationalised industry, and you have gone back to, rather repetitively, comment on something we'd apparently finished with. In fact, you it's almost as if you decided to make a second general response to my post, as you responded to several of the distinct issues raised in it. This is all rather strange posting behaviour, in my opinion. I do recall you have done similar things, like delete and repost your posts, presumably to try to get other posters' attention through notifications.

In Kurdistan, university education is free of charge, and most Kurds don't want to change it. In Germany, the Scandinavian countries and Russia, university education is free of charge too.
Claiming, that traditionalist conservatives must be opposed to state regulation of the economy is unique to the Anglosphere. Bismarck supported state regulation of the economy, and Franco supported state regulation of the economy too. Bismarck and Franco certainly weren't distributists. Continental European conservatives have traditionally supported state regulation of the economy, while supporting private property and opposing class struggle. In Tsarist Russia, a lot of state monopolies existed, and in Ancien Regime France, a lot of state monopolies (the regies) existed too.
Social democracy isn't incompatible with monarchism. Atlee wasn't opposed to the monarchy, and the social democratic governments of the Scandinavian countries have never tried to abolish their monarchies (Olof Palme, the social democratic prime minister of Sweden, considered abolishing the Swedish monarchy, but settled for a compromise, which reduced the King of Sweden to a figurehead without formal political powers). The Spanish Socialist Worker's Party, which is a social democratic party, accepts the monarchy despite the party having strong republican traditions.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #47 
You're talking about corporatist regimes in the early party of your post. I don't think Bismarck's economic policies are necessarily a model for conservatives, nor is Bismarck himself perhaps. But Distributism is compatible with things like corporatism, guild socialism, etc., even if a Distributist economy doesn't require them. Many of the early Distributists and fellow travellers supported elements of corporatism. For a conservative and traditionalist, any corporatist or guild elements should recognise subsidiarity and the need to support local society. They should also recognise other principles, like quality and the interests of consumers and the community.

By the way, just because something happened in a traditional or past society, that doesn't mean it is unimpeachable from a conservative or traditionalist perspective, as more than a monarchist must support anything any monarch ever did. Too much centralisation, which hurts the little platoons, as Burke called them, which must be at the centre of any conservative or traditionalist vision of society and economics, is bad even if it sometimes occurred in generally traditional societies. Kings often had mistresses, but that doesn't make adultery okay.

I am not sure what you think you are proving when you bring up a socialist like Atlee. Yes, some socialists have been monarchists still, but that doesn't make socialism okay to the conservative or traditionalist. I never said a monarchist cannot be a social democrat or even a socialist. I also have no idea what the stuff about Kurdistan's university funding has to do with anything, or why I should care about it or Germany's or Scandinavia's. My point was that there actually isn't a need for completely free tuition, even to help disadvantaged, but talented students. You literally said it was necessary.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #48 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You're talking about corporatist regimes in the early party of your post. I don't think Bismarck's economic policies are necessarily a model for conservatives, nor is Bismarck himself perhaps. But Distributism is compatible with things like corporatism, guild socialism, etc., even if a Distributist economy doesn't require them. Many of the early Distributists and fellow travellers supported elements of corporatism. For a conservative and traditionalist, any corporatist or guild elements should recognise subsidiarity and the need to support local society. They should also recognise other principles, like quality and the interests of consumers and the community.

By the way, just because something happened in a traditional or past society, that doesn't mean it is unimpeachable from a conservative or traditionalist perspective, as more than a monarchist must support anything any monarch ever did. Too much centralisation, which hurts the little platoons, as Burke called them, which must be at the centre of any conservative or traditionalist vision of society and economics, is bad even if it sometimes occurred in generally traditional societies. Kings often had mistresses, but that doesn't make adultery okay.

I am not sure what you think you are proving when you bring up a socialist like Atlee. Yes, some socialists have been monarchists still, but that doesn't make socialism okay to the conservative or traditionalist. I never said a monarchist cannot be a social democrat or even a socialist. I also have no idea what the stuff about Kurdistan's university funding has to do with anything, or why I should care about it or Germany's or Scandinavia's. My point was that there actually isn't a need for completely free tuition, even to help disadvantaged, but talented students. You literally said it was necessary.

