Excellent analysis and a pretty lively discussion in the comments at the link too.

While the conclusions TD draws and the language he uses are disturbing, contrary to the conclusions Debris Trail makes, TD was not out of step with alot of those both on the left and the right during that time. If he had been I suspect he would have been rebuked by his superiors.

What it does damage in TD's image is, as Debris Trail points out, is that of his scholarliness in that it was very poorly researched. And that TD felt it was perfectly okay, check that, morally imperative that those in power should control the lives of others. Thus the moral foundation for government-run health care.

Those who'd like an in depth look at eugenics as it was advocated by liberals, progressives and socialists in the early twentieth century should visit:

http://www.inklingbooks.com/inklinguniversity/

And those who'd like to read a criticism of British eugenics can do no better than read G. K. Chesterton's 1922 classic, Eugenics and Other Evils.

Eugenics had similar demographics as today's abortion debate. It was championed primarily by the political left (such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) and opposed primarily by religious conservatives (such as the Catholic Chesterton). The New York Times praised eugenics in 1912, calling it a "wonderful new science."

--Mike Perry, Seattle

I think the two previous postings were spot on.

This sort of eugenics stuff, along with a corresponding fixation on "ethnology" is part and parcel of that bastard child of Charles Darwin: Social Darwinism.

It was a line of crank science that developed through the late 19th Century and ultimately manifested itself in the rise of Adolf Hitler.

It is true that Douglas's ideas would not have been out of place at the time he wrote them.

The conflict with Nazi Germany has conveniently obscured our view of the period leading up to the Second World War. It was a time when odd racial notions had wide acceptance not simply in countries like Germany, but also amongst the intelligentsia of Europe and North America.

The point about Douglas is, I suppose, not that he had rather "interesting" ideas but that he should be made a "Canadian icon." Dr Norman Bethune is another example; his communist leanings are always conveniently glossed over.

The Left of the political spectrum is always so ready to rubbish the traditional "Great Canadians" of history based on some perceived transgressions in their lives.

So why do the heroes of the Left always seem to get a by on their past peccadilloes?

What else do you expect from sociology? It's not a real scholarly discipline and merely serves as an academic cover for marxists, much like "political economy." Check out any sociology department and I guarantee you'll find almost no professor or student who is not a marxist, communist, socialist, etc.

A typical response from those on the left amounts to "A greater good".

There was a greater good that came from these people so their transgressions are ignored. Kind of like Castro. His abuses are ignored because of what he represents, or Che Guevera, or Lenin or Stalin in his day was given the whitewash treatment.

See people and the world for what they are, not what we wish them to be, then work to move it toward what we want it to be.

The headline (and eulogy) for eugenicists, socialists, abortionists, communists and others who would like the power to plan every gene and moment of our lives should be "sounded great in theory... I had good intentions"

When Gwyn Morgan makes a quite sensible and factual comment about violent gangs in Canadian cities, he is considered unfit for an unpaying job serving Canadian taxpayers and his accomplishments are ignored. Tommy Douglas gets his multitude of ugly ideas and comments ignored, while being name the greatest Canadian for causing decades of healthcare problems and expense for Canadian taxpayers.

Re: the comments on C-Junk's TC Douglas expose':

I always find it humorous how the stilted zealots of sacred lefty dogma must give knee-jerk defense to any lefty dogma....no matter how old or discredited.

In this case what we have is purely Tommy Douglas's unqualified, socially bigoted opinion masquerading as a legitimate social thesis....this is the "legacy" piece of "the greatest Canadian"....a classist and bigoted essay on who is fit to reproduce....phhhhttt, how we set our standards so low when it comes to cannonizing political leaders.....must be the celebration of mediocrity the left encourages.

Eugenics had similar demographics as today's abortion debate. It was championed primarily by the political left (such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger) and opposed primarily by religious conservatives (such as the Catholic Chesterton).

This comment distorts history. Eugenics was championed all over the political spectrum, but became the property of the extreme Right, which racialized an already invidious set of ideas. Angus McLaren has done a history of eugenics in Canada called "Our own master race : eugenics in Canada, 1885-1945" which is worth a read.

People should really try to get a sense of history. If you go far enough back, you can find leftists making shockingly racist comments--check out Karl Marx's "The British in India," for example. A little more recently, leftists made shockingly sexist comments (SDS activists like Mark Rudd come to mind). At the same time, though, and in fairness, the Right continues to make sexist and racist comments, if usually highly coded--some of the comments around Katrina were a real eye-opener, even for me. The Left repudiates both racism and sexism, including those elements in its own history.

The Left and the Right have evolved over time, or there would be no such categories today. At least the Left (speaking, I know, over-broadly) seems to have the capacity for self-criticism.

But this posthumous Tommy-smearing, in any case, is egregiously unfair. He was a man of his time. Check out Charlotte Whitton sometime if you want to do a real> trash job. Eugenicist. Anti-semite. Etc.

Err , since Margaret Whitton hasn’t won the CBC’s most famous Canadian award I’d forgotten who she was and had to google her. How could I possibly have forgotten that she was Mayor of Ottawa 1951-56 …

She is famous for the quotation: "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult."

Whitton never married, but lived for years with her partner, Margaret Grier. I can see why the Dippers would like her … or am I missing something?

Well, I don't know about the rest of the audience, as much as I dislike the idea of government eugenics; the idea of people who are mentally retarded/damaged (to the point of being sub-marginally functional as adults, or less) or the lunatic (I'm thinking institutionalized or on heavy daily drugs) reproducing doesn't fill me with warm happy thoughts. The world does not need more of either.

Dawg, with due respect, most of the modern left isn't exactly free of their racist/eugenic wing/past either.

It's not too far to Cambodia, China, India (various South American) or Russia were not only committing racist, but "classist" genocides (often the two are tightly related) within my not so long lifetime. (and I'll not mention Africa becaused the racism there predates and transcends ideology. But I'll note that many of the worst offenders espouse a marxist cant.) Even the soft socialists in Sweden (and elsewhere) were busily sterilizing "morons" and what-not, well into the late 70's, if I recall correctly.

Give me right wing racists any day, their retail, muttering, approach to racism is a relief, obvious, and more easily countered and challenged compared to recent leftist slaughter.

As to Katrina, and the "rights" coded comments, I agree, but I'll note that the left (US or international) wasn't entirely free of "coded comments" either, no less racist. There's plenty to go around.

(And you have to watch about about "coded commnets" that you aren't reading into things, things that aren't there. I've seen some egregious examples of people saying "that's coded racism" for things which are not (necessarily) so. You'll find what your looking for, if you really want to.)

Ask Michelle Malkin to share some of her email with you, Dawg, if you are of the opinion that the modern left reject racism.

You might ask any number of black Republicans, while you're at it.

If the thesis was defended and accepted in fulfillment of the requirements for a degree, and absent evidence of fraud or plagiarism, what's the point of attacking the author's scholarship 70-odd years later (besides politicking?)

We may not like the methods, stated views and conclusions, but academe at the time apparently had no problem with them.

agitfact 10:04. Which I will accept as proof that the Fabians and fellow travellers had infiltrated academe by that time.

No, the "Dippers" don't like Charlotte Whitton. I was trying to point out, obviously too elliptically, that she, as a lifelong conservative, was pro-eugenics and anti-Semitic. I think I've made the point, over at CJ's if not here, that eugenics was a fashionable notion at the time, right across the political spectrum. There are a lot of reasons for that, which I won't go into here, but it's a bit smarmy to pillory Douglas for engaging with a widespread public notion in the early 1930s.

Kate: idiots sending emails to Malkin don't represent the Left. There are all kinds of confused people in the world who don't have fully-integrated, consistent political ideologies, like you and me. :)

The Black Republican matter (if you're thinking of the same cases I am) is maybe a little more complex. There are Blacks who feel betrayed by members of their own community who support Bush, and they've been pretty vocal about that sometimes. Blacks have called such Congressmen and Congresswomen "Oreos," "Toms" and so on, but that's within the community. Outsiders should just keep their yaps shut, it seems to me, unless they want to talk issues.

For heaven's sake, Dawg, please use correct definitions for your political theories.

Eugenics is NOT an idea of the 'right'. It's a top-down authoritarianism, focused around a utopian idea of purity of a population. That's socialist. Fascism is not a doctrine of 'the right'. It's pure socialism, i.e., a centralist top-down governance, focused around a homogenization of a population.

Fascism is a 'left' ideology. Got that? Never mind that the German fascism was actually titled "National Socialist German Workers' Party'. Just understand that the ideology of fascism is a socialist ideology.

Basic concepts of fascism include 'the primacy of the group, towards which one has duties superior to those to the individual"; the focus on the group as supplying all of one's needs; the focus on the authority of the leadership of the group, with this leadership speaking for all members of this homogeneous group. These are socialist ideals.

No, the 'left' doesn't have any innate capacity for self-criticism. In fact, it might be said to have less capacity, because it grounds its policies in utopian idealism rather than in pragmatic realities.

Dawg,

What about gun control? That is one of the most left-wing socialist ideas out there. The Federal NDP hold that up a sacred cow. Hitler was all for it.

But even if Hitler wasn't a socialist, like you claim. Let us say that he did just "borrow" the term to get "credibility" and win over millions of "fair minded" socialist voters. This is what you would like us to believe, correct? Well if that were to be true, you have to remember that Hitler was only one man! In your twisted argument you openly admit that Hitler's followers were socialists; his followers are the ones that ran the concentration camps! It took MILLIONS of people - most of them left-wing socialists according to you - to commit the mass murders under Hitler.

And by the way, no right-winger would EVER let anyone call him/her a socialist. That would be paramount to spitting in her/his face.

So, ET, I take it you would agree with the following comments:

"Therefore not only does the organization possess no right to prevent men of brains from rising above the multitude but, on the contrary, it must use its organizing powers to enable and promote that ascension as far as it possibly can. It must start out from the principle that the blessings of mankind never came from the masses but from the creative brains of individuals, who are therefore the real benefactors of humanity. It is in the interest of all to assure men of creative brains a decisive influence and facilitate their work. This common interest is surely not served by allowing the multitude to rule, for they are not capable of thinking nor are they efficient and in no case whatsoever can they be said to be gifted. Only those should rule who have the natural tempermant and gifts of leadership."

