The ruling class is always conservative: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » The ruling class is always conservative » The ruling class is always conservative

The ruling class is always conservative
Discuss

Page: 1 2 3

The ruling class is always conservative

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/27/06 - 07:19 AM: Subject: The ruling class is always conservative	#1
Introduction This came up in my politics exam today, so I thought it would be a good thing to discuss. The question was something like: "Conservatism is merely the ideology of the ruling class. Discuss." I argued that whilst the ruling class must always be conservative, conservativism is held by others apart from the ruling class. Anyway, as this seemed fairly self evident, I wanted to discuss my proposition: The ruling class is always conservative Conservatism is a reactionary ideology which seeks to either maintain the existing order, or regress back to a pre-existing order. Marxists may encorporate the bourgoisie into their conception of the ruling class, and non-Marxists may wish to restrict it to only the ruling elite. It doesn't make a difference to my argument. Either way, the ruling class will wish to maintain itself and the system which supports it. Thus the ruling class will always be conservative. Obvious counter-argument and the counter to that counter "What of those ruling classes which do not profess to conservative doctrine? What about in Communist countries, or in Liberal-Democracies. Surely the ruling class ideologies are Communism and Liberalism respectively." Indeed, these doctrines are Communist and Liberal respectively. Just as Nationalism started out as a revolutionary ideology in France befroe the revolution, now that it is established it is no longer concerned with creating a nation-state, but maintaining it. In a similiar manner, the liberal revolution in the U.S was revolutionary at the time, but now the U.S ruling class is conservative insofar as they wish to conserve those ideals that fuelled the revolution. Likewise, the Soviet state was conservative insofar as it conserved the doctrines which it adhered to. In all these cases a political ideology is revolutionary, but once it becomes the dominant ideology it is forced to maintain that position and conserving the newly existing order. Conclusion There are two ways a ruling class can escape this charge of conservatism as far as I can see. Firstly, they can be permanantly revolutionary and never consolidate their position but instead always strive and create themselves anew. Secondly, the ruling class can be dissolved and an Anarchist meta-system of temporary and spontaneous leadership can arise. In the latter case there would be no ruling class to be conservative, and the constant influx of innovation and creativity would be of a similiar effect to the former case of the ruling class which is practices permanant revolution. Edited by notquitethere on 06/30/06 - 05:59 AM
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

TheIconoclast
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 07, 2004
Location: the deepest, darkest bowels of the earth
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 392

Posted 06/27/06 - 10:27 AM:	#2
Is it not possible for one to be conservative at varying levels or degrees? Thus, while the Republican Party is the party of conservatives in the Unites States in the sense of being reactionary, the government itself may be conservative in yet another sense -- that is, preserving society. By this logic, even reformers -- numerous examples exist -- may be described as conservative, for they ultimately seek to preserve their societies by changing them. Why should we assume that change is incompatible with the existing order? Certainly, change can be difficult -- even painful -- yet change does occur, and often -- if not more than often -- from within and thus without the threat of revolution or violence. Also, is it not feasible that democracy coupled with education does a far better job of creating the possibility for change than the idea of a permanent revolution? Mao already tried this and failed miserably. For that matter, why should we necessarily assume that there is something wrong with the existing order to begin with? I see this as just as faulty as assuming that the existing order is necessarily good and does not need change. Certainly, a middle ground may be reached on this issue.
"We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I believe the soul of America dies with it." -- Edward R. Murrow

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

Posted 06/27/06 - 11:48 AM:	#3
Certainly, perhaps I over egged the pudding a little. I shouldn't have suggested that there was anything intrinsically wrong with seeking to conserve the existing order. There is indeed a conservative argument for reform, that it ameliorates the lower classes who might overwise undermine the system. Also, you are correct in asserting that permanant revolution is hardly the only way, or the best way, to avoid maintaining outmoded systems. An educated democracy which replaces those in power fairly frequently would avoid the problems of conservatism. There is nothing wrong with conserving what is good, but there is something wrong with conserving for fear of change and conserving for political survival.
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 2829

