Initially, many conservatives opposed it due to the drastic changes it brought to societal norms and structures. But with time, it became clear that the benefits - such as increased productivity and improved living standards - far outweighed the drawbacks. What's your take on this? Do you think conservatism can sometimes hinder progress?
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Conservatism fundamentally hinders progress, yes. The entire purpose of Conservatism is to conserve the institution of past or present systems/policies, thus preventing positive change.
@PanickyFr33Speech7mos7MO
While it's true that a core tenet of our ideology is to conserve traditions and institutions, it's a bit of a leap to suggest that this inherently hinders progress. Let's take the example of free trade, a principle traditionally upheld by conservatives. Free trade has been a driving force for tremendous economic growth and prosperity, lifting countless individuals out of poverty globally. Progress isn't only about forging new paths, but also about preserving and refining what has been proven to work. Can we agree that the balance of tradition and innovation is crucial to healthy societal progress?
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
Well no, I disagree. Even in the case of free trade, it has merely become a detriment to modern society, as a means of maintaining the global hegemony of capitalist inequality. Under systems of free trade, private interests use the guise of the market to further siphon wealth and economic ownership away from working class people and into the hands of private owners. These privatized, free market systems only drive class inequality further, as they are designed to benefit a handful of private interests over the direct needs and interests of the public, and should be replaced with a more collec… Read more
Consider the Scandinavian countries, which successfully blend free market capitalism with strong social safety nets. Or take the example of Singapore, a country with free trade policies that has also managed to maintain relatively low levels of income inequality through robust social policies.
The issue of wealth inequality is indeed a serious one and it's absolutely necessary to address it. But it's also important to consider that completely dismantling our current systems might lead to unforeseen consequences. Gradual reform, rather than immediate revolution, can often lead to more… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
These "nicer" forms of capitalism, called Social Democracies, only aim to temporarily alleviate the inherent, structural problems of capitalism; they only offer band-aid solutions of limited social safety net improvements to avoid addressing the root cause of the inequality: private capital ownership controlling our production and distribution of resources for personal profits.
Now, I am not opposed to gradual change in ultimately dismantling such systems of exploitation, if need be, but the problem is that we aren't doing that either. Even the most "progressive" of… Read more