"Though all human civilization has resulted exclusively from the creative activity of the individual, the principle that it is the mass which counts--through the decision of the majority-- makes its appearance only in the administration of the national community especially in the higher grades; and from their downwards the poison gradually filters into all branches of national life, thus causing a veritable decomposition."

"Marxism represents the most striking phase to eliminate the dominant significance of personality in every sphere of human life and replace it by the numerical power of the masses. In politics the parlimentary form of government is the expression of this effort. We can observe the fatal effects of it everywhere, from the smallest parish council upwards to the highest governing circles of the nation. In the field of economics we see the trades union movement, which does not serve the real interests of the employees….”

Just to counteract your revisionist history.

Hitler, of course, stood for every value the Right holds dear: anti-feminist, anti-gay, pro-patriotism, anti-abortion, you name it. Of course, if you want to play with that other political axis (libertarianism vs. statism), you need to be consistent. Augusto Pinochet, much beloved by Margaret Thatcher, was no anti-statist, and neither is George W. Bush.

Trent:

Lowell Green supports gun control. Is he a socialist? I oppose it (at least the gun-registry nonsense). Does that make me a conservative?

Get a grip, man. You're raving.

ET: my response to you was caught in Kate's filter. It should appear sometime today.

"There are Blacks who feel betrayed by members of their own community who support Bush, and they've been pretty vocal about that sometimes. Blacks have called such Congressmen and Congresswomen "Oreos," "Toms" and so on, but that's within the community. Outsiders should just keep their yaps shut, it seems to me, unless they want to talk issues."

Where to even start with this, Dawg? It's a black thing, we wouldn't understand? That's one step away from "black people (or insert other 'minority') can't be racist'." It's a statement that manages to be both condescending and intellectually spineless at the same time. When someone is called racist names for making a political choice, we have no right to call it what it is if we're not of the same skin complexion?

And the people who call Malkin names aren't generally posting in self-identified leftist forums, don't generally hold a group of beliefs, fully-integrated or not, that they themselves would probably call leftist or "Democrat"?

And how old is your Monopoly game definition of a conservative? You seem to find it comforting to imagine conservatives as some kind of cross between Bull Connor and Henry Ford - the conservatives I know tend to be rigorously opposed to racism of any kind, anti-Semitism in particular, while the religious conservatives consider eugenics to be a sort of ideological original sin.

The fact is that the standard-bearers of so much historical leftist thought - the Fabians, so many social "progressives" like Sanger and the five women immortalized on Parliament Hill - considered the poor and marginal to be the disease, not the symptom, and felt that discouraging them from procreating, preferably through legislated social programs and medical procedures, was the cure to so many social problems. I think the sheer, inhuman idiocy of this idea is patently obvious, even to someone like yourself.

I'd agree with agitfact that it's irrelevant to attack Douglas for his 'academic scholarship' if such a document, with its inadequate research, was accepted by the university. I assure you, I've seen similar theses accepted - by which I mean, scantily referenced and inadequately researched, documents accepted.

And certainly, the arguments of the era about our species focused around whether behaviour was genetic or was culturally determined. There were lots of followers of both sides. During WWII, for example, a famous example was Ruth Benedict's book, outlining different innate 'personality types' - the Apollonian, the Dionysian, the Paranoid. These were connected to nations, and whole societies (such as the Japanese) were examined for 'national behaviour'.

The notion of scientific betterment of our species was an inevitable offshoot of Darwinism - something that he, himself, didn't engage in.
By the way, after WWII, Turing, the brilliant computer scientist, who broke the Enigma code, was forced to take 'medication' against his homosexuality; it led indirectly, to his suicide.

There was another viewpoint, advocating that our species' behaviour was learned, rather than innate. A famous example was Margaret Mead, who wrote a naive book about Pacific natives in Samoa, explaining that there were 'no problems' there, because every child was essentially, allowed to do whatever they wanted.

Both sides are fallacious, but, my point is that Douglas's perspective did fit into the 1930-1970 era.

What IS the problem, however, is socialism. Socialism isn't just a 'spreading of the wealth'. In order for socialism to operate, it must act within a centralist, authoritarian governance, which rejects individual decision-making, and insists on collective homogeneity of behaviour. This reductionism, for that is what it is, is actually disabling for an industrial economy.

Ideologically, socialism is utopian; it has a seemingly ideal of progress leading to The Best Society. This is a debatable idea, for the notion of an 'end state' is counter to the modern understanding of societies as 'complex adapative systems' which can never reach an ideal 'end state'. And, the idea of progress requires deviation from the norm - which runs counter to the socialist emphasis on conformity and group-ism.

Douglas' thesis, which is focused on these two basic components of socialism: the centrally enforced collective 'best type' and the idea of progress to this 'best mode of life', which are basic axioms of socialism, are what should be debated.

You know Dawg, why are you using Hitler, the former leader of "The National SOCIALIST and German Workers Party", and a bunch obscure local politicians to justify and defend Tommy Douglas? Is it because of the similarities of these people?

"Where to even start with this, Dawg?"

You don't need to start. It's textbook leftist racism, taking the form of identity politics. It's so fundamental to their ideology, even well-meaning lefties like Dawg buy into it without fully examining their own racist assumption that _skin colour alone_ should qualify an individual's right to criticize, right to associate, right to speak freely.

Having to explain the obvious is beginning to bore me. Sorry to take it out on you, Rick, but enough is enough.

The word "Oreo" means Black on the outside, white on the inside. It's an insult that people in the Black community have used against some of their own members who appear to have adopted values that they consider harmful to the community. I find it hard, in that context, to call the term "racist," although, in the American context, it is certainly racialized discourse.

My argument is that people not identified with that community shouldn't throw around terms like that. I thought that was simple enough.

I haven't followed Malkin's emails, to be honest, but I can imagine what some of them might contain. I haven't sent any, myself. Why not check out the emails that Black leftists get? Why not check out what people have to say about them on Stormfront.org? This whole side-discussion is getting a bit stupid, frankly.

Back to eugenics, though, for a moment. I think it's safe to say that most people these days consider eugenics discourse suspect--Hitler had a lot to do with that. So asking people today to comment on thinking that's three-quarters of a century old might yield embarrassing discoveries for people right across the political spectrum.

It is impossible, in any case, to read into Douglas' writings and speeches any notion that the poor are to blame for their own poverty. That's a conservative notion.

Dr. Dawg says...

"At least the Left (speaking, I know, over-broadly) seems to have the capacity for self-criticism."

Ah yes, the "capacity" for self-criticism.

Dr Dawg, you say that blacks feel "betrayed" because members "of their own community" voted for Bush.

This is the most racist statement I've heard and guess what - you're left wing. You just proved Kate right. You assume that every black person should have the same ideology, and that if they vote differently from other members of their race, that they're betraying their race. Are you seriously using that as an excuse for the racist cartoons and comments people like Condoleeza Rice have experienced?

There is the same type of sexism on the left. A woman who is anti-abortion, or not openly socialist is called a traitor to her sex, an "anti-feminist" or a man. Thatcher experienced this quite a bit. Condi gets both sexism and racism from the left.

And Dr. Dawg: the left advocates affirmative action, i.e systematic racism and sexism. Reverse racism is still racism. The right advocates individualism.

ET, you seem to be the lady for political theory.

I've been trying to come up with a bare-bones definition of Conservatism. Seems to me that it is an unshakeable belief in individual laissez-faire except where the interests of the conservative himself are concerned, when criminal law, protectionism, subventionism etc. are called for.

Is that a fair distinction from the socialist ideals you have described?

Dawg,

You are trying to change the discussion to who was a left-winger and who is a right-winger; you even have me in on it.

The discussion is about Tommy Douglas' thesis, and the sick mind behind it. It is not about some obscure mayor that no one has ever heard of and whether or not they supported eugenics.

A lot of people want to divert attention away from Tommy's thesis, convolute and fragment the discussion so that they can keep people from knowing the truth about Tommy, the CCF and the modern NDP. Let's not allow that, this time.

Kate:

Actually I reject identity politics. I don't believe in reifying culture and gender, and I don't like the notion of "race" at all. Read my piece on "Table Manners" for yourself.

But because I reject such politics doesn't mean that they don't exist. In the heavily racialized political climate in the US they are fairly prominent.

If people are defined by others as communities, they will come to define themselves as communities. Hence the "Black community" -- for example.

One doesn't have to approve of this phenomenon to be very wary indeed of making things worse by ploughing into that milieu from the outside and making inappropriate comments. I was actually agreeing with you, for once, or thought I was: people outside that community have no business throwing around words like "Oreo." I thought it was incidents like that to which you were referring.

So, if a black Bush voter is an orea, Dr dawg, what do you call someone who looks like a westerner on the outside (i dont mean racially, i mean in terms of freedom and affluence), but is really a socialist or fascist on the inside and is therefore a threat to their community?

Dawg - have you ever read G. B. Shaw? A lifelong socialist, supporter of Stalin, and founder of the Fabian Society? A darling of progressives everywhere? Have you ever read his blistering, hateful contempt for the poor, and his belief that they were a social liability, to be flushed from a healthy society like a disease?

So much for the conservative monopoly on that idea, as you see it.

As for Douglas, how else do you interpret a thesis that frames poverty as a product of inherent, bred in the bone weakness? Douglas, like so many social reformers, saw the poor as congenital, a blood-borne pathogen that was dragging down a healthy society - the metaphor alone is pernicious and repulsive, don't you think? While no one is advocating eugenics today, aren't we allowed to use its advocacy as a yardstick by which to measure so-called "heroes" like Douglas - or are you extending your charming theory about black conservatives to the past as well, and insinuating that we have no right to criticize Douglas if we weren't alive at the time?

What IS the problem, however, is socialism. Socialism isn't just a 'spreading of the wealth'. In order for socialism to operate, it must act within a centralist, authoritarian governance, which rejects individual decision-making, and insists on collective homogeneity of behaviour. This reductionism, for that is what it is, is actually disabling for an industrial economy.