I prefer corporatism to distributism, because corporatism is about the state regulating the economy in cooperation with employers and trade unions.
I admit, that I'm not a traditionalist conservative by your standards, but I consider myself a conservative, because I support constitutional monarchy, support national sovereignty, oppose mass immigration and oppose gay marriage, and I consider myself a traditionalist, because I prefer classical music and traditional architecture. I don't support the Ancien Regime. I like  the legacy of the moderate wing of the French Revolution, whose leaders were Lafayette and Mirabeau, but I dislike Jacobinism and Marxism. I support democracy, and I consider a constitutional monarchy an addition to democracy, not an alternative to democracy. A king is a non-partisan head of state, which embodies the history and traditions of a nation. No president can do that. I support freedom of religion and I don't want to restore feudalism, because I dislike serfdom. Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia abolished serfdom. I support the state recognizing titles of nobility, but nobles and commoners ought to be equal before the law. In Germany, the state recognizes titles of nobility as part of the legal name, but has abolished all legal privileges of nobility. But I'm not opposed to the nobility having great informal political influence, as in Kurdistan and in India.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #49 
Corporatism and Distributism need not be incompatible, although they aren't always compatible, depending on the form of each. There is a lot of overlap, and many early Distributists were also, to some degree, corporatists and vice versa. Look at Arthur Penty or Heinrich Pesch. Look at the importance of Leo XIII and Pius XI as important spurs for the revival of both at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. I myself am not opposed to some corporatist policies - guilds, for example - though they aren't a priority for me. Corporatism is not necessarily about aggressive centralised intervention into every aspect of the economy, to the detriment of civil society. Indeed, for the best examples of corporatism, from the Middle Ages to Bonald to Rene de La Tour du Pin to Heinrich Pesch, it was not.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #50 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Corporatism and Distributism need not be incompatible, although they aren't always compatible, depending on the form of each. There is a lot of overlap, and many early Distributists were also, to some degree, corporatists and vice versa. Look at Arthur Penty or Heinrich Pesch. Look at the importance of Leo XIII and Pius XI as important spurs for the revival of both at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. I myself am not opposed to
some corporatist policies - guilds, for example - though they aren't a priority for me. Corporatism is not necessarily about aggressive centralised intervention into every aspect of the economy, to the detriment of civil society. Indeed, for the best examples of corporatism, from the Middle Ages to Bonald to Rene de La Tour du Pin to Heinrich Pesch, it was not.

It's understandable, that you dislike excessive state power. I'm strongly opposed to totalitarianism too. But the main reason for totalitarian regimes being bad is utopianism, not excessive state power. Utopianism inevitably leads to tyranny, because those people, who don't fit into the proposed utopian society, must be eliminated. In a democracy, state power doesn't lead to tyranny, because democracies have a legislative assembly, which is elected in free election, and have a constitution, which guarantees civil liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. State power is necessary in order to defend the weak against the strong, and the state is the most reliable provider of social welfare. Strengthening civil society isn't a bad idea, but social welfare must not be left to the civil society, except care for the children and the elderly, which ought to be the responsibility of the family. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #51 
And, as I keep saying, you are ignoring that for intermediate social associations, like family, to flourish they must have a good bit of autonomy and must process important functions. To worry about these institutions is basic to conservative and traditionalist thought. I am not saying there is no role for a state based safety net, but what I am saying is that social democracy, which believes in profligate centralised state intervention, with little concern for civil society, is a danger to the little platoons. In general, social welfare should be left to civil society, except where it manifestly cannot cope with this (though as a Distributist I obviously want economic arrangements that lessen the need for welfare of any sort, social or state based). Man is a social animal, and must be a member of a number of strong, healthy social associations. Weakening these in favour of the centralised state (or the globalised economy) is not only profoundly unconservative, but is a danger to social cohesion and ordered liberty.

Democratic governments most certainly can, and often have, encroached beyond the bounds of legitimate state action, weakening, amongst other things, the little platoons so basic to a healthy society and culture. In fact, as Robert Nisbet and others have noted, modern political history can be told as a continuous attack on the intermediate social associations, from Hobbes and Rousseau through the French Revolution and beyond.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
And, as I keep saying, you are ignoring that for intermediate social associations, like family, to flourish they must have a good bit of autonomy and must process important functions. To worry about these institutions is basic to conservative and traditionalist thought. I am not saying there is no role for a state based safety net, but what I am saying is that social democracy, which believes in profligate centralised state intervention, with little concern for civil society, is a danger to the little platoons. In general, social welfare should be left to civil society, except where it manifestly cannot cope with this (though as a Distributist I obviously want economic arrangements that lessen the need for welfare of any sort, social or state based). Man is a social animal, and must be a member of a number of strong, healthy social associations. Weakening these in favour of the centralised state (or the globalised economy) is not only profoundly unconservative, but is a danger to social cohesion and ordered liberty.

Democratic most certainly can, and often has, encroached beyond the bounds of legitimate state action, weakening, amongst other things, the little platoons so basic to a healthy society and culture. In fact, as Robert Nisbet and others have noted, modern political history can be told as a continuous attack on the intermediate social associations, from Bodin and Hobbes through the French Revolution and beyond.

