Is Conservatism just NeoTraditionalism these days?

[Immanuel Can]

The Left comprises social liberalism (left-liberalism), social democracy, socialism, and communism.

That's not really a problem. They share certain core ideological features, the only difference being the relative intensity with which they espouse them.

They're all basically economic nationalists, for example, they all put group or "social" rights ahead of individual rights, they all participate in Socialist utopianism, even if the utopias they envision are different, they share a naive and perfidious view of human perfectability, as well as an excessive faith in human government to produce progress. And they're all skeptical, to a greater or lesser degree, of core conservative values, such as individualism, competition, merit, reason, science, logic, family, rights, property, personal responsibility, and so on. The "family resemblance" there is so strong that I think the category holds well.

[Gary Childress]

The Left comprises social liberalism (left-liberalism), social democracy, socialism, and communism.

That's not really a problem. They share certain core ideological features, the only difference being the relative intensity with which they espouse them.

They're all basically economic nationalists, for example, they all put group or "social" rights ahead of individual rights, they all participate in Socialist utopianism, even if the utopias they envision are different, they share a naive and perfidious view of human perfectability, as well as an excessive faith in human government to produce progress. And they're all skeptical, to a greater or lesser degree, of core conservative values, such as individualism, competition, merit, reason, science, logic, family, rights, property, personal responsibility, and so on. The "family resemblance" there is so strong that I think the category holds well.

Well, sometimes conservatives don't seem to be as interested in "individualism, reason, science and logic". Competition and merit, seem to be bigger themes with conservatives than with liberals. Probably all of us also struggle with personal responsibility.

[Immanuel Can]

The Left comprises social liberalism (left-liberalism), social democracy, socialism, and communism.

That's not really a problem. They share certain core ideological features, the only difference being the relative intensity with which they espouse them.

They're all basically economic nationalists, for example, they all put group or "social" rights ahead of individual rights, they all participate in Socialist utopianism, even if the utopias they envision are different, they share a naive and perfidious view of human perfectability, as well as an excessive faith in human government to produce progress. And they're all skeptical, to a greater or lesser degree, of core conservative values, such as individualism, competition, merit, reason, science, logic, family, rights, property, personal responsibility, and so on. The "family resemblance" there is so strong that I think the category holds well.

Well, sometimes conservatives don't seem to be as interested in "individualism, reason, science and logic". Competition and merit, seem to be bigger themes with conservatives than with liberals. Probably all of us also struggle with personal responsibility.

Individualism, certainly. Leftists are group-thinkers, by definition. As for science, reason and logic, I can only take them at their word: the Left has vigorous criticisms of all of them, as well as history, as inherently "white," "supremacist," "racist" and "privileged."

That being admitted, there are times when the Left WILL use "The Science," to back their agenda, as when they call Marxism "a scientific analysis," or when they demand that conservatives "follow The Science," by which they only ever mean whatever from technology appears to advance their agenda, such as COVID masks and COVID "vaccines", not real science. And they'll use reason and logic and argumentation when it advances their agenda, but the minute reason or logic shows a flaw in their Great Program, they'll deny that either is determinative of anything. So their attitude to "science, reason and logic," is at best equivocal, at worst perfidious.

[Gary Childress]

That's not really a problem. They share certain core ideological features, the only difference being the relative intensity with which they espouse them.

They're all basically economic nationalists, for example, they all put group or "social" rights ahead of individual rights, they all participate in Socialist utopianism, even if the utopias they envision are different, they share a naive and perfidious view of human perfectability, as well as an excessive faith in human government to produce progress. And they're all skeptical, to a greater or lesser degree, of core conservative values, such as individualism, competition, merit, reason, science, logic, family, rights, property, personal responsibility, and so on. The "family resemblance" there is so strong that I think the category holds well.

Well, sometimes conservatives don't seem to be as interested in "individualism, reason, science and logic". Competition and merit, seem to be bigger themes with conservatives than with liberals. Probably all of us also struggle with personal responsibility.