This is just binary (and question-begging) thinking. I would suggest any reductionism here is yours.

Ideologically, socialism is utopian; it has a seemingly ideal of progress leading to The Best Society. This is a debatable idea, for the notion of an 'end state' is counter to the modern understanding of societies as 'complex adapative systems' which can never reach an ideal 'end state'. And, the idea of progress requires deviation from the norm - which runs counter to the socialist emphasis on conformity and group-ism.

This is a rather undialectical view of socialism, if I may say so. You seem to have stopped reading, in any case, about thirty years ago. I agree, though, that the notion of "progress," not to mention "evolution" (in the social sense), is suspect. I use the word "progressive" these days only as a handy label, but I think it's lost a lot of its content.

But if you merely want to define "socialism" to suit your own dislikes, don't let me stop you. I just don't know any such "socialists" as you quaintly describe, and I've been around that neck of the woods for a long, long time.

Sitting here in London, UK, I couldn't figure out why the comments were coming in so thick and fast at such an early part of the day.

But of course! It's Victoria Day!

Have a great day off, all my compatriots in the homeland.

This includes you too, Dr. Dawg!

Thank you, JJM, and right back atcha. It's a miserable month in Ottawa--hail yesterday, even a little snow this morning. Nothing else to do but mix it up in the blogosphere!

Dawg - if you are going to call my analysis of socialism as 'binary and question-begging', I'd suggest that you provide some examples. Otherwise, all that you are doing is providing an ungrounded opinion. That's useless.

It is neither binary thinking (do you know what that means?) nor is it begging the question. Examples please.

And 'undialectical view of socialism'? What the heck is that? Why should an analysis of socialism be 'dialectical'? [I can't stand Hegel, by the way and equally, abhor Plato's version of Socrates.] But, again, why should an analysis of socialism be 'dialectical'?

Do you realize that you haven't provided your own (correct?) view of socialism. All you've done is, without foundation, asserted that my analysis is: non-binary, non-dialectical (explain with examples and also explain why it should bother to be either)..and 'question-begging' (explain what is exactly 'begging the question').

And then, again without providing your own (correct?) view of socialism, you've used an ad hominem tactic against me (conclusion only to suit my own dislikes). Oh, and the fallacy of pseudo-authority (been around for a long time).

So, now, how about dropping the fallacies, dropping the ungrounded assertions, and getting into facts and reality?

Sorry Dawg (10:15 AM) lesbian, feminist, Mayor Charlotte Whitton does not fit my profile of a typical conservative. BTW, being a lesbian/feminist shouldn’t disqualify her from being a conservative either in my opinion.

I’m still confused - what is about her that makes you think that she’s conservative?

Would it be this? …, after graduation ..“From Queen's she became the director of the Canadian Council on Social Welfare and helped bring about a wide array of new legislation to help children.”

Dr Dawg, you say that blacks feel "betrayed" because members "of their own community" voted for Bush.

This is the most racist statement I've heard and guess what - you're left wing. You just proved Kate right.

Oh, bullshit. Seriously, learn to read.

I described a dynamic in the "Black community." I didn't make it up. Where do you think terms like "Uncle Tom" originated, and how have they been deployed?

I think an apology is in order, but knowing right-wingers, I'm not holding my breath.

Dr dawg, how can you seriously try to excuse racist comments by leftists? A black person can vote for Bush. It is not a batrayal of their community. Affirmative Action, a leftist idea from the last 30 years, is racist! It is systematic, institutionalized racism, which is much worse than some person calling a black leftist or rightist columnist a bad name.

If you support affirmative action, you a left-wing racist as well. If you think a black Bush voter loses their true racial identity, that is also racist.

dr dawg, I apologize for calling you racist, if you were only stating other leftists', rather than stating your agreement with the idea that voting a certain way comprimises political identity. (btw, it was a white cartoonist created the most blatantly racist depiction of Condi and received no denouncements from the left).

On the other hand, I consider advocates of affirmative action to be modern-day racists and sexists.

Some other noted darlings of the left from the same time period who advocated eugenics policy: Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie Mc Clung, Louise Mc Kinney and Irene Parlby. The Famous Five.

Hmmmm... Another example of the left's intrinsic ability for self critisism and presumably self correction???

I find Dr. Dawgs assertation that terms like oreo are an example of "racialized discourse", best left to the communities in which they originate, to be an interisting rhetorical twist.

So how does that work Dawg?? In the Canadian context lets say I'm 1/16 Cree and I live a traditional lifestyle. That is to say I support myself and my family by hunting and trapping. Can I call my cousin who is 100% Cree an Apple because he is an accountant for Syncrude and shops at Safeway??

Am I making racist comments or not? Does my traditional lifestyle make up for my weak Cree heritage. What proportion of ethnic heritage allows me the privledge of engaging in "racialized discourse"??

Are not you really attempting to apoligize for the "soft implied" racism that many on the left partake in??

Please explain.

Syncro

agitfact, - no, 'laissez-faire' would not, in my view, define conservativism. There's no such thing as a 'laissez-faire' system (the two terms contradict each other), understanding it as pure individual actions.

By 'no such thing', I mean in nature or in a social system, for the individual is BOTH a discrete entity (individual) AND a member of a collective. It's the 'borderline existence' between the two needs that is the most robust.

I think the US constitution provides a basic definition of conservativism, with its focus on common human rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). A society must have a 'collective infrastructure' to ensure these. And, its focus on individual rights (freedom of thought, speech) etc.

The point is, any system is, by necessity, made up of a long-term infrastructure which ensures stability. This requires symmetry of behaviour. And, any system is also, by necessity, made up of short-term individual 'articulations' or 'instances' which ensures asymmetry, or, the capacity to change, to innovate, to adapt. A robust reality requires both processes. Socialism privileges only one, the symmetry-inducing collectivism.

Nomdenet:

"An arch social conservative, however, Whitton's opposition to more liberal spending on the unemployed in the 1930s placed her increasingly on the margins of Canadian social work."

Source: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0008570

Check out: "No Bleeding Heart: Charlotte Whitton, a Feminist on the Right" (Rooke and Schnell, UBC Press, 1987).

ET:

I'm probably more conversant with binary thinking and its critiques than you are. When you define socialism as all collective, no individual (not to mention the companion notion of authoritianism vs. libertarianism), that's classic either-or binary thinking.

By "undialectical," I mean that you see no creative interplay between the individual and the collective. What on earth do you suppose the collective is made up of? Each enriches, or should enrich, the other.

By begging the question, I mean just that. You start from a position that requires proof (socialism is of necessity authoritarian and rejects individual decision-making in favour of homogeneity) and proceed to the conclusion that socialism is therefore reductionist and harmful to an industrial society. Circular argument. Classic petitio principii.

My empirical statement about socialists isn't argument by authority, by the way. It's a plain statement of fact about my personal experience. I've never met the caricatures you describe.

I don't like top-down approaches to this. Lenin (and vanguardism)are dead. But you assume, in your black-or-white way, that every socialist must be an authoritarian. That gives you license to throw Hitler into the mix (but not Pinochet or Franco). At that point, "socialism" becomes a floating signifier, of little value in a political discussion. It means whatever you want it to mean.

I wish I could figure out what triggers Kate's filter. Two responses to ET have now ended up in it. And I've been no more abusive than usual. :)

Just a quick response to Angela and to Syncrodox:

I don't espouse identity politics, but you don't get rid of the phenomenon by engaging in it. If members of the Black community want to encode their opposition to conservative policies as inauthentically Black, I don't think it would be helpful if I were to jump in and join them.

Affirmative action is a whole nother discussion, as they say. Let me just note that in a racialized society where practices of exclusion have been historically present, such counter-practices are not necessarily a bad thing if they lead to inclusion.

Syncrodox: everything depends upon the community with which you identify. It is to that community that you will find yourself accountable if you want to use epithets like "Apple" to tell them who is, and who is not, to be considered a member. Other community members may have something to say about that. The ensuing debate is not likely to be very productive, but, in any case, I wouldn't participate in it.

It is my belief all humans have some racist tendencies,it is a"tribal"instinct.But,how we deal with these"leanings"in modern society helps define us as individuals.
I can't help but think that if these writings were uncovered as the work of one of our history's prominent rightists,we would instead be commenting on the MSM's artificial moral outrage as they dis'conservatives in general.In fact it is unfair to judge anyone from another era by today's standards.
Having spent 10 yrs of the recent Liberal dynasty in Alberta,I know first hand what it is like to be constantly tagged by the left as racist(not to mention anti-Canadian,rednecked,etc).BTW,that was with NO other Canadians bothering to rally to our defense,NO apologies.
What amazes me to this day,is the very act of LABELLING us as racist was BIGOTTED!How's that for irony?
Western conservatives especially,know better than most others that the left shouting racist or un-Canadian accusations at those who dare disagree has become a predictable part of their MO.If any libs have a problem with this logic,just look at your party's dispicable and divisive tactics this past election for starters!

Dawg - your provided several quotes and asked if I agreed with them. No, I don't.

First, by the way, Hitler's axioms that you refer to, are in no way the same as 'the right holds dear', and it is incorrect of you to assert that they are. You are merging definitions - a basic fallacy. The right's view of women is quite different from Hitler's view. The right are not anti-gay, although they may be anti SSM (and sorry, but being against SSM does not mean that one is anti-gay). As for 'pro-patriotism' - what's that supposed to mean? Paul Martin thundering on about how much he Loves Canada? Same with anti-abortion. It's far too complex to define as a 'left' or 'right' view.

Now- your quotations. The first one I'd agree only with the promotion of 'men of brains' but not with its denigration and strange definition of 'the masses' and its rejection of democracy (its statement against 'allowing the multitude to rule).
The above quotation is quite totalitarian; fits in with Popper's 'closed society'.

Statement two is equally problematic and is actually historically wrong. The 'mass' or decision of the majority, is the basic political mode in human societies (hunting and gathering). When the population gets larger, you cannot have a mass decision-making process (takes too long and you cannot get a consensus).

