Clashism or Vosemism?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I think this brief exchange (loosely defined) helped to perhaps best define the radical(ish) ends of the cleavage between "traditional conservatives" and "liberal conservatives". Most people conservatives (sorry for the mixup) are likely between these two points (I doubt, say, RFayette would entirely dismiss market economics as needed, for example). Lefties of various sorts, please place yourselves accordingly.

Socialism is value-neutral and, in some cases, can even be used to advance conservative causes whereas the kind of politics espoused by SJWs seeks explicitly to erode tradition and undermine authority.

Authority has nothing to do with conservatism (indeed, it is usually an enemy of it) and tradition is good for conservatives only in the sense that it usually supports their endeavors; in cases where it does not (such as countries that have long-established strong welfare states, for instance) it is "value-neutral", as you say, or can sometimes even work against real conservatism.

[Santander]

Tradition is more important than anything else.

[Mr. Smith]

Clashism is further way from Reaganomics, that is a win by default.

EDIT: Not that these are good options by any stretch.

[LLR]

Even me and my sh**tty politics have to go with Vosemism

[mencken]

Vosemism domestically with Clashist foreign policy.

[heatcharger]

The one that doesn't unironically rhyme with a certain authoritarian ideology.

[Goldwater]

Vosem has consistently been one of the people most similar to me, politically speaking, so obviously Vosemism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I have to agree with Vosem; modern "conservatism" (whatever that means) is really an outgrowth of classic liberalism. My ideology, while probably intersecting more with Clash at various points, is still growing from the same soil that Vosem's ideology comes from.

Conservatism to me is about the protection of the individual. I have no idea where this notion that conservatism is solely about protecting a certain time and place comes from. If conservatism is about protecting collective traditions, than what traditions do we save? Who decides? What period do we go "back to" in order to prosper again? The 1950s? 1776 (where if I wanted to, I could take out a blunder-bluss and steal Cathcon's pumpkins!) There is no logical consistency in this very malleable brand of conservatism. This is how Reagan-candy gets made.

[White Trash]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

[White Trash]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

I fail to see how a socialist economic system is theoretically incompatible with nationalism.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

And yet, strangely enough, socialism in a variety of forms has made do with the nation-state, to the point that for a number of post-Soviet republics, the Soviet system was the first time where they functioned as territorially-defined, distinct entities...

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I don't think there's anything morally repellant about socialism; in fact, it works quite well for many nations. I don't believe that it's appropriate for my own country or for the USA but that's another matter.

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

And yet the socialist and communist movements of the early twentieth century were almost always more fervently patriotic and nationalistic than their western counterparts.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

And yet, strangely enough, socialism in a variety of forms has made do with the nation-state, to the point that for a number of post-Soviet republics, the Soviet system was the first time where they functioned as territorially-defined, distinct entities...

Are we speaking in terms of practice or just ideology? While many of the early socialist movements were indeed nationalistic, it's also worth remembering that the Soviet Union adopted "socialism in one country" while supporting revolutionary movements abroad to the very end. They never surrendered on world revolution.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Speaking of how impressively unintelligent Clash is, does anyone remember that thread where he insisted that Giscard was a "Red Tory" and, when rightfully called out, resorted to citing the vague English Wikipedia definition of the term to back it up? No wonder the guy can't seem to defend his pathetic ideology without resorting posting memes he saw on r/altright.

No, I'm pretty sure you're the only one obsessive enough to remember that. I mean, it was almost a year ago and not a particularly interesting exchange.

[Beet]

Nationalism is at odd with socialism because when the working classes identify with their nation over working classes from other countries, they forget their class interests. How do you think the ruling classes got 10 million men to die on the battlefields of World War I?

[RFayette]

Vosemism domestically economically with Clashist foreign and social policy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Socialism is value-neutral

What?

I think he meant in the sense that socialism is neutral on concepts like cultural traditions and nationalism.

It isn't though. Socialism has no more room for the nation state than communism does, since both maintain the same long term ends.

And yet, strangely enough, socialism in a variety of forms has made do with the nation-state, to the point that for a number of post-Soviet republics, the Soviet system was the first time where they functioned as territorially-defined, distinct entities...

Are we speaking in terms of practice or just ideology? While many of the early socialist movements were indeed nationalistic, it's also worth remembering that the Soviet Union adopted "socialism in one country" while supporting revolutionary movements abroad to the very end. They never surrendered on world revolution.

I had an effortpost drawn up, but it disappeared owing to my changing locations (picked up a shift at work).

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sanchez, to elaborate now that I've regained some of my strength, what I--most simply--meant was that regardless of a nation's socialist ideology or internationalist aspirations, it still functioned as a polity with identifiable and agreed upon boundaries, a national budget limited to some extent by the realm of the material, a defined population, and so on.

What I meant in a more complex fashion was that, despite the Soviet Union's "multi-national" character (and the same goes for Yugoslavia, I've been told), the Russians treated it simply as an expanded Russian nation. A fictional character in some book I once read remarked that you knew you were a superhero if the rest of the world complained you were tourists and that your citizens didn't know the language. I imagine this sentiment is to some extent the source of Russian nationalism at this point. In a similar vein, the Soviet Union ironically functioned to grant certain nations boundaries they had never had before. These borders may have been drawn with the intention of obfuscating the growth of national movements, but, aside from the Kazakhs at some points, they nevertheless were "republics" with non-Russian ethnic majorities, and named accordingly. Especially as it pertains to Central Asia, the Soviet period was the first point in which they received this explicit national recognition, and in many ways you could say that authority merely devolved to the level of the former SSR following the Soviet Union's collapse.

What I believe clash meant--and I agree with this in limited portions--was that socialism can theoretically function in a number of societies; one could have a socialist economy in a Christian nation and simultaneously have socialism reign supreme somewhere else marked by sexual liberty and the like. It seems clash divides the world much more by culture and cultural orientation rather than by system; and sees these systems (capitalism, socialism, liberalism) as simply serving the ends of national promotion. In such a context, he likely favors what he simply believes "works" in any particular context.

[RINO Tom]

Vosem has consistently been one of the people most similar to me, politically speaking, so obviously Vosemism.

[Kingpoleon]

I have to agree with Vosem; modern "conservatism" (whatever that means) is really an outgrowth of classic liberalism. My ideology, while probably intersecting more with Clash at various points, is still growing from the same soil that Vosem's ideology comes from.

Conservatism to me is about the protection of the individual. I have no idea where this notion that conservatism is solely about protecting a certain time and place comes from. If conservatism is about protecting collective traditions, than what traditions do we save? Who decides? What period do we go "back to" in order to prosper again? The 1950s? 1776 (where if I wanted to, I could take out a blunder-bluss and steal Cathcon's pumpkins!) There is no logical consistency in this very malleable brand of conservatism. This is how Reagan-candy gets made.

Modern day conservatism read classical liberalism, agreed, but thought it said, "The rights of property are to be [favored over/equal with] the rights of man."

[Bismarck]

Vosemism of course. Tradition for tradition's sake is rediculous. In the US our traditional values of hard work, individual liberty, and dedication to family all line up well with conservative goals.

[SATW]

Vosemism (sane)

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

What I believe clash meant--and I agree with this in limited portions--was that socialism can theoretically function in a number of societies; one could have a socialist economy in a Christian nation and simultaneously have socialism reign supreme somewhere else marked by sexual liberty and the like.

That's a fair analysis.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I still hold to the old fashioned idea that the purpose of government to provide for the common good. If the common good is sooner achieved through socialism than through capitalism, then I will throw my lot in with socialism; it just so happens be the case that the common good is very rarely best achieved by socialist measures.