The main differences between social democracy and Communism is, that Communism is revolutionary and utopian, while social democracy is reformist and pragmatic. The utopianism of Communism led to crimes such as the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and the forced collectivization of agriculture in Soviet Russia and the Cultural Revolution in China. During the French Revolution, a split between pragmatic reformists, such as Lafayette and Mirabeau, and utopian revolutionaries, such as Robespierre, emerged. A similar split emerged in Marxism after the death of Karl Marx. Eduard Bernstein founded reformist Marxism, which evolved into social democracy, while Lenin founded Communism. Despite social democracy having Marxist roots, I'm not a Marxist, because I reject state atheism and class struggle. I'm a Fabian socialist. Nehru was a Fabian socialist, and the Licence Raj of India was inspired by Fabian socialism. Indira Gandhi, who was the daughter of Nehru and continued his political legacy, nationalized the 14 largest banks of India in 1969.
Trying to establish a perfect society is doomed to failure and will inevitably lead to tyranny. We ought to eliminate the ills of society rather than try to establish a perfect society. A democratically elected government often makes mistakes, but democratic constitutional monarchy is the least bad form of government.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #53 
Most of your post is irrelevant. I'm not sure who has advocated a perfect society. It is you who are claiming you can use energetic state intervention to create a good society. That's not that far from utopianism. The hallmark of utopian ideologies is often the use of the state to remake society. And thinking the centralised state can effectively take over capital allocation seems pretty utopian to me - the bizzare use of India as an example, notwithstanding.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #54 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Most of your post is irrelevant. I'm not sure who has advocated a perfect society. It is you who are claiming you can use energetic state intervention to create a good society. That's not that far from utopianism. The hallmark of utopian ideologies is often the use of the state to remake society. And thinking the centralised state can effectively take over capital allocation seems pretty utopian to me - the bizzare use of India as an example, notwithstanding.

I'm not accusing any member of the forum of advocating a perfect society. I was merely explaining the differences between social democracy and Communism. A lot of neoliberal conservatives fail to distinguish sufficiently between social democracy and Communism. In Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro claims, that Lula is a Communist, despite Lula being a traditional social democrat, who opposes neoliberalism. Bernie Sanders and Corbyn are often being accused of being Communists or Marxists by neoliberal conservatives. I don't support Corbyn, because he waffles on Brexit, is a republican (but he will thankfully not try to abolish the monarchy) and is soft on anti-Semitism, but I like the economic policies of Corbyn. Corbyn are returning to the economic policies of Old Labour and is opposed to Blairism. The economic policies of Corbyn are very similar to those of Atlee.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #55 
I'm not a neoliberal by any stretch of the imagination. I could make parallel criticisms of neoliberalism as I have for social democracy.

I am not entirely unhappy to see the pendulum swing back a bit from neoliberalism to social democracy, although I would prefer neither. But I also certainly think some of Corbyn's policies are ill-thought out.

You left out that Corbyn is a Fenian terrorist sympathiser (amongst other things, he gave a eulogy in front of a Nationalist organisation for some IRA gunmen shot by the SAS a few weeks before) and hasn't met an anti-Western dictator or terrorist group he doesn't like. He is truly an appalling opposition leader, by far the leader or major opposition leader in the Wesr that I'm aware of, but not for his economic ideas.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #56 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I'm not a neoliberal by any stretch of the imagination. I could make parallel criticisms of neoliberalism as I have for social democracy.

I am not entirely unhappy to see the pendulum swing back a bit from neoliberalism to social democracy, although I would prefer neither. But I also certainly think some of Corbyn's policies are ill-thought out.

You left out that Corbyn is a Fenian terrorist sympathiser (amongst other things, he gave a eulogy in front of a Nationalist organisation for some IRA gunmen shot by the SAS a few weeks before) and hasn't met an anti-Western dictator or terrorist group he doesn't like. He is truly an appalling opposition leader, by far the leader or major opposition leader in the Wesr that I'm aware of, but not for his economic ideas.