This quote sets up a binary analysis, where you must focus on Either the community majority OR the individual. No society can operate within an either-or infrastructure. A robust society requires both modes of organization because it requires both continuity, provided by the majority, and discontinuity, provided by the individual.

Quotation three - what's your point? Do I agree with it as an analysis of Marxism? I certainly disagree with communism and I disagree with the rejection of hierarchies in society.

I also disagree with rejecting a parliamentary form of government - by which I understand a government that is both elected and that debates and takes decisions.

I am certainly completely opposed to unions. I think they had a role to play in the last century, but now, are completely parastic on the workers and have become private corporations in themselves. They don't help either the workers or the economy but damage both.

"But this posthumous (insert name of favorite dead murdering racist), in any case, is egregiously unfair. He was a man of his time."

This quote sets up a binary analysis, where you must focus on Either the community majority OR the individual. No society can operate within an either-or infrastructure. A robust society requires both modes of organization because it requires both continuity, provided by the majority, and discontinuity, provided by the individual.

My goodness, can we have arrived at a point of agreement? Of course a robust society requires a dynamic interplay between the individual and the collective. That's precisely what my own vision of socialism necessarily entails. I would respectfully suggest that your caricature of socialism died well before the final collapse of the Soviet project.

Dawg - are you more conversant with binarism than I am? Why the need for the ad hominem? Why not just discuss why you considered my analysis as 'non-binary'. By the way, I outlined my view of a robust society above, so I won't repeat it.

No, my definition of socialism as 'all collective' isn't 'classic binary thinking'. It's a critique of the key problem of socialism, which is that it privileges only ONE mode of behaviour, the collectivist. In order to privilege collectivism, a socialist system must also be authoritarian. Again, that's not binary thinking; it's a critique of the problems of socialism.

No, my argument that socialism is collectivist and is therefore harmful, is not begging the question. If you claim that, then, all of your assertions are equally circular and therefore fallacious arguments. After all, you are making unfounded claims and also evaluating them, e.g., your arguments about affirmative action.

Pseudo-authority is an argument claiming validity by the authority of another factor, such as time; you mentioned some thirty years of experience in socialism. So?

No, I am not throwing Hitler's national socialism into the mix by my own 'licence'. It was a leftist, socialist political infrastructure. I think you misunderstand the definition of 'left' and 'right' as metaphors.

I haven't said a word about Pinochet or Franco, so why do you claim that I did or did not define them as right or left? Kindly stick to the facts.

By the way, you still haven't defined socialism.

Dawg, I’m still confused. You say Whitton, a lesbian, is “An arch social conservative”. Is that possible?

I’d say you also have a bit of an oxymoron with “a feminist on the right”.

Dawg, let me cut to the chase, we’re all guilty of lumping left/right and dipper/conservative into nice tight little packages.

It can’t be done. People are too complex. That’s what Tommy couldn’t appreciate.

Dippers and conservatives want the same compassionate results on matters like poverty and the environment. The debate should be about how to govern ourselves in a way that optimizes the best chances of low poverty and a clean environment. Now that we got rid of the Liberals for awhile maybe we can dissent again and let ideas compete for the best solution

I doubt if we are ideologically similar, Dawg. Your view of the individual and the collective are probably very different from my view.

After all, my view of a robust society does not include a health care system that rejects private treatment, a federalism that is centralist, and I reject any program of equalization. I reject anti-capitalism, I'm all for enabling disparate wealth levels. I'm against unions. All of the above are dear to the socialist ideology.

nomdenet,well said!It is all too rare someone recognises our commonalities,not our differences.

Kill the comment filter now!

The jerk and twitch of unanswered comments is confusing and frustrating.

Kill the comment filter now!

Dawg:

Sorry, nut sometimes the poor ARE responsible for their own poverty...I know it's a shock to you, but having been a social worker for a time, I can attest to it.

Poor financial decisions, substance abuse, unwillingness to control their reproduction, general irresposnibility...these are indeed factors in a life that can lead to chronic poverty.

Nomdenet,

you are a party pooper! I had just read ET's comment on my definition of conservatism and was formulating a reply, when you spoil my plot.

We are busily trading definitions, descriptions and insults of systems that do not exist in their defined form in any actual reality - and never have.

Can anyone point out deeper conservatism and capitalism than that practiced by the "nomenclatura" under Soviet/Warsaw Pact Communism? And which country is purely conservative - Myanmar? Iran? What we are discussing is political labelling, not reality.

Your 12:30 PM post points out the reality we should be discussing.

We are busily trading definitions, descriptions and insults of systems that do not exist in their defined form in any actual reality - and never have.

Well said. Very well said. Let's note how this discussion began, here and at CJ's. Tommy Douglas subscribed to a notion that was popular in its time was is now heavily discredited. Somehow this is supposed to be the key to his politics. That, in any case, has been heavily implied.

I got suckered into the ensuing political definitions game just like many others. Let me leave that part of it then, with a fact, not an opinion: forced sterilization was legislated in Alberta in 1928, and the Sexual Sterilization Act wasn't repealed intil 1972. Should we be drawing political conclusions here?

"popular in its time butis now heavily discredited."

Hopefully in the future, we will say that Tommy Douglas was popular for a time, but has now been heavily discredited. For now, we will have to take Dr dawg's assurances that Douglas' ideas have been heavily discredited in this country.

Well. Angela, perhaps it all comes down to this:

In 1933, Tommy Douglas wrote a thesis in which he took up ideas that were popular in his time. When he became Premier of Saskatchewan, he made no attempt to put any of those ideas into practice.

In 1928, the government of the province of Alberta passed the Sexual Sterilization Act, and proceeded to sterilize "defectives" at will. The Act wasn't repealed until 1972.

What political conclusions should we draw from this?

Dawg - you still haven't provided your definition of socialism. I don't think that you should slide or sucker yourself out of such a requirement. Again, what is your definition of socialism? Definitions DO matter.

agitfact, you wrote: "We are busily trading definitions, descriptions and insults of systems that do not exist in their defined form in any actual reality - and never have."

But they DO exist as political ideologies that instruct and guide all of our decision-making. That's the point. A formal description may never be completely articulated (Godel) but it still necessarily guides that informal or real life articulation.

You also wrote "Can anyone point out deeper conservatism and capitalism than that practiced by the "nomenclatura" under Soviet/Warsaw Pact Communism? And which country is purely conservative - Myanmar? Iran? What we are discussing is political labelling, not reality."

I'm afraid I don't see how 'conservativism and capitalism' were exemplified under the Soviet/Warsaw Pact.
Iran is most certainly not conservative, for it has a centralist authoritarian government, focused on the people as a collective.

You see, definitions matter very much. Otherwise, we can't communicate, for our terms may have meanings that only we provide.

ET: I think agitfact has a point. This definition game has been a fruitless exercise, both here and over at CJ's. Other people are "defining" socialism, in the form of caricature, and my own definitions of conservatism don't seem to be finding much favour either.

"Define" socialism? Outside generalities, how could one provide such a definition? Workers' control of the means of production was one such definition, but Lenin kind of spoiled it for me with his interpretation of what it means:

We are not utopians, we do not "dream" of dispensing at once with all administration, with all subordination. These anarchist dreams, based upon incomprehension of the tasks of the proletarian dictatorship, are totally alien to Marxism, and, as a matter of fact, serve only to postpone the socialist revolution until people are different. No, we want the socialist revolution with people as they are now, with people who cannot dispense with subordination, control, and "foremen and accountants".

The subordination, however, must be to the armed vanguard of all the exploited and working people, i.e., to the proletariat.

Yikes! And he liked Taylor, too.

Then there is Marx's idea, of a transition stage between the overthrow of capitalism and a stateless society.

Personally, I see socialism as an alternative social arrangement to globalization, imperial expansion, endless wars, massive and increasing poverty and ill-health and environmental degradation world-wide, the fetishization of private property and dog-eat-dog competition.

I think it's a possible alternate future for humanity. But defining it precisely is too much like the blueprint socialism I oppose. I don't know in detail what such a system would look like, but I've mused about the issue here:

http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/2005/08/left-behind-over-in-england-columnist.html

Anyway, best I can do for now, ET. And, as pointed out at CJ's, we're at a bit of a remove from the topic at hand.

dr dawg,

It is true that leftists demonize Alberta, without even bringing up legitimate issues like sterilization legislation.

It is also true that Tommy Douglas is revered and named greatest canadian by leftists, while his eugenicist beliefs are ignored, or attributed to the time period.

The time period is irrelevant for me. Douglas is supposed to be a radical, a progressive, someone who changed things. You can't in the same vein argue that he was just spouting the same theories as everybody else, he was just a product of his time period. He is a man credited with changing history.

The desire to socially engineer society, whether through eugenics, socialism or communism (whatever the precise definition) is an affront on personal freedoms and individual rights, in my opinion.

I really hope your socialist dreams never become a practical reality, dr dawg, although we have already gone quite far done that road.

Well, I can only repeat: when Tommy Douglas was in power, he didn't once attempt to impose any of the views in the 1933 thesis. But conservative Alberta had sterilization laws on the books until 1972.

If you want to argue politics, that's one thing. But to go after a fellow for views that he never attempted to put into practice, even when he had the opportunity, while ignoring the conservative record on the self-same matter, simply reeks of hypocrisy.

Angela,

As I read it, Dawg's point about Douglas's eugenics is that, even as something of a "radical" or "progressive" figure, he was, as all politcal figures are bound to be, limited to certain historically contingent language. It should come as no surprise to anybody that even a "radical" like Douglas would couch his vision in the language of his time. This, of course, does not mean that we can't throw light on such (to us) unsavoury ideas. We just have to be mindful of historical anachronism.

When did I ignore their record, dr dawg? I think forced sterilization is disgusting and immoral. I wondered why leftists continually attack Alberta for ridiculous reasons, when they could bring up a legitimate issue like that one. (but, the point is moot, everybody thought that way back then, remember?)

I also think abortion is immoral, including the practice of aborting fetuses that are less than genetically perfect, or infanticide. Forcing a genetically imperfect person to be sterilized is just as immoral as for refusing them the right to be born and exist in the first place. (although during these times, most people view abortion as moral).

