tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post1044283182026757152..comments2024-03-29T02:29:03.388-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Socialism versus the familyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72121688538956728352022-04-26T18:21:36.006-07:002022-04-26T18:21:36.006-07:00The economic system Jesus lived under was Feudalis...The economic system Jesus lived under was Feudalism, which is essentially socialism, in that the government, not private corporations, directly run the economy. Yet he never condemned Feudalism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-51170217895533163592020-06-28T16:22:36.705-07:002020-06-28T16:22:36.705-07:00Professor Feser, this was a fascinating talk. It s...Professor Feser, this was a fascinating talk. It seemed that you read it from notes or perhaps a draft you had previously written. If so, would you mind sharing it? I'd love to read over and think about it more. Thanks! Wesley Chambershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07377449264905142492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23046054090110537332019-08-03T08:50:27.638-07:002019-08-03T08:50:27.638-07:00Miguel,
I'm not sure you're right about a... Miguel,<br /><br />I'm not sure you're right about all the problems in Burke. But supposing that you are right on any given point, I don't think that American conservatives are <i>required</i> to "wear" Burke on that point.<br /><br />Just as modern Lutherans don't typically have Martin Luther's deep Marian devotion or rejection of artificial contraception as a sexual perversion, yet still call themselves "Lutheran," so too conservatives would be free to pick and choose if there were bits of Burke they wished to discard or de-emphasize. That would still be true <i>even if</i> conservatives in America had been started by Burke and called themselves "Burkeans" the way Lutherans were started by Luther and call themselves Lutherans. But they weren't, and don't.<br /><br />In fact, American conservatives most consistent reference to Burke is: "Burke was right in being horrified by the French revolution's failure to conserve intermediary institutions and pillars of culture." That's just about the only thing about Burke that a person calling himself an American conservative would <i>have</i> to hold, if he wants to keep calling himself conservative.<br /><br />Many other things Burke said might be viewed favorably by most conservatives, to be sure! But that doesn't mean <i>every</i> bit of Burke is <i>de fide dogma</i> for American conservatism.<br /><br />In America, the word "conservative" largely means "classical liberal who believes in Natural Law and advocates for Natural Law Constitutional Democratic Republican Government in conjunction with free markets and a familistic, patriotic, Christianity-friendly culture." To the degree that any parts of that definition seem contradictory, reconciliations and variations of emphasis are used to help them cohere. To the extent that any person rejects part of that definition wholesale, he departs from the center-of-gravity of American conservatism.<br /><br />And I think that's the way most social movements other than Catholicism behave. They don't have a Magisterium; they don't have any such thing as a living authority able to make rulings about dogmatic disputes now, yet unable to contradict prior rulings. Consequently the only way you can define them is in terms of their "center-of-gravity," a kind of looser version of the Vincentian canon: "That which has been held true by most of the folks, most of the time, emphasizing the most-recent fifty year window."<br /><br />If you think, therefore, that the center-of-gravity of American conservatism is wrong in some way, it doesn't necessarily make much sense to argue, "You guys got that from Burke; but Burke was wrong about that; therefore, you have to stop being conservative."<br /><br />What would make more sense would be for you, Miguel, to call yourself "conservative," point out the goods you're trying to conserve by disagreeing with Burke about XYZ, and then your presence would shift the center-of-gravity of "conservatism" towards conserving those goods.<br /><br />Come on in, the water's fine.R.C.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41859497656253198382019-02-22T07:56:47.010-08:002019-02-22T07:56:47.010-08:00To say that the main danger to the family from soc...To say that the main danger to the family from socialism is greater state intervention in the economy plus a greater degree of social liberalism than most (some?) conservatism would entertain (Heritage Foundaation talk), differs from Pope Leo XIII. <br />He provides the context in Rerum Novarum: "that most deadly war which from the sixteenth century down has been waged by innovators against the Catholic faith... had for its object to subvert all revelation, and overthrow the supernatural order, that thus the way might be opened for the discoveries, or rather the hallucinations, of reason alone." It's a good definition of ideology, common to both the socialists and Edmund Burke.