Individualism, certainly. Leftists are group-thinkers, by definition. As for science, reason and logic, I can only take them at their word: the Left has vigorous criticisms of all of them, as well as history, as inherently "white," "supremacist," "racist" and "privileged."

That being admitted, there are times when the Left WILL use "The Science," to back their agenda, as when they call Marxism "a scientific analysis," or when they demand that conservatives "follow The Science," by which they only ever mean whatever from technology appears to advance their agenda, such as COVID masks and COVID "vaccines", not real science. And they'll use reason and logic and argumentation when it advances their agenda, but the minute reason or logic shows a flaw in their Great Program, they'll deny that either is determinative of anything. So their attitude to "science, reason and logic," is at best equivocal, at worst perfidious.

Again, what is a "leftist"? Am I a "leftist" because I'm liberal and therefore interested in personal liberty and "socialist" because I also have some degree of social awareness as opposed to concern only for my own personal interests?

[Immanuel Can]

Again, what is a "leftist"?

Basically, a Socialist.

Am I a "leftist" because I'm liberal and therefore interested in personal liberty

No, because conservatives are even more interested in that than you are: that's why they're not Socialists.

and "socialist" because I also have some degree of social awareness

No, because "socially aware" is much different from Socialist. The last thing Socialsts ever are "aware" of is the actual dynamics of a society. They are idealizers, utopians, imaginers and dreamers, not realists about that.

...as opposed to concern only for my own personal interests?

Conservatives are concerned about everybody, too: they just think that the right way to be concerned is to protect everybody's individual rights and liberties, and to avoid subordinating them to the social-engineering plans of totalitarian ideologues. So the difference is not "concern": it's a disagreement about how "concern" is best expressed.

[Gary Childress]

Again, what is a "leftist"?

Basically, a Socialist.

Am I a "leftist" because I'm liberal and therefore interested in personal liberty

No, because conservatives are even more interested in that than you are: that's why they're not Socialists.

and "socialist" because I also have some degree of social awareness

No, because "socially aware" is much different from Socialist. The last thing Socialsts ever are "aware" of is the actual dynamics of a society. They are idealizers, utopians, imaginers and dreamers, not realists about that.

...as opposed to concern only for my own personal interests?

Conservatives are concerned about everybody, too: they just think that the right way to be concerned is to protect everybody's individual rights and liberties, and to avoid subordinating them to the social-engineering plans of totalitarian ideologues. So the difference is not "concern": it's a disagreement about how "concern" is best expressed.

So do liberals, my friend. Liberal and socialist are NOT synonyms.

[Immanuel Can]

So do liberals, my friend. Liberal and socialist are NOT synonyms.

I didn't say "liberal," Gary: I said "Leftist," which was what you asked about.

The term "liberal" has stopped meaning anything, because it's been so abused by the Left. How can one call a totalitarian political plan "liberal"?

[Gary Childress]

So do liberals, my friend. Liberal and socialist are NOT synonyms.

I didn't say "liberal," Gary: I said "Leftist," which was what you asked about.

The term "liberal" has stopped meaning anything, because it's been so abused by the Left. How can one call a totalitarian political plan "liberal"?

I think you have it backwards, "leftist" doesn't mean anything substantial as far as I can tell. If you don't like "socialists" then say you don't like "socialists" or that you don't like "totalitarians", (few of us do in the latter example). The term left is almost completely devoid of content. You're not describing anything other than adding a useless word on the tail end of your categories. It's basically an ad hominem (or a placeholder for one, maybe to be more precise).

[Immanuel Can]

So do liberals, my friend. Liberal and socialist are NOT synonyms.

I didn't say "liberal," Gary: I said "Leftist," which was what you asked about.

The term "liberal" has stopped meaning anything, because it's been so abused by the Left. How can one call a totalitarian political plan "liberal"?