Like I said, Douglas believed in various forms of social engineering, luckily he didn't put many of these ideas into practice. Although we are still living the results of some of his ideas that were put into practice.

When did I ignore their record, dr dawg? I think forced sterilization is disgusting and immoral. I wondered why leftists continually attack Alberta for ridiculous reasons, when they could bring up a legitimate issue like that one.

You're right. I apologize for reading your earlier post too quickly.

(but, the point is moot, everybody thought that way back then, remember?)

Well, not so moot. Douglas wrote his thesis in 1933. Alberta didn't repeal their legislation until 1972--nearly four decades later.

Dawg - No, I don't think you can slither out of defining socialism. You see, unless you define what it is, I don't see how you can denigrate what it is not, i.e., conservatism. It just baffles me how you can repeatedly denigrate conservativism without defining what you consider 'good', i.e., socialism.

What you have done, is provided a mind-boggling list which you say is NOT socialism. I simply don't see this list as a valid set of characteristics of 'the opposite of socialism'.

Globalization. What does this have to do with socialism or conservativism. Are you seriously saying that globalilzation is indicative of conservativism???
I'm in favour of globalization because our world has, by virtue of technology (air flight, internet) shrunk in space and time. Our communications are networked; our economies of the world are networked. That's globalization.

The question then becomes, should this networked economy and communication be governed within a socialist or conservative political infrastructure? But to say that globalization is not a socialist axiom is meaningless! After all, many socialist gov'ts have attempted to expand their authority! Globalization exists within either a socialist or conservative system. I'm against a socialist system.

Imperial expansion??? What do you mean? China's expansion into Africa, Canada, Europe? The Islamofascist ideological expansion into Europe, America, Asia? What do you mean? France's control over its old colonial empire?

Endless wars? Hah. There hasn't been an era in human history without wars. The best solution, in my view, is democracy. Democratic states don't go to war against each other. Are you seriously suggesting that socialist states don't fight each other? Tell that to China and the Soviet Union.

Massive and increasing poverty? The poverty increase is in socialist countries and in socialist totalitarian countries (all socialist countries are necessarily totalitarian) - eg. the old Soviet Union,Cuba, pre-capitalist China, Africa, and failed states in Africa, Haiti.

Ill health? Do you know what it takes for health? It takes money. Money for massive research investments. That's capitalism, where research funds are set up to fund future-oriented results that might take 20 or more years. Socialist states don't do that kind of activity. Ill health requires a strong economy and there isn't a socialist economy in our industrial era that is robust. A socialist economy is only functional in a small population (100,000). It can't operate an industrial economy.

Environmental degradation - as in the socialist soviet union and china? Again, do you seriously suggest that socialism ensures no environmental degradation? Why? Why would a conservative state conserve its environment?

Fetishization of private property. What does this mean? I'm completely in favour of private property and private ownership. There isn't a community in time, except for the smallest bands of about 100 people, which has managed to be successful by denying private ownership - whether of cattle, pigs, wheat or whatever. So, what does 'fetishization' mean?

Dog eat dog? What do you mean by this? Surely you don't mean that incompetent service and bad quality products should succeed in the economy??? What do you mean? Are you suggesting that socialism ensures dog LOVE dog? How? Prove it. China and the Soviet Union are examples of dog love dog???

And - what is the logical and empirical base that enables you to say that all of these forms of behaviour, are the opposite of socialism???

You still haven't defined socialism. Your list of 'what socialism is not' is invalid.

What does Alberta repealing the legislation in 1972 have to do with the Greatest Eugenicists legacy? Other than Alberta bashing.
enough

ET: I see nothing wrong with proposing what socialism is not in order to build a case for what it might be. You have made a number of claims about what it is, none of them (in my view) valid. But we've been through all of that before.

I should have been clearer about globalization--I meant corporate globalization. "Free" trade for everyone but the US, who made us literally pay protection money to re-open the softwood lumber market. Exporting toxic waste to the Third World. Maintaining post-colonial dependency. I could provide a reading list to get you started, if you'd like.

Imperial expansion--I wasn't aware that China had invaded Europe. I'm referring, of course, to the divine US manifest destiny to rule the globe, whether by force or by economics. The New World Order. At last count, 1/4 million dead in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Endless wars: no country has made war on so many other countries as the US. Poverty? There's some interesting commentary here: http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/2004/08/fact_check_does.html.

Ill health? That one really goes hand in hand with the destruction of the environment, the kind of destruction that forces us, under pain of lawsuit, to include dangerous additives in gasoline, for example. Or global warming (which you no doubt dismiss as 'junk science.' We can debate that another time.)

Private ownership of the means of production produces waste, pollution, poverty and degradation for many and profit for a few. I don't think a command economy is a sine qua non of socialism, by the way. Its inefficiencies are, as we have seen, many. But on a global scale, so-called "development" has continued at an accelerated pace to drain resources from the Third World to the First, and maintain Third World dependency, with the assistance of the IMF and the World Bank. There has to be a better way, and I think there is. A heavy emphasis on so-called social capital would be a good place to start. So-called "local substitution" is another.

(Again, a separate discussion under each heading is called for if we want to do more than trade barbs. We're abusing Kate's hospitality as it is.)

Since we're bashing historical figures, why not bash one of the founders of modern democracy, Thomas Jefferson. How could a man responsible for writing the sacred words "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" have been a slave owner?

Or is it only the historical figures with socialist tendencies that have no redeeming qualities?

Making slaves of us IS a socialist tendency. I slave until June 25th each year for the government, only then do I keep my wage.

Yes, and you get absolutely nothing in return for your taxes, right nomdenet? Of course, if you don't want to pay taxes, you can always stop working...I think they used to whip slaves for that.

I don't get as much as I would if I was allowed to keep more of my wages. For my taxes I get Adscam, the gun registry, wealth transfer by stealthy Kyoto and fiscal imbalance payments, waiting times for Illness Care, more unionized Nanny Care ...

For those looking for a simple definition of conservatism; it means: a lot less government.

This shows the fallacies of leftist thinking. Tommy Douglas the demi-god, revealed as just another man. Fine. When Gwyn Morgan is shot down for statements that are manifestly not rascist yet termed as rascist, the lefts heros should be held accountable for the same silly standards.

Let us hear TDs followers ackowledge any such thing. Not likely.
enough

"For those looking for a simple definition of conservatism; it means: a lot less government."

So that would mean that George W. Bush is not a conservative.

Nomdenet, as under Brian Mulroney?

It's been a long time since Tommy Douglas wrote these words, what harm can come of having everyone able to study all the words of the "greatest Canadian"?

why the veil of secrecy?

That his words were written in different times is relevant? Good thing Tommy didn't take on the project of re-writing the Christian Bible... no telling what we'd end up with.

the little fellow with an idea?
There's 2 truly dangerous things in this world,
A politican with an idea.
A hooker with a chipped tooth.

This is an interesting facet of Douglas's thought (his 1933 eugenics thesis) of which I was not aware. I would not have suspected that the man who was instrumental in initiating universal healthcare in Canada could have held such views. Also, until I did a few searches in response to above posts about a forced sterilization program in Alberta, turns out that British Columbia had one too, I was unaware that there had been any such programs in our history. Both provinces programs lasted into the 70's.

Personally, I think that eugenic beliefs transcend political affiliations.

Perhaps it would be just simpler to acknowledge that left or right, humans have flaws.

Luke 6.41-3
And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but the log which is in your own eye you do not consider? How are you able to say to your brother, ‘Brother, allow me to take the speck that is in your eye’, when you yourself do not see the log in your eye! Hypocrites! First take the log out of your eye, and then you will be able to see to take out the speck from your brother’s eye.

Dawg and Agitfact , agreed.

Agreed, in the context of conservatism meaning less government intervention. Seldom do we see shrinkage. Thatcher may be the only one that shrank it much as a % of GDP. Reagan and Bush might get a bit of a pass because they had to crank up military spending.

Conservatism doesn’t simply mean a balanced budget. Even Tommy’s NDP would balance the budget. But conservatism means not making slaves of us.

Bottom line: we need to shrink government from 42% of GDP to 33% and keep it there. That should be a conservative platform. Tommy’s NDP would want at least what? 50%? Let’s campaign on it. Let’s roll.

Yes, conservativism means less government. And yes, Bush is a conservative; he's also running a country that is in a war against Islamofascism. And doing it very well, in my view.

Dawg, you still haven't provided a definition of socialism. I don't accept your long list of particular socialist agendas, for it is nonsense to presume that conservativism is differentiated from socialism by being in favour of war, poverty, ill health, environmental degradation, fetishization of private property, dog eat dog competition, and also, following your other comments about 'the right', is sexist, racist, anti-feminist, anti-gay, pro-patriotism and anti-abortion.

That's quite a descriptive list of 'the right'. I reject it completely. And I reject your description of the characteristics of socialism.

So?

Since the label issue won’t go away -

ET wrote at 2:03 PM that the idealized systems "... DO exist as political ideologies that instruct and guide all of our decision-making."

Ideologies do not exist outside of the minds of their adherents. Interests do, and it is interests that demand action and determine the response. There are ideologies that demand that the whole world be fashioned in their light (let me start off the usual series Communism-Fascism-Islamism with - wait for it - Christianity,) but we are considering political ideology that should be practicable.

I suspect that it is not ideologies that define interests and how we deal with them, but interests that give rise to ideologies. It is an apparent chicken-and-egg situation: which comes first, the ideology, or the interest that requires action? And I submit that it is the interest, with ideology providing the rationale for acting in a certain way. In other words, action determines ideology, instead of ideology determining action (as in "handsome is as handsome does.")

A great deal of political difficulty and cussing could be avoided by cutting the Gordian knot of ideology. Surely the saw-off is appropriate action under given circumstances, not with which political view it coincides.

Here is an example of the reasoning. Did the Liberals produce Adscam because they were Liberals, or because they were a political party trying to stay in power? Do the Conservatives flog accountability because it is a Conservative principle, or because they want to avoid future Adscams? Without the Liberals screwing up, would accountability have become a Conservative priority? Finally, in due course the Conservatives will be re-elected or thrown out because of what they did or didn’t do in power, not because they are Conservatives.