<br />If the definition of socialism is merely heavy intervention in the family economy from society at large (Venezuela is cited as an example of this), then till the time of Burke himself Europe was a gigantic socialist entity. Most Europeans lived in corporate villages and towns where property was not absolute nor the rules of commerce "free", but heavily regulated. Members of the village corporation exploited resources on a family basis according to need but could not deal with such resources as they pleased. St Thomas Aquinas defended such a view of property and isn't known to have protested with Burkean ideological righteousness at such a situation. Today's Venezuela is economically much more laissez faire than 13th century Italy. The question of the modern state itself is another issue but its sovereignty is defended by conservatives too. <br /><br />This is not to say such corporatism can be revived. All the same, it's worth noting that our Holy Land was settled in the mid-twentieth century by mainly means of the moshav, a corporation modeled on the traditional European village corporation. It was far more successful than the collectivist kibbutz, and its corporative marketing and finance gave it huge advantages over the native inhabitants. The corporation is a recognition that the family is an imperfect society. Putting minnows in the same pool as sharks is not free enterprise or family values; it's the precondition for piracy. <br />The reference to "natural law jargon" is unlikely to carry much weight either. Despite the anti-natural sociological aberrations around that seem to contrast so much with past practice, we have to remember that we are comparing things with a European society a few years back not so long removed from an era which acknowledged the revelation referred by Leo XIII. History tells us that non-Christian societies accepted practices and beliefs that were against natural law. There has been, in China for example, thousands of years of non-religious Confucian-conditioned infanticide and abortion.<br /><br />Sociological evolution might tell us something about the society of animals, but not humans. Contrary to Burke's view, the species is not always right. Individual reason might discover some things of a religious or moral nature unaided, but "general reason" (the basis for conservatives like Burke) will inevitably err to some degree because of original sin. How much of pagan religion was mixed in with garbled almost forgotten patriarchal revelation and how much was human imagination is anyone's guess but the Old Testament tells us that the Gods of the nations are demons. So much for sociological evolution.<br /><br />It would be a mistake to minimize the role of the state. To say that family values can be restored by a grassroots movement is not enough. The state should discourage what's wrong and encourage what's right. Salutary counsel and good example is not enough. Otherwise, one would have to be laissez faire on drugs.<br />Discouraging the bad and encouraging the good applies to economics too. It's not socialism to have regular shark culls and patrols, without which the family minnow will never have a chance. Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-46998475636284421052019-02-20T10:30:27.198-08:002019-02-20T10:30:27.198-08:00@ Sophia's
You can find the references in the...@ Sophia's<br /><br />You can find the references in the article I linked. It's not something disputed among thomists as far as I'm aware.Connor Stokeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05886972830083240209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63244795116865111732019-02-19T17:36:09.570-08:002019-02-19T17:36:09.570-08:00Your options are a giant corporate bureacracy that...Your options are a giant corporate bureacracy that answers to shareholders, or a giant government bureaucracy that doesn't answer to anybody.<br /><br />And almost no continental European country has single-payer healthcare, nor does <i>any</i> country of over 100 million people. The US government provides health insurance, through Medicare and Medicaid, to more people than <i>live</i> in any other English-speaking country. And then there's state-level government health insurance.Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39295866803456194962019-02-19T17:29:55.933-08:002019-02-19T17:29:55.933-08:00@Connor: Cite where in the Summa Aquinas says the ...@Connor: Cite where in the <i>Summa</i> Aquinas says the family exists for the state. The state is composed of families <i>as the family is composed of individuals</i>, but they do not exist for it any more than individuals exist for their families. (Someone who refused to be a "proper" heir of the House of Aquin would not claim <i>that</i>!)<br /><br />Go to Google, and type in 'site:www.newadvent.org/summa/' and then a space after the last "/". Then type whatever terms you think will bring up texts that support your interpretation. I'd be very surprised if you find anything.Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77549559719852377842019-02-18T15:13:18.897-08:002019-02-18T15:13:18.897-08:00I largely agree. There is clearly an important rol...I largely agree. There is clearly an important role for the outcomes of different policies in considering their worth. I have sometimes thought, for dxexamp, that Distributists need to pay more attention to the free market capitalist claims that there system creates better outcomes (usually, in these discussions, meant in terms of the general prosperity of society and making the poor better off) than alternatives. Such claims would, it seems to me, forestall worries that such a system seems to be against the spirit of certain papal encyclicals.