Posted 06/27/06 - 12:01 PM:	#4
There was a sayng in the Matrix that went something like "some things change.. some things never change." Inherent all experience, man imposes a rule on each and every encountered object, that of substance and inherence. The principle being that "In all change of appearances substance is permanent; its quantum in nature is neither increased nor diminished." Alteration is grounded in the recognition of permanence. So it would seem fair to say that we are all conservative in that we seek to maintain order. Reformators are in fact a more archetypical conservatists, as they seek to preserve something more fundamental.
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

Posted 06/27/06 - 12:16 PM:	#5
That is all very well, but politically with regards to the current state of affairs people are often not conservative at all. My argument is that the ruling class is always conservative in a political sense.
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

osibe
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Total Topics: 13
Total Posts: 519

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 06/27/06 - 12:18 PM:	#6
I would argue that conservativism is always wrong, or always against the progress of society. Conservatives act in a way as to conserve the present state of society, and if we look at society today it isn't perfect. And if it is not perfect then there is more work to do, or things to improve, why settle for mediocrity when we have an ideal? I am not saying this is possible we must atleast strive for it, though it may seem impossible evidence can be found within history that shows all hope is not lost. Humanity has, and always will become more and more "liberal" or "humanitarian" this is due not only because the quality of life is always improving as is the life expectency but also because of advances in "modern" thought, as well as the emerging middle-class the allocation of the wealth into the hands of more people. Now this does not hold true in all situations, certainly barbarism can flare up and take hold of societies often with ease (nazi germany, serbia) This progress is because we have an idea of perfection and when contrasted with current conditions the discrepancy is stark. By modern I mean the reactionary thought created by witnesses extreme atrocities beyond belief (ww 1 & 2) Therefore until we have reached utopia there will be atleast some part of society that needs improvement, conservativism acts in a way as to demote the overall progress of society. (think segragation, discrimination in gay marriage, evolution) Conservativism is a product of comfort which is often held by the ruling class but it also can apply to non-ruling citizens that benefit from conservativism (non-elite whites during segregation/slavery). Either way how can someone claim that the society is fine unless they are living in the worst example (homeless, cold, starving bum, one who was most likely kicked out of a mental institute after Reagan, a "conservative," destroyed those social programs)
"Live everyday like it's your first"

Ratheius Netheros
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 15, 2005
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 82

Posted 06/28/06 - 04:41 PM:	#7
osibe wrote: I would argue that conservativism is always wrong, or always against the progress of society. You are now my hero. Seriously though, I have been a strong supporter of this idea for ages. To me, the question of what direction society should go in is not really left or right, in the traditional sense, but discerning what is part of the radical left and what is too idealistic (i.e. impossible).

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5423

Posted 06/29/06 - 04:06 AM:	#8
Conservatism is merely the desire to preserve the status quo when it serves ourselves. The ruling class naturally wants to preserve and enhance its advantageous position. Nothing new there. The real question is how do conservatives manage to brainwash some of the disadvantaged so that they support the conservative agenda? Every ruling elite needs a propaganda machine. The Cheney administration began with Hill & Knowlton, one of Dick Cheney's former companies, as its "public relations" (propaganda) advisor. Machiavelli would approve.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

xxuxx
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2002
Total Topics: 100
Total Posts: 1184

Posted 06/29/06 - 08:08 AM:	#9
Why is it always the ruling class seeking to preserve their position? Aren't the union movements geared towards having a liveable and therefore preserved state or level of living/ power at their current status, ie, in their current jobs - as their priority is predominantly job security.

Psykadelicamania
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 28, 2006
Location: New Orleans, LA
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 06/29/06 - 08:59 AM:	#10
I would disagreee that the ruling class is always conservative. If another group comes to power then they will try to change things more to their liking and during that time be progressive. I would say however that after a class has changed eveything that they wish to, they become conservative in that they wish to preserve what they have made. So I think that only a ruling group that has accomplished all its goals (or most) can be called conservative.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.