Could we treat labels as banners that identify the mob you belong to, as opposed to the infallible guides to action they can never be in practice?

Agitfact, you’re onto something. I have more respect for the NDP than I do Liberals. I can argue with the NDP because we both have a philosophy. Liberals don’t, obfuscation in a Liberal friendly MSM is how they became the Natural Governing Party, but that has now failed. Let’s debate philosophies, particularly size of government.

Tommy’s favourite model was Swedish; it is now soft totalitarian and failing. The money quote from a post here;

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/05/new-york-times-and-sweden-dark-side-of.html

“Sweden had the second highest growth rate in the world from 1890 to 1950, but since the tax rate rose from 20 % in 1950 to 50 % in 1980 it had fallen behind. For example, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Sweden was the fourth richest country per capita in the world in 1970 whereas now it is down to number 14, and falling. Maybe the welfare state only seemed to be a success in Scandinavia because these nations had been dynamic capitalist countries prior to this, ethnically homogeneous and based upon a Protestant work ethic. While this legacy kept the welfare system afloat for some time, it is now rapidly being eroded.”

This should be a big red flag for socialist states.

Seems to me we're at a standoff, then, ET.

Your definition of socialism is risibly simplistic. I shouldn't have risen to the bait. Perhaps I'm caricaturing conservatives in turn, although a quick cruise on the starboard side of the blogosphere should convince most folks that there's more than a kernel of truth in my admittedly very partial and superficial descriptions. (They might notice your adroit re-writing of some of them, as well.)

Socialism to me means cooperation instead of competition. It means a social state of affairs that allows full scope to the energies and creativities of individuals. The collective is strengthened thereby. And the individual, for his or her part, has in the collective a source of security, encouragement and friendship.

No racism; no sexism; no class hierarchies and inherited opportunities for some; no wars for oil and strategic advantages over other nations. The environment seen as a bequest to the generations to come; health and education seen not only as a right but as a collective responsibility we have to each other; and a sense of making our own history in the present moment, wherever we live. Radical democracy in the community and on the shop floor.

You will agree, though, that the above does not comprise a definition--just a few wisps of vision that I wish a lot of other people had as well.

Agitfact - right. Very nice.

Yes, the ground causality is 'interests' - which can be understood as such basic requirements as food,housing, security, which are met by secondary requirements such as technology, property, capital etc. But, can any of these interests be met without ideology?

An ideology will demand that these interests be satisfied within the nature of an ideology. And, as you point out, that's where the problem might begin. Many ideologies are based on emotion, an emotion oriented to the future (socialism, communism, fascism, religion). Such ideologies establish 'good people' and 'bad people' and 'the good way of life' and
'the bad way of life'. That's dangerous.

However, the 'bricolage' tactic of governance, which is based on identifying 'interests' or needs of the population, and considering how they can best be met while ignoring ideology and the 'ideological tactic of governance, which is based on meeting interests using only a particular ideology, are opposites.

However, I do not reject ideology completely from the political arena, for even though 'interests' can be met by pragmatic policies, I think that these policies and interests still have to operate within a basic ideology. Its basis is reason rather than emotion. That is, a society must necessarily meet 'interests' within social institutions that also enable freedom of thought, speech and life.

Sometimes, after all, 'interests' might be easier met within an authoritarian regime. The problem with reducing the variety of answers to needs, is that you reduce your society's capacity to innovate and adapt.

why is the right always saddled with eugenics?

the record of the left.
China - 10 to 100 million-depending on source.
Cambodia - 30% of the entire population
Germany - (National Socialist Party) 10 million
USSR- 20 million.

Is there a right leaning government anyone can name near these "records"

Just coming onto the thread. Haven't read the comments yet.

My initial reaction:

Here's another reason why I often declare the left, as an ideology, to be scary.

After all, many leftists do tend to grasp onto discrete examples of supposed conservatives who have said things which could be considered reprehensible (but far less so than Mr. Douglas' ominous, frightening writings, which remind me of the writings of the Aryan supremacists of the NSDAP) and trumpet how scary the entire "right" is supposed to be, denouncing all righties as racists, bigots, Nazis and whatever else they've been told to think.

I'm sick of such behavior on the part of many leftists. Therefore, I say stuff like I do in response in order to show them that they're in no position to tar and feather the other side as they do, as their own backyard is full of numerous rotting corpses six feet under...

For chrissake, Sentinel, read the comments and cool the hot air.

Cool it yourself, for mohammedsake, Agitfart. I qualified my comment by mentioning it was my initial gut reaction, to which I'm entitled, just as are the leftists who overreact to absolutely every little thing, not that this is a little thing... on the contrary... it's damning.

Don't worry, Fartifact, I'll take a gander at what the folks say, but remember, I'll think for myself and cannot be told what to think. Hope you're the same.

No, Dawg, it's amazing, but you still haven't provided a definition of socialism.

My definition of it as privileging the collective over the individual is, you consider, 'risibly simplistic'. But, it's a basic and valid definition, for socialism effectively is focused around public or common rather than private ownership, with a centralist state administration.

On the other hand, what you have provided, twice, is a meaningless list of emotional Desires and empty emotional 'Wishes'. Nothing to do with socialism and nothing to do with reality. I commented on your previous list (globalizlation, imperial expansion, poverty, blah blah, as empty). Your new list, I'm sorry to say, is identical in value.

Your view that socialism 'means cooperation instead of competition' is naive and utopian. Show me one state, one province, one nation, that works that way.

And it's equally nonsense to assert that socialism 'allows full scope to the energies and creativities of indivduals'. How? Provide some examples of this idealistic naivete.
It is also insulting of you to thereby suggest that another political ideology denies such 'full scope'.

It is equally insulting of you to assert that another ideology permits a litany of faults, and since we are speaking of conservativism, it is that ideology you are defaming.

So, conservativism enables racism and sexism? Prove it.

Class hierarchies? I'm in favour of hierarchies; no complex system, and I mean that, can exist for a second without hierarchies. You cannot reduce a complex adaptive system, and a society in the millions is a complex adapative system, to a homogeneous bowl of jello. You must have hierarchies of ability, task, authority. You reduce to the LCD and you've effectively destroyed the society. It screeches to a halt and starts to dissolve. That's what is happening in Europe (eg by nomdenet of Sweden).

'Inherited opportunities for some'. How trivial. That's not indicative of a conservative ideology. It's indicative of a particular economy, the pre-industrial agricultural - and there were very good reasons for inherited capital. I won't go into them, but, it would have been disastrous for the economic functioning of the pre-industrial society, to split up capital into 'bits'. (See what happened in Zimbabwe when he reduced the land base from large scale food production to 'bits' of small scale peasant farms).

No wars for oil? Such as? Are you seriously saying that socialist nations don't need oil? That they don't go to war? Hah! How do you derive such a conclusion? China? The Soviet Union? What about wars for land? What about wars for other resources? Only oil?

The environment as a 'bequest'; I can hear the violins in the background. So, you consider that only socialist ideologies have such an agenda. China is socialist and one of the biggest polluters around. Doesn't seem to bother you. What about Canadian pollution?

'Health and education'...etc, etc. These are all smarmy 'feel good' rhetoric and there's no difference between a conservative and socialist agenda.
Except that the socialist tactics for providing both health and education fall far below in results than the conservative. Most of the money for both, in socialist regimes, goes to the bureaucracy and the unions. Not to health or education.

'making our own history in the present moment'. What the heck does that mean? It sounds like something a sociology student would write. Very romantic and completely empty.

'Radical democracy in the community' And what the heck does that mean? Another meaningless phrase? Sounds great, like something you shout to bring the crowd to a cheer. But, what does it MEAN?

Nope- it's really incredible. You assert the superiority of socialism yet cannot provide a single definition of it. You instead provide two empty lists of qualitative behaviour which have nothing to do with any political ideology and expect us to accept them as definitive of a particular ideology. They aren't; they are just empty phrases. Enjoy them.

The left is on the defensive.

Their savior has been exposed as having believed in eugenics and had written on it.

So they try to bluster their way out of it, pointing fingers back at the nonleft and trying to go back on the offensive.

Why doesn't the left just surrender and admit that they're not so totally nice and perfect and angelic after all?

Why doesn't the left admit that they're not in any way more humanistic, more compassionate, more egalitarian, more tolerant than are conservatives?

Why does the left petulantly insist on continuing with their dogmatic superiority complex?

Why does the left believe that their poop never smells? Hell, to listen to them sometimes, one would think that they're so perfect and exalted that they don't even have to poop at all...

Come on ET. You know you want to buy the world a Coke and teach them how to sing.

ET:

As I said, we have a standoff. If you simply choose to be insulting and to "stand aloof in giant ignorance," then so be it. You haven't provided a scintilla of a definition of conservatism, come to think of it, but you don't really have to try--it's obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside the box. Any ideas outside your own appear to be simply incomprehensible to you.

I can hear the Feudalist now--"Capitalism? A workforce that goes wherever it pleases? The King overthrown? You're dreaming, boy. Come on, now, define this 'capitalism.' You have failed to do so yet. You know that's it's simply anarchy and rapacity, this marketplace of yours, no sense of fealty."

There are, of course, detailed answers to all of the "points" you seem to believe you have made, all of which, frankly, are soft lobs. Your errors in fact and in logic cry out for rebuttal, but we've wandered very far off-topic. So take this to email and I'll provide just that rebuttal.

I can't "define" socialism any more than you can "define" conservatism. So, in this forum, let's leave it at that.

Dawg - I'm not into insults. But, I do request facts and logic - and you haven't provided either and critiquing their absence is not an insult (unless you are in a sociology class where no-one is allowed to criticize anyone).

Why can't you define socialism? You support it, therefore, how can you support something which you cannot understand enough to define?

Of course I can define conservativism. I did so at various times on this thread - noting that the US constitution does a good job of it - with its assertion of the collective providing individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit (not attainment) of happiness, within a government that provided that individual with freedom of speech and association.

This government, a conservative government, operates within an infrastructure that is small, decentralized rather than socialist centralized, and with a focus on private property and therefore, a capitalist rather than collectivist economy.