<br /><br />Still, as a conservative, I think there are other criteria on which to judge an economy than besides the production or, as is the case for many classical liberals, individual freedom (especially in the liberal sense of autonomy). Things like the health of family, local community, the culture; rural-urban balance; and craftsmanship are all as important to me. I don't think that our current systems, whether the more neoliberal or social democratic, nor non-existent free market or democratic socialist ones, come close to meeting these criteria. This is why I am a Distributist.*<br /><br />* Well, I say Distributist, as that is a convenient label, but I am not slavishly devoted to allall specifics of Chesterbelloc's ideas. I'm as influenced on economics (I suppose I'm more talking about socio-economic policy than strict economics) by E.F. Schumacher, Wilhem Ropke, Wendell Berry, and Kevin Carson as Chesterbelloc. I would say I am an economic conservative, although, unfortunately, for many today, that means liberal economics.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23189418996259366152019-02-18T01:17:38.144-08:002019-02-18T01:17:38.144-08:00Great talk. Decided to do a theological critique o...Great talk. Decided to do a theological critique of socialism for my thesis and then came across this gem! It all seems to be a distorted means to recover some piece of Eden, but in a Pelagian mode - without grace, ignoring the stable brokenness of human nature (which capitalism uses to its advantage in the public sphere, outside the immediate context of family life), thus doomed to fail.CRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718816249512853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-58327968504013699732019-02-17T15:25:55.414-08:002019-02-17T15:25:55.414-08:00That is correct. My point is that specifically met...That is correct. My point is that specifically metaphysical and ethical arguments generally aren't of much use when it comes to, say, favoring social democracy over free market liberalism (you could add distributism to the list as well, it's just an example), because I think those mainstream views don't directly violate, say, the dignity of the human person and its most fundamental rights. One might say, for example, that everyone should earn enough money to make a basic living without having to struggle - but then the issue becomes about how could a system provide for that, etc. It becomes a pragmatic issue. <br /><br />There are certain systems (e.g. full-blown communism) that I think can be rejected solely on the basis of ethical arguments, but I'm talking about mainstream ones, which I take to be different in this regard. And even for mainstream systems one can make ethical arguments, but I'm just saying that in general they tend not to be very effective (at least for me).<br /><br />I also think that, extreme individualism and egalitarianism etc aside, most people would look for the same thing from an economic system. They want a system that maximizes the well-being of society; that minimizes and alleviate poverty and allow people to make a good enough living so that they can pursue their own aspirations (which we hope will be virtuous, but that goes beyond what we can get from economics). So even though political discourse is packed with moral terms and arguments, at the end of the day most reasonable people don't diverge too much on what they'd like an economic system to achieve; the real disagreements are about practical implementation and so on. For example, people who are in favor of a Universal Basic Income often say that everyone should get enough to survive, period. Well, that's great, but pretty weak as an argument, because most people who are skeptical of UBI aren't against the idea that everyone should get enough to survive; they just don't think UBI would be a good practical means to achieve this end (they might be worried about inflation; how UBI might disincentivize work; etc). Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18876123800805284872019-02-16T22:11:20.907-08:002019-02-16T22:11:20.907-08:00Connor, I have not read the article, so just a poi...Connor, I have not read the article, so just a pointer that might assist. St Thomas says that the person exists for God, and therefore as a person the state and even the family exist to serve the end that he is saved, whereas the individual exists for the state, so that his interests qua individual are subordinated to the common good.<br /><br />In this distinction he moves beyond Aristotle, I believe.<br /><br />Regards,<br />John.Aquinianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09539991968870301779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37455074462774744562019-02-16T20:26:20.367-08:002019-02-16T20:26:20.367-08:00We already have socialized medicine. It's call...We already have socialized medicine. It's called Medicare, which is quite in line with what Pope John XXIII said in "Pacem et Terris" and "Mater et Magistra." But I have a feeling Dr. Feser has no use for those encyclicals. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13955991415724167522019-02-16T19:13:10.286-08:002019-02-16T19:13:10.286-08:00*Hood became a socialist the year before Marx'...*Hood became a socialist the year <i>before</i> Marx's birth, rather.Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86171650606457006432019-02-16T19:12:29.474-08:002019-02-16T19:12:29.474-08:00I explained the Marxist use of "socialist&quo...I explained the Marxist use of "socialist". Which includes the Nazi use, Nazis being Marxists who added a race-element to the class-war. "Inherently evil bourgeois exploiter, inherently virtuous exploited laborer" doesn't magically become something <i>other</i> than Marxist just because you add "that first guy's a Jew by the way".<br /><br />The same argument—"accept ideologues' use of terms as always meaning the same thing as other uses of those terms"—would also force us to count the Democratic People's Republic of Korea against "democracy" and "republics". Marxists mean something special by "socialist", just like they mean something special by "democratic".<br /><br />And Mises is not a historian (and his renown as an economist wouldn't make his obviously incorrect statement true, even if this were a purely economic question). The historical fact, readily ascertainable from even a basic knowledge of the history of the movement, is that there are non-Marxist socialists—Robert Owen Hood, for example, became a socialist the year Marx was <i>born</i>—and non-totalitarian ones. In practice they tend not to stay that way, because when all employers are state agencies labor disputes quickly acquire the moral and legal character of draft-dodging or tax evasion.<br /><br />Marxism is a particularly fanatical version of socialism where absolutely everything is reduced to a conspiracy theory that has something of the character of a secularized Gnosticism. Plenty of socialist thinkers reject the concept of "class war", but in fact speak of all classes as being in solidarity within society. (Then they naively assume that putting industry under state control would make it more responsive to the needs and wishes of the people, because government agencies are so great at that.)Sophia's Favoritehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02871625814389904112noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-57000228800994139882019-02-16T18:42:39.634-08:002019-02-16T18:42:39.634-08:00That should be, I'm not an expert.That should be, I'm not an expert.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82698987460813411152019-02-16T18:39:30.988-08:002019-02-16T18:39:30.988-08:00Miguel,
But in judging an economic system don'...Miguel,<br /><br />But in judging an economic system don't we have to come up with criteria? In doing this we will inevitably delve into metaphysical and ethical issues. Even someone who thinks the only criteria of an economy is the proliferation of consumer goods is affirming an essentially ethical position. I think it basic to conservative and traditional Christian economic perspectives that they affirm a broader set of criteria, including the affects of the economy on things like families, local community, culture, the environment, etc.<br /><br />I'm expert, but I have done some study on the issue, and for myself I'm not standard neoclassical economics, much less Austrian economics, is an unquestionable authority on the real world economy. There are alternative (or heterdox) perspectives that have at least some things to offer in important places, and there is the empirical data, which I don't think neoclassical economics grapples (and the Austrians explicitly put it aside). Even on a narrow issue like the effect of minimum wage changes, I would take care standard neoclassical or Austrian microeconomic analysis as but one reference point in coming to conclusions, let alone on debates over free market capitalism versus social democracy versus distributism.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4488443550946809572019-02-16T16:01:47.224-08:002019-02-16T16:01:47.224-08:00Doctor Feser, i was listening to this talk and as ...Doctor Feser, i was listening to this talk and as a venezuelan (that still lives in the country) i can give you some data on the status of the traditional family and religion here:<br /><br />It is 'odd' so to speak, you do not see any such thing as the feminist "woman's march" or massive gay parades here (thank God) but it's not that we are socially conservative by any means, here homosexuality is widely accepted (although not specially common at least when compared to the US and other western countries) divorce is common place and sex before marriage and contraception are FAR from stigmatized, most people are your christmas and easter only type catholics (except they DON'T go to mass on christmas nor easter! They most usually will consider themselves catholic, marry in the church and take their kids to baptism and catholic school but that is IT), also the younger generations like mine (i was born 2001) thanks to the internet have access to a more 'globalized' culture so to speak so we take sides on the culture wars,many of my peer express that they do not wish (ever) to have children, a lot of my peers are atheist while others