Corbyn's past support of the IRA hardly matters today because of the Good Friday Agreement. Today, Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party, which pursues Irish unification with the ballot rather than with the bullet. I dislike Corbyn's support for PKK/PYD and his opposition to the State of Israel, and he is too soft on the Iranian regime, but I like his support for improved relations between Great Britain and Russia.
Corbyn's economic policies are actually less radical than Atlee's economic policies. The Atlee government nationalized the Bank of England, the coal mines, the steel industry, the railroads, electricity and gas and created the NHS. Corbyn proposes nationalizing the railroads, water, gas and energy and he proposes to introducing tuition-free university education. Atlee was the greatest British prime minister of the 20th century except Winston Churchill. Churchill was greater than Atlee, because he led Great Britain to victory over Nazi Germany.
But I prefer Boris Johnson to Corbyn, despite preferring Corbyn's economic policies to Boris Johnson's economic policies and despite strongly disagreeing with Boris Johnson on Kurdistan and Crimea, because I prefer Boris Johnson's stance on Brexit to Corbyn's stance on Brexit. Brexit is currently the most important political issue in Great Britain.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #57 
I can't for the life of me see why the shameful Good Friday Agreement means that we should overlook Corbyn's unrepentant sympathy for Fenian terrorism, terrorism against his own country, the country he represented in parliament then and now, no less. Besides, it isn't just Fenian terrorism that he supports. From Hamas to Chavez, there's hardly an anti-Western dictator or terrorist group he hasn't shown support for. He really is a despicable, George Galloway type figure.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #58 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I can't for the life of me see why the shameful Good Friday Agreement means that we should overlook Corbyn's unrepentant sympathy for Fenian terrorism, terrorism against his own country, the country he represented in parliament then and now, no less. Besides, it isn't just Fenian terrorism that he supports. From Hamas to Chavez, there's hardly an anti-Western dictator or terrorist group he hasn't shown support for. He really is a despicable, George Galloway type figure.

Hugo Chavez wasn't a dictator. He was elected in a free election and he was reelected in free elections. Hugo Chavez was a socialist, but he wasn't a Communist. He was a professing Christian, and he didn't support total elimination of private enterprise. His friendship with Fidel Castro didn't make him a Communist. But Venezuela has become a dictatorship under Nicolas Maduro, the successor of Chavez. He stripped the National Assembly of Venezuela of legislative power in 2017, because the opposition had won the election to the National Assembly of 2015.
I dislike Corbyn's opposition to Israel and his support of Hamas, and I dislike Corbyn's support of PKK/PYD, which is a Kurdish Communist terrorist movement. He appear to prefer PKK/PYD to KRG. Corbyn and Boris Johnson are both wrong on Kurdistan, because Corbyn supports PKK/PYD and Boris Johnson opposes Kurdish independence from Iraq. In addition, Corbyn is too soft on the Iranian regime.
A leftist sympathizing with the struggle of an oppressed people such as the Ulster Catholics is understandable, even if the target of the struggle is your own country. Opposing your own country oppressing other nations is admirable. I have never supported Irish republican terrorism, because Irish unification without the consent of the majority of the Ulstermen is wrong, but the Ulster Catholics had legitimate grievances before the Good Friday Agreement.  



Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,433
Reply with quote  #59 
Chavez ended up a dictator, or something like it. Just because he was originally openly elected doesn't change that.

I agree there were legitimate grievances, but there was no excuse for IRA terrorism, terrorism which probably set back the full settling of those grievances. The correct thing to say is you have never supported IRA terrorism because it's terrorism. Corbyn sympathised with those terrorists. It is despicable. He has sympathised with other terrorists and dictators. He is entirely beyond the pale.

I have no idea what Kurdistan has to do with any of this.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 809
Reply with quote  #60 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Chavez ended up a dictator, or something like it. Just because he was originally openly elected doesn't change that.

I agree there were legitimate grievances, but there was no excuse for IRA terrorism, terrorism which probably set back the full settling of those grievances. The correct thing to say is you have never supported IRA terrorism because it's terrorism. Corbyn sympathised with those terrorists. It is despicable. He has sympathised with other terrorists and dictators. He is entirely beyond the pale.

I have no idea what Kurdistan has to do with any of this.

The claim, that Chavez was a dictator, is neocon nonsense. Chavez never became a dictator. He was reelected in a free election in 2012, a few months before his death, and he tolerated the existence of political opposition. In 2015, the opposition managed to win the National Assembly election and obtain a majority in the National Assembly. That wouldn't have been allowed to happen in a dictatorship. But Maduro made himself a dictator after the defeat in the National Assembly election in 2015. 
Claiming, that armed struggle against an oppressive regime is wrong is nonsense. I support the Kurdish armed struggle against Iraq and I admire the struggle of Haganah (the militia of the Israeli Labor Party) against the British regime in Israel. The attacks of IRA against civilian Britons were wrong, but my main reason for opposing Irish republican terrorism is, that Irish unification happening without the consent of the majority of the Ulstermen is wrong. But claiming, that having supported IRA during the Troubles makes you unfit for political office in Great Britain is against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement, which is about reconciliation rather than revenge. Sinn Fein is a legitimate political party, which rejects terrorism, today, and the IRA has been disbanded. If the IRA had continued their campaign of terrorism today, I would have agreed with you on Corbyn.
As a Kurd, the political positions on Kurdistan of the leaders of the two main political parties of Great Britain are of great importance to me. 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.