I also rejected equalization and uniformity, and promoted hierachies of wealth and power. These factors have less to do with conservatism and are based around the realities of a complex adaptive society, i.e., a society with a multimillion population. You can only have equalization in a small population.

That's my view of a conservative ideology, one that is based around no ideal end-state, pragmatic realities, and no utopia.

Goodnight.

"Conservatism discards Prescription, shrinks from Principle, disavows Progress; having rejected all respect for antiquity, it offers no redress for the present, and makes no preparation for the future."

Benjamin Disraeli

Ok guys, help me out. I have been trying to edit the article at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas to reflect the realities of Tommy Douglas -- ie: to at least include some excerpts of his thesis and to make the article an accurate portrayal of Tommy Douglas. But of course, any time I insert quotes from the thesis, or insert the fact that a great number of his Crown Corporations were failures, the socialists on that site delete them.

Lots of great opinions and great writers here. Any wikipedians up for the challenge of fixing the Tommy Douglas article so it at least provides an accurate and balanced portrayal of the former Premier?

Dawg, you wrothe that "the Left repudiates both racism and sexism, including those elements in its own history."

Shouldn't you have written that "the Left perpetuates both racism and sexism, including those elements in its own history?"

It's the left that is hyper-concerned whether I'm black, white, male, female. Look at affirmative action -- I would have supported the idea for a limited amount of time but any "minority" today who thinks that they don't get a fair shake because of their sex or skin color is either paranoid or making excuses.

Look at the lies coming out of Hurricane Katrina -- Bush blew up the levies to kill black people. Never mind that whites died at a higher percentage rates than blacks. Mayor Nagin says he wants to turn New Orleans to "Chocolate City." Imagine the uproar if Bush were to say that HE wanted to turn New Orleans into "Honky Town."

One only has to look at the popularity of black and other "minority" entertainers and athletes amongst whites to figure out that the vast majority of white people don't care a fig about race.

It's the left who has the monopoly on race-baiting and gender-baiting. Wake up and look at the facts.

-Michael McCullough
Stingray:  a blog for salty Christians

You can't. The system is stacked against you; I know.

Wikipedia, even more than Google, is a no-win situation for Conservative viewpoints. And you won't get any help from the Wikipedia staff, trust me, whatever their so-called policies state.

Dawg,

you are so full of it. Tommy DID put some of his ideas into pratice, ie. "work for welfare" in the 1940's nad 1950's inwhich men on welfare had to dig ditches inorder to receive their check.

Tommy also NEVER balanced a budget! The Sask. provincial debt was $120,000,000 in 1944 and $450,000,000 in 1961! Tommy did a lot of creative accounting to give the appearance of a balanced budget, he was critized for it by the auditors at the time.

Lorne Calvert is doing the same today. The latest NDP budget "claims" to be balanced, yet the provincial debt increases by $285,000,000. No NDP can deny that, only offer weak excuses.

Tommy also had a finance minister named Clarence Fines. Why don't you reseach him and tell us how a former school teacher making $4,000 a year as a cabinet minister can save millions of dollars and retire Bermuda (where he couldn't be extradited back to Canada) after 16 years of working? And yes, they were looking for him, he turned up in Florida 3 years after leaving his wife and running off with his secretary, where he died of cancer before he could be extradited back to Canada to face trial. Look it up.

Maybe the welfare state only seemed to be a success in Scandinavia because these nations had been dynamic capitalist countries prior to this, ethnically homogeneous and based upon a Protestant work ethic.

My Norwegian friends tell me that Norway works because the population is relatively small and the natural resources -- oil and timber -- are huge. They also tell me that it's typical to have a 100-year mortgage on a house. That enables even relatively poor Norwegians to afford houses that they could not otherwise afford with a typical American 30-year mortgage. Hence the high standard of living.

-Michael McCullough
Stingray:  a blog for salty Christians

Trent: In contrast, the Devine Conservative government was as pure as the driven snow, eh?

Back to the original topic, which implies that since Tommy Douglas wrote a paper on eugenics, he must have been pure EVIL. If this is true, then the opposite application of this kind of logic must also be true: Hitler did not smoke or drink and was a vegetarian who loved kids and dogs...so he must have been GOOD. I love it when things are so black and white.

It sounds more like you love it when you can skew arguments into a black and white caricature, as that relieves you of the burden of actually addressing the real issues, oh brave and forthright "anon".

Disraeli? Here? Ban the troll! Ban the troll!

Of course I can define conservativism. I did so at various times on this thread - noting that the US constitution does a good job of it - with its assertion of the collective providing individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit (not attainment) of happiness, within a government that provided that individual with freedom of speech and association.

This government, a conservative government, operates within an infrastructure that is small, decentralized rather than socialist centralized, and with a focus on private property and therefore, a capitalist rather than collectivist economy.

I also rejected equalization and uniformity, and promoted hierachies of wealth and power. These factors have less to do with conservatism and are based around the realities of a complex adaptive society, i.e., a society with a multimillion population. You can only have equalization in a small population.

That's my view of a conservative ideology, one that is based around no ideal end-state, pragmatic realities, and no utopia.

OK, I'll have one more go at this, with Kate's indulgence. The difficulty with comparing world-views, as illustrated here, is that a combox is really too small to permit the mega-discussion that such a comparison entails. Hence my invitation to an email chat.

I don't think one can sum up a political and philosophical outlook in a "definition." As proof, look at your "definition" of conservatism, above. I agree with much of it! I reject the notion that socialism necessarily requires centralization: I did provide a reference to some musings on that subject. Control-and-command doesn't work. I'm looking for other ways of achieving that vision that you were mocking yesterday.

I don't like having views attributed to me which are not my own. That can make one's responses a tad defensive, which some of mine might indeed have been until I cottoned on. So, for example, you caricatured my views about hierarchy, stating that I wanted everyone to be, in your inimitable phrase, a "bowl of jello." (I must admit that I scratched my head over that one.)

If by "hierarchy" you simply mean that wealth and power should continue to be unequally distributed as they are now (and that inequality is growing), then I guess we have a disagreement. But the opposite is not some flat surface with everyone making all the decisions all the time--a homogenizing "equalization" that I can't even imagine. I have no objection to management and organizational hierarchies, if you want to look at them that way: but I insist upon accountability. That's a big topic, though, and frankly I don't want to get into it in a combox.

The other crux, obviously, is your support for the notion of private property. I've shot my bolt on that for now, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

But if the above is what you mean by a "definition" of conservatism, I would submit that I have provided, in a number of posts, even more detail with respect to socialism. If you want to dismiss all that, fine: but the above is pretty vague, and indeed contains its own share of Desires and Wishes.

In any case, I renew my invitation to drop me a line.

Stingray,

Interesting comment on Norway.

I have always thought that Canada, with a small population and huge resources is definitive proof that socialism is a political system that never works well.

A close look at the recent historys of Viet Nam and Cambodia after the defeat of the USA there reveals the many lies of our own Western socialists.

There has never been a nation practicing socialism and/or communisim that has avoided the inevitable resulting disaster.

Todays comrades always must believe they can practice socialism correctly and the usual resulting ruin associated with the practice of socialism is not systemic.

IMO, there is no proof of that.

Dawg, why should our conversation move offsite? The theme of political ideology is not offtopic. Douglas is considered the 'father of socialism' in Canada, and yet, we are finding that some of his views are what 'ignorant people' attribute to the 'right. Therefore, these two ideologies, the left and right (socialism and conservativism) are indeed valid topics on this thread.

I still point out that you have not defined socialism as a political theory. Your wish list of 'wouldn't it be nice' had little to do with socialism and was quite insulting in your implied assumption that non-socialist ideologies actually supported the opposite of your wish list.
That is, your argument against racism, against sexism, etc, has nothing to do with socialism. Your words about 'endless wars', imperial expansion, poverty, ill health, environmental degradation, dog eat dog competition, fetishization of private property etc..have nothing to do with any political ideology, socialism or conservativism.
You may call those words of yours, detail 'with respect to socialism', but it isn't.

And, you yourself openly declared that you can't define socialism!

You've finally come up with one factor within socialism - its rejection of private ownership. I'm in favour of it; it's a key factor in conservativism, with its focus on the individual rather than the group.

And, you reject unequal distribution of wealth and power. I'm strongly in favour of it. No complex system can operate without an unequal distribution of wealth and power. That's what is meant by the 'bowl of jello' - a metaphor that my students found easily understandable. It means that if everything is the same, the system grinds to a halt. Asymmetry is necessary for motion (basic axiom of physics, chemistry, biology).

By the way, a nice argument in favour of private property can be found in Aristotle's rejection of Plato's socialism. Plato was a fundamental socialist, quite totalitarian, actually, It's nice to read Aristotle demolish Plato's arguments and socialist utopia.

Our comparison of competing Weltanschauungen, if not to remain at its current superficial level, is far too large for a combox attached to a thread that excoriates Tommy Douglas (but not two conservative provincial governments)for engaging with the once-fashionable notion of eugenics.

But you keep on with this invidious polemical practice of putting words in your opponent's mouth. Obviously I don't argue, in some binary fashion, that conservatism is the "opposite" of socialism, so that, for example, if socialists value health, conservatives don't, and if socialists like sunny days, comnservatives must therefore prefer gloomy ones. Nor do I think that "everything is the same" under socialism, whatever that's supposed to mean. Applying physics concepts to society, by the way, is dangerously reductionist, but no matter.

Do I have a "theory" of socialism? I suppose so. I think we need the ways and means of achieving some of that vision I sketched out, and I would be less than honest if I didn't note that this is the subject of considerable debate on the Left, and that I have not made up my mind about this vast topic. I would reiterate that your "definition" of conservatism doesn't stand the test of rigour. It's just a handful of borrowed precepts.

Every good idea in the past, it is said, seems inevitable; every good idea for the future seems impossible. Back to our Feudalist: "Capitalism might work for the guilds in town, but you can't run a whole country like that." I believe that human beings are rational and capable of choice. Hence they could choose alternative social arrangements, and socialism is one of those alternatives.