consider themselves catholic but only in the way as described above (which is painfully the rule in Latin America), in my school (which is a catholic school) i'm often the lone person in the room who is willing to defend church teaching on everything, most of them also dont exactly know catholicism that well and have a somewhat protestanized view of it (not in the sense of saying look! Idol worshippers! But in the sense of thinking evolution somehow poses a challenge to the Church etc), and then again back to family issues it is all but uncommon for men to have children outside their marriages and cohabitance is very common even among people that are the age of my grandparents(read: born in the 40s, some in the 50s) as i told a progressive friend of mine once: If you think we are an even remotely conservative society you are living in another planet, also, the government (if you pay attention to the state channel) are often found promoting much more radical feminist and gender ideologies, it is rumored they plan on legalizing abortion and gay "marriage" (they haven't made too much sound on it since they got bigger fish to fry and most their supporters are very old people that may not be so receptive)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01705108463574950356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45165376767964068032019-02-16T15:25:20.342-08:002019-02-16T15:25:20.342-08:00Jeremy,
That would be a long debate and I'd p...Jeremy,<br /><br />That would be a long debate and I'd probably need to study more economics before attempting to make any case here. From what I've read and reflected about, I do lean towards free markets and I even have some sympathies for Austrian economics. I was once more friendly towards distributism, now I'm more skeptical. But again, I'd like to study more before firmly taking position and building a case.<br /><br />My point was that I am generally unimpressed by attempts to argue for or against economic models on the basis of metaphysical or ethical arguments. That's not to say there's no room for these considerations, as there can be ethical arguments even for some economic issues, but in general I take it to be a matter of pragmatism. For instance, the reason I currently favor free markets doesn't really have much to do with arguments about personal autonomy and so on (at the end of that spectrum you might find ideological ancaps who consider taxation to be theft, for example), it's just that I am convinced this system (free markets as an example) provides better results when it comes to improve living conditions, wealth and other basic needs for society in general. If I became convinced social democracy, or distributism, or another system would give better results, then I would defend them instead. It is generally a matter of economics and pragmatism for me. I often see so-called "traditionalists" criticizing markets and "modernity" and the "secularized systems" on the basis of some metaphysical and ethical arguments which I don't think work all that well.<br /><br />I do think there can be some non-negotiable principles, for example I wouldn't really support a system that flat-out denied private property. I don't accept an absolute right of private property, but I do accept a moderate, natural right to private property. And I do think it's important to consider, for instsnce, how a system treats the family, etc. But I'm convinced that when it comes to most options on the table (liberalism, social democracy, distributism, etc... I don't see socialism or communism as real options, for example), I think the issue should prosaically be solved by pragmatism and standard economic analysis, even in a somewhat consequentialistic manner. I don't think metaphysical and ethical arguments can do much for deciding between the mainstream options.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80092697479801601492019-02-16T13:16:01.740-08:002019-02-16T13:16:01.740-08:00The above, by the way, was about purely economic p...The above, by the way, was about purely economic prosperity - the proliferation of consumer goods. When comes to social health, I don't think so called (but not) free market capitalism has been much better at developing society than social democratic systems. After the state, I think that capitalism, in its long history, has been the biggest problem for those permanent things conservatives and traditional Christians prize, like family, local community, etc. <br /><br />As for Anglo-American conservatism, I'm not so sure that today it is even that conservative. It often seems to be classical liberalism with a veneer of conservatism. Again I don't want to pick on Ben Shapiro, because of don't mind him, but he makes a good example because he is popular and because he just seems unable to differentiate between liberal economics and conservatism. I recall that I heard him just this week, when discussing progressive attacks on Amazon, he chided them as the sort of people who dislike Walmart for putting local shops (I believe Mum and Pop stores is the American phrase he used) out of business. He basically gave a three cheers for Walmart bit that could have come from the Cato or Mises Institutes. Now, I'm not saying a conservative needs to sign up fully to the anti-globalisation