Why Progressvism Has Failed

[al Roumi]

And whilst we're on it, why are the conservatives even called "conservative"? They clearly whant to change things.

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").

[Furunculus]

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").

bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?

or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

[HoreTore]

bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?

or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

[rory_20_uk]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

Russia have always been ruled by a "strong man" for the last... well, almost 1,000 years. Democracy has only weakened their country's standing so why would they look up to democracy?

[al Roumi]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

[Lord of Lent]

exactly, how many Russian peasants now make it to University?

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

[al Roumi]

That is no excuse. Not having been to college doesn't mean you do not possess common sense...

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

[Lord of Lent]

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

Oops! I read something different; I thought you meant low educational standards cause the phenomenon HoreTore was talking about...
Sorry, I'm a little sleepy...

[rory_20_uk]

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

I think you are confusing the theory with the practice. It was not a level playing field and connections were as important then as they are now. A peasant son might have made it, but with a father on the politburo you'd be guaranteed a place wherever you wanted.

[HoreTore]

the point I believe HoreTore made, and I was acknowledging, was that Stalinist communism at least provided equality of opportunity to the masses. Never before (or since, as I was saying) had a Russian peasant's son had the same chance of getting a university education.

No, the point I made was that those people votes(or dreams, there are no elections in russia) run contrary to their interests - just like a poor man voting for a consvative party, the statement I was responding to.

Or another example: the Norwegian party with the most votes among people living on welfare is the party who wants to cut our welfare state most(the progress party).

[Furunculus]

Why did die-hard authoritarianism have such an appeal that the majority of Russians supported Stalin and a significant portion of its current population still dream of a return of such a murderous regime?

i was supplying a british perspective to a british poster, quite why other nations such as russia have such a love of political strong-men is another matter entirely, as Rory has said already.

[al Roumi]

bollox. why would anyone but the upper class be conservative if that was even remotely true?

Indeed! That is the very question I ask myself!

My answer for the UK is that the (current) Tories are not actually that conservative, they are very concerned with being a progressive government. Hence the greater tax on the rich that you point to.

Tax cuts are sold on the premise that you will keep what you have, and get more from it -what could be more conservative?

or tax cuts for the rich because a progressive tax system already taxes them more than is healthy for both them and the economy. i.e. little to do with consertvatism at all.

High taxes for the rich are about redistribution of wealth (I can see you shuddering) and should be about boosting the lot of the disenfranchised -that is socially progressive taxation.

And don't give me that "trickle down" tosh, the primary beneficiaries of economic growth are the investors -the rich. Yes growth means more jobs for those without capital investment but the main way for them to feel the benefits of economic power remains some form of wealth distribution, channeling (i.e. through the welfare state) the proceeds of growth directly to helping those not directly profiting from the profits of commerce.

[Furunculus]

My answer for the UK is that the (current) Tories are not actually that conservative, they are very concerned with being a progressive government. Hence the greater tax on the rich that you point to.

Tax cuts are sold on the premise that you will keep what you have, and get more from it -what could be more conservative?

High taxes for the rich are about redistribution of wealth (I can see you shuddering) and should be about boosting the lot of the disenfranchised -that is socially progressive taxation.

PVC has already supplied a perfectly adequate definition of what conservatives 'aspire' to, stick with it; "Conservative means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes."

Sounds more like an excellent justification for western free-market economies, rather than anything that is specifically tory.

No, I am not a supporter of redistributing wealth as an explicit goal in itself, though i am perfectly comfortable with social welfare including the principle that the richer end of the scale should pay proportionately more. again, there is nothing unconservative in this view.

[al Roumi]

PVC has already supplied a perfectly adequate definition of what conservatives 'aspire' to, stick with it; "Conservative means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes."

Sounds more like an excellent justification for western free-market economies, rather than anything that is specifically tory.

No, I am not a supporter of redistributing wealth as an explicit goal in itself, though i am perfectly comfortable with social welfare including the principle that the richer end of the scale should pay proportionately more. again, there is nothing unconservative in this view.

Historicaly, "preserving the social fabric" has been used (you may argue abused?) as a manifesto for opposition to all sorts of changes to the status quo, front and center among such changes were attempts to the erode the security and power of the privileged. That the poor or less well off have sided with the status quo rather than choosing to further the promise of greater equality has always been a great tragedy. In any case it is usually the aspiring and middle classes who drive social change, either self servingly or on the behalf of others.

That promise of greater equality sounds sensationalist but it is exactly what drove (drives?) support for communism. It's a harder rationale to understand in the context of somewhere "comfortable" like the present day UK, but far far easier in say early 1900's Russia, Italy etc where the rich/poor contrast was so stark and there was absolutely no safety-net bar your own family and its assets.

Off topic, but in the same vein, to my mind it is the welfare state and post-war progressive politics that did for support for communism in the west, or at least the UK.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well "conservative" literally means preserving the status quo -usually this is taken to mean the social & economic status quo i.e. lets make sure everyone remains in the same class as they grew up in.

Hence tax cuts for the rich, which for one, help to entrench the divide between rich and poor. (yes that's crude and depends on relative taxation, tax bands and of course your definition of "rich").

No, "Conservative" means preserving the fabric of society, not entrenching social divide and dysfunction. The term was actually coined to appeal to the lower classes.