I think you have it backwards, "leftist" doesn't mean anything substantial as far as I can tell. If you don't like "socialists" then say you don't like "socialists" or that you don't like "totalitarians", (few of us do in the latter example).

I say all those things. But "Left" has the distinct advantage of catching up together that group of ideologues whose differences really make no difference at all, such as the Communists, the Socialists, the "Democratic Socialists," the radicals, the Marxists, and so on. They're all really just flavours of the same basic poison.

It's basically an ad hominem

Not a bit. In the first place, the word "left," all by itself, is devoid of pejorative connotations; and in the second, there's no "person" to whom any insult is directed. Leftism is an ideology, not a person: thus it cannot be "ad hominem" to criticize it.

[Gary Childress]

I didn't say "liberal," Gary: I said "Leftist," which was what you asked about.

The term "liberal" has stopped meaning anything, because it's been so abused by the Left. How can one call a totalitarian political plan "liberal"?

I think you have it backwards, "leftist" doesn't mean anything substantial as far as I can tell. If you don't like "socialists" then say you don't like "socialists" or that you don't like "totalitarians", (few of us do in the latter example).

I say all those things. But "Left" has the distinct advantage of catching up together that group of ideologues whose differences really make no difference at all, such as the Communists, the Socialists, the "Democratic Socialists," the radicals, the Marxists, and so on. They're all really just flavours of the same basic poison.

It's basically an ad hominem

Not a bit. In the first place, the word "left," all by itself, is devoid of pejorative connotations; and in the second, there's no "person" to whom any insult is directed. Leftism is an ideology, not a person: thus it cannot be "ad hominem" to criticize it.

Fair enough. I'm not a "leftist" but I'm a "socialist" in the sense that I see limits to "individualism". I also believe in democracy as a legitimate way of deciding on social issues. So I don't know what that makes me. But carry on.

[Immanuel Can]

I see limits to "individualism".

In what way would you see the limitation of individuals as desirable?

I also believe in democracy as a legitimate way of deciding on social issues.

So do conservatives; in fact, they're far more enthusastic about preserving that than any Socialist is. Socialists think the individual is dispensible, whenever the interests of the collective are involved.

For example, Socialists believe in taking an individual's property in order to give it to the collective. Conservatives don't. Socialists don't believe you have any right to vote for a candidate that's not Socialist. Conservatives hold that democracy requires that you be allowed to vote for whomever you wish.

So it's hard to see how "democratic" any Socialism can ever claim to be.

[Gary Childress]

I see limits to "individualism".

In what way would you see the limitation of individuals as desirable?

If someone wants to break a law, and the law is a just one, then limiting that individual from doing so would be warranted.

[Immanuel Can]

I see limits to "individualism".

In what way would you see the limitation of individuals as desirable?

If someone wants to break a law, and the law is a just one, then limiting that individual from doing so would be warranted.

Well, that's no different at all from conservatives. Conservatism holds that you have freedom, but your freedom to do as you please ends at the tip of your neighbour's nose. So it recognizes that sort of "limit".

What else?

[Gary Childress]

In what way would you see the limitation of individuals as desirable?

If someone wants to break a law, and the law is a just one, then limiting that individual from doing so would be warranted.

Well, that's no different at all from conservatives. Conservatism holds that you have freedom, but your freedom to do as you please ends at the tip of your neighbour's nose. So it recognizes that sort of "limit".

What else?

OK. So I'm also conservative in the sense that I grew up in a liberal democracy and I would like to conserve that liberal democracy.

[Immanuel Can]

If someone wants to break a law, and the law is a just one, then limiting that individual from doing so would be warranted.

Well, that's no different at all from conservatives. Conservatism holds that you have freedom, but your freedom to do as you please ends at the tip of your neighbour's nose. So it recognizes that sort of "limit".

What else?

OK. So I'm also conservative in the sense that I grew up in a liberal democracy and I would like to conserve that liberal democracy.

Yep, that's conservative. It's certainly not what the Socialists are campaigning to get to happen: they want a one-party totalitarian state.