movement, even if I'm a proud Crunchy Con. But I think a conservative should display a little more circumspection than Shapiro did. I can't imagine someone like Russell Kirk would think Walmart's dominance of local retail an unalloyed good thing, just because it offered (allegedly*) cheaper goods. <br /><br />Miguel Cervantes,<br /><br />I believe that there are differing opinions on how to interpret Burke. I recall there is a tradition that sees him as a natural law theorist. In some of his writings, like his speech against Warren Hastings and his early works on the Irish situation, he seems close to a natural law position. There's even some today who argue he wad always a secret Catholic, like much of his family. I am not really convinced by this. It seems to rely on rumours spread by his enemies, combined with his concern for his Catholic countrymen, but it's interesting.<br /><br />* See Kevin Carson for arguments that corporate-capitalism is riven with state intervention that supports corporations and allows companies like Walmart to be competitive when they wouldn't be otherwise.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80386745788967714362019-02-16T12:32:31.709-08:002019-02-16T12:32:31.709-08:00Miguel,
Do free market systems work better* than ...Miguel,<br /><br />Do free market systems work better* than social democratic ones? I think that would be quite controversial a position. I think it is even controversial whether free trade is consistently better* than protectionism (see the work of Ha-Joon Chan). And then there is the issue of exactly when has there been a free market in the world. Some, again like Ben Shapiro (who I don't mind generally) seem to think that all the good things about the modern economy can be claimed for free market capitalism,and all state intervention, beyond enforcing basic law and order, can be seen as a drag on the economy. This is the position Kevin Carson has called vulgar libertarianism. I think such claims would need a lot of defence.* I say this, by the way, as someone who is a basically a Distributist, so no fan of either corporate-capitalism or social democracy. I'm sort of free market anti-capitalist, to borrow a phrase from the mutualists and left-libertarians.<br /><br />* In all this, I have mostly empirical evidence in mind, much more than theories of neoclassical or Austrian economics.Jeremy Taylornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63174532836602841902019-02-16T12:14:02.531-08:002019-02-16T12:14:02.531-08:00The self-proclaimed traditionalist here is Burke. ...The self-proclaimed traditionalist here is Burke. The quotes posted reflect the philosophical traditionalism which is problematic and central to Burke and conservatism in general. We aren't going to get far by saying there's truth and non-truth there because we can say this about anything from Anabaptists to Al Qaida. Despite not having a Little Red Book, Anglo-conservatism is traceable back to Burke and is an identifiable ideology. <br /><br />Unfortunately, Burke went much further than rejecting abstract revolutionary social theory. He also denied the rational application of natural law to the social order was of any practical use. In assigning a merely utilitarian, socially stabilizing role to religion, he emptied it of real content. His proclamation that the "market" was superior to any perceived natural law was not a realist, pragmatic position, but a radically ideological one.<br />Traditionalism, of which Burke was a forerunner, was a romanticist philosophy condemned by the Church. I think we need the realism to recognise that our economic landscape isn't natural or practical and is constantly shored up by Burkean-style ideology. Bashing Anglo-conservatism is profitable because its 200 years of co-opting religious people and even Catholics is a con that must end. AS for the anglo-conservatives themselves - yes, they are probably unable to achieve certaintly on anything apart from the unshakeable belief that economic relations are a science and divorced from religion. So conservatism doesn't want to feed Catholics to the lions? That's nice, but we can do better than play bit parts in someone else's operetta.Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12229906286490263162019-02-16T11:30:28.896-08:002019-02-16T11:30:28.896-08:00Dear Sopia's Favorite,
I suggest you read:
1...Dear Sopia's Favorite,<br /><br />I suggest you read:<br /><br />1. Socialism, by Ludwig von Mises. Mises, one of the world's most reknown and highly respected economists said there is no difference between socialism and communism. <br /><br />People who are only interested in splitting hairs should let that sink in and stop arguing about it. <br /><br />2. "Humanum Genus" by Pope Leo XIII, pub. 1884. (Available online at Papalencyclicals.net<br /><br />And remember this, <br /><br />USSR = Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics<br /><br />Hitler's Germany = National SOCIALIST German Workers Party<br /><br />BOTH had forced labor. <br /><br />Never ever allow yourself to think that one is a more benign form than the other. Chriss Raineyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10832684312383981553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28662957402764113952019-02-16T09:57:51.059-08:002019-02-16T09:57:51.059-08:00And? The way I see it, Tony's point basically ...And? The way I see it, Tony's point basically boils down to "Burke was wrong on some things and had some troublesome ideas, but he was also right on some things and had some good ideas which we should not ignore". Posting examples of Burke's errors and mistakes obviously does not refute that moderate view.<br /><br />Burke's insistence on respect for practical realities and customs when it comes to politics is a welcome general attitude against imprudent top-down attempts to create a perfect social order in accordance with abstract principles. Abstract and metaphysical principles are surely welcome and have their own place, but a healthy dose of practical concern and presumption in favor of customs (as one may find in Burke) is essential to politics. <br /><br />As a matter of fact, I don't think bashing "anglo-american conservative thought" will get self-proclaimed traditionalists anywhere. Precisely because those who are actually versed in conservative thought will already display a tendency to be skeptical of their own political positions. <br /><br />I also don't find metaphysical criticisms (or defenses!) of this curious entity called "the Market" to be of much interest, either. The way I see it, it's a pragmatic issue. Free market economies appear to be better at developing society, producing wealth and peace. If (say) a welfare state system were better at improving the lives of the poor and overall contributing to the well-being of society than a free market, I'd be in favor of it. I just don't think it is the case, because I'm not convinced that (for example) welfare state systems work consistently.Atnohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13138424784532839636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16878219350677350812019-02-16T04:52:54.392-08:002019-02-16T04:52:54.392-08:00You're right. Chesterton was a real Thomist.You're right. Chesterton was a real Thomist. Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37859143020949513372019-02-16T04:46:43.032-08:002019-02-16T04:46:43.032-08:00Some quotes from Burke: "The science of const...Some quotes from Burke: "The science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it,or reforming it, is... not to be taught a priori... The pretended rights of these theorists are all extremes: and in proportion as they are metaphysically true, they are morally and politically false. The rights of men are a sort of middle, incapable of definition, but not impossible to be discerned”; “The individual is foolish; the multitude, for the moment, is foolish, when they act without deliberation; but the species is wise, and, when time is given to it, as a species it always acts right"; "Metaphysical and physical speculations neither are nor ought to be, the Grounds of our Duties; because we can arrive at no certainty in them. They have weight when they concur with our own natural feelings, very little when against them".<br /><br />Burke hated rupture and dogma. For him, the closest thing to certainty was provided by historical social evolution. He considered religion and social traditions to be an expression of this. Of course he was fired up by what the revolutionaries were doing in the name of reason but these quotes the core the anglo-conservatism he fathered, and represent the death of any hope of establishing what natural law might be, which from a Thomistic point of view, requires the two things he rejects - reason and authority.<br />His rejection of authority and dogma was clear in his attacks on papal infallibility and transubstantiation and the Protestant Reformation itself, because he believed they were intrusions on social evolution and tradition: "decrees" and "metaphysics".<br />However, the whole arrival of Christianity in the classical world was based upon rupture and dogma, and the early Christians paid aa heavy price for it. <br />Burke is considered the founder of conservatism because he was the first best-selling author to attack the revolution. But the conservative versus liberal (or revolutionary) argument is all just an inter-Enlightenment dispute, and all relative, because today's (or yesterday's) conservative is the day before's revolutionary. How can there be certainty and stability of thought in such an environment? It's not hard: abandon ideology and false philosophy. The Church was usually the first institution to respond to silly new ideas and always did so in the same way; by reiterating moral and dogmatic truth. How this is to be put into practice politically should not be subject to the latest ideological fad and unfortuntely Burke was guilty of that. The core of all conservatism (and its greatest marketing trick) is liking belief and believers and the society produced by it, without really believing itself. This utilitarian nd sentimental view of religion has never ceased to fool English-speaking believers into climbing aboard the conservative raft. The Petrine barque is better. In this sense, Cicero might be considered one of the first conservatives. He thought the object of classical worship was ridiculous, but useful to society.<br />Miguel Cervanteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01891484277032885884noreply@blogger.com