Ideologies, again -

ET and Dawg, you are closer to each other than you think.

Both of you are unable to produce a workable definition of the systems you advocate or denigrate, both of you describe features of a "Utopia" of desirables or approaches to desirables that exist "Nowhere" in practice, and both of you stress the importance of the practicable. You could even say that the utopias resemble each other - both would result in an individual and common weal.

Again, these labels are party banners, not absolute prescriptions for successful government. There simply is no pure form of capitalism or socialism anywhere. Both terms reduce to cudgels wielded in political debate, and are meaningless in actual politics. A government governs. If what it does works to the satisfaction of the electorate, the government is confirmed in office in the next election. If it doesn't work, another party that has promised to respond differently is given the mandate to govern. The process has nothing to do with whether the party is conservative or socialist.

We do have "progress" in democratic government, but it has nothing to do with ideology. It is due to confirmation or negation of what a government has done.

ET, since you mention philosophers, let me cite the first and last sentences of Wittgenstein's Tractatus, which seem applicable:

"The world is everything that is the case."
And,
"What cannot be expressed, should not be discussed." (My adaption of "Worueber man nicht reden kann, darueber muss man schweigen.")

But Dawg, you still haven't defined that alternative choice, socialism. So, how can one choose what one doesn't know anything about? Just because you say so?

I haven't put any words in your mouth. The terms I use, are exactly taken from your posts.
And, if you set up a list of attributes of socialism, then by definition, these must be specific to socialism, unless you inform the reader that they are attributes of any number of political ideologies, both socialist and conservative. You didn't do that; you posted them as a response to my question for a definition of socialism.

What do you mean when you say that my 'definition of conservativism' doesn't stand the 'test of rigour'. What's a 'test of rigour'?

Then, your next sentence is 'it's just a handful of borrowed precepts'. What does that mean - that my list of conservative values is not unique to me? I would hope that they aren't! Or, borrowed from whom? From thinkers such as Aristotle and so on? I would hope they are!

I don't get your point about 'feudalist'. It sounds like a quote from an undergrad simplistic text on Political Theories.

"Since we're bashing historical figures, why not bash one of the founders of modern democracy, Thomas Jefferson? How could a man responsible for writing the words 'we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal' have been a slave owner?

Or is it only the historical figures with socialist tendencies that have no redeeming qualities." - anon

Well, yes. Jefferson founded the Democratic party, which means left of the Republicans and therefore having socialist tendencies. And lets see what else the Leftist Democrats supported: Southern slavery. Once that was defeated by Republicans, they founded and were proudly the party of the KKK well into the 20th century.

Now lets see what Leftists/Liberals support today: According to the book Freakenomics the reason why crime is on the decline in most US urban areas is due to abortion. In other words, black and Hispanic children are being aborted with the help of leftist programs.

Quite a trick how leftist eugenics and outright pograms against poor minorities has morphed into one of the key political platforms which defines modern leftist thought.

And Dawg: Defining anything on the basis of what it's not forms a very weak definition. On the other hand, your litany of socialist values, ie. anti-racism, anti-capitalist, etc. sounds like something that must be dictated to the unwashed and enforced by law. Kind of like the current human rights tribunals dictating what is and isn't a hate crime. Very rigid, unjust and undemocratic ideology that deserves to be broken. How dare you and your fellow travellers think that you should, by divine right, be able to dictate anything to anybody? In order for your political ideology to triumph, the individual must lose their rights, which means the end of freedom of speech, liberty, private property and justice, to name a few.

"I don't think one can sum up a political and philosophical outlook in a "definition." "

There it is. Lefty ideologies are all about feelings. They abhor specifics because their thought is so illogical. It is never black and white because they do not believe in moral absolutes. They simply cannot stand up to deep scrutiny.
enough

Well, ET, you have indeed put words in my mouth all along, telling me what you think socialism "is" and attributing those ideas to me. A little intellectual honesty in this matter would be appreciated.

The fact that you don't grasp my point about the Feudalist--if you aren't being disingenuous--shows a lack of imagination. I am suggesting that the same type of argument (or, rather, assertion) that you have been making here could, with a half-twist, be made by an imaginary feudalist in debate with a member of a town guild.

What's a "test of rigour?" you ask. And you have students? Heaven help us! Your "definition" of conservatism could apply in large part to my definition of socialism, with a couple of obvious exceptions. You need the straw man you have been carefully building to justify such a wide and vague notion of conservatism. And a handful of precepts does not make a definition. Good grief.

If you want to define "conservatism," do so rigorously, by distinguishing that creed from all others. So far, you haven't done so.

For my part, this matter of "definitions" is approaching the silly point. I have explained the type of social arrangements I would prefer, and noted that how to achieve them is a subject of fierce and on-going debate. I would counterpose those arrangements to the dominant ones to be found in late global capitalism.

(I take "conservatism," for the purposes of this discussion, anyway, to be ideologically supportive of the current arrangements, or of extending them in certain directions to which liberals and socialists would be opposed. I realize this, too, is superficial, and does not take note of disagreements within conservatism.)

Daisy: There is nothing wrong with defining alternatives by what the current ideologies lack. Marx didn't spend a lot of time talking about what communism would be like: he talked primarily about capitalism. So do I. I like to talk about what is actually before us. As for "dictated by law," I see that you have learned from your mentor, ET, how to put words in your opponent's mouth. If you and he want to fight with straw men, be my guest. I had imagined that ET, at least, was serious.

Finally, how convenient it is for conservatives like "enough" to see everything in back and white, and critize others for being unable to. If only the world were that simple.

"Finally, how convenient it is for conservatives like "enough" to see everything in black and white, and criticize others for being unable to. If only the world were that simple."

Someday I'll master this typing thing.

conservatism," for the purposes of this discussion, anyway, to be ideologically supportive of the current arrangements, or of extending them in certain directions to which liberals and socialists would be opposed.

So conservatism is just not socialism, which you cannot define.
Doen't really say much.

Not everything is black and white. There are black and whites. This is one reason many on the right are Christians. A religion where there are absolutes. Things that are wrong no matter how you couch it. Socialism is the religion of the left.

With the left it is subjective, about feelings rather than the reality of the situation. This inability or even refusal to admit this just leads the left into the morass in which they currently find themselves.

You on the left will not admit such a basic fact that communism failed because human nature rebels against it. You want this dream that will never happen. But it feels good, so go on and rail against capitalism.
enough

Ah, yes, "the reality of the situation."

That being defined as conservatism, I presume. :)

Dawg - you aren't making any sense.

I haven't put any words into your mouth. I listed the attributes of socialism as you described them: anti:..globalization, imperial expansion, endless wars, ill health, etc, etc. and then, you had other anti: sexist, racist, gay..etc, etc.

YOU wrote those terms in answer to my request for a definition of socialism. Ever heard of 'accountability'? You used that term also, as an attribute of socialism. So, how about being accountable for your terminology?

'feudalism' was a socioeconomic mode functional in a local peasant-style agricultural economy. By the time of town guilds, you had a non-local, market based (i.e., beyond local sustenance) agricultural economy. Those are two different social, economic and political modes and don't work together.

Again, what's a 'test of rigour'. You used the term; so, what is YOUR definition?

A definition is made up of a list of attributes. If your 'percept' (an image/output as a result of sensual input) can be understood as an attribute of a variable, then, a definition IS a list of 'percepts'.

I've provided my definition of conservativism. It doesn't have to have all its attributes different from others. (Aren't you being rather binary, here?).

Your current definition of conservativism is fuzzy, to say the least. You say that it is "ideologically spportive of the current arrangements' (WHAT CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS?)..or of "extending them in certain directions to which liberals and socialists would be opposed".

That's not a definition! You are saying that a horse is: Not 'whatever is not a horse'. Wow.

So, your definition of conservativism is: the way it (?) is now. And your definition of liberalism and socialism is..??..whatever the conservatives do that the liberals and socialists would oppose. Hmmm. The rigour, the clarity, the definitiveness...

And, how absolutely black and white. Socialism is: 'counterpose[d] to the dominant ones to be found in late global capitalism" (quote).

And 'conservativism is..ideologically supportive of the current arrangments, or of extending them in certain directions to which liberals and socialists would be opposed" (quote). How black and white.

It is quite amazing, really, to see that you are totally unable to define socialism. Or conservativism either, for that matter. Yet, without any ability to define either, you 'know' that you prefer the one to the other. Incredible.

By the way, understanding factors of symmetry and asymmetry, within the realms of the physical, chemical and biological realms is not reductionism, and is a strong analytic base to use when understanding the social realm.

Nurture is NOT separate from Nature, and the social realm, like the other realms, is a complex adaptive system, and requires actions functioning within both symmetry and asymmetry.

"There is nothing wrong with defining alternatives by what the current ideologies lack. Marx..."

So much wrong with that statement. Defining yourself by what you are not, regardless of having no definition of what you are, is rational? Certainly helps answer the question as to why socialism has proven to be a monumental failure at least. And then you support the point you didn't make by bringing Marx into it?

That statement should be taken outside and shot.

As for 'dictated by law.' How would you explain socialist fairy tales turned into law, such as SSM? As I recall, citizens were not democratically consulted - the idea was not tested (as it was in the States), and finally, the leaders of the three federal leftist parties denied their MP's the right to vote their conscience. I would call that a dictated law, where social engineering trumps democracy.

Insults aside - your answer please.

ET:

Go back and read some of your posts. I'm referring to the notion that I support some kind of jello-like homogenization, for example. There are others, including one right here in which you alter my statement "I would counterpose..." to the passive, completely altering my meaning. I did not say that socialism is simply the opposite of conservatism: I said that I would distinguish it from current arrangements.

And so I would. The profit motive and individualism have not produced a world I want my kinds to live in. I would prefer soemthing else. I have already stated what that "else" is.

Your history is shaky, incidentally. Town guilds coexisted with dominant feudal regimes for a period. France is a good example.

Did I say "percept?" Excuse me. The word I thought I had typed was "precept." In fact, that was the word I typed. No matter.

Nothing "binary" about insisting that a definition of "conservatism" should distinguish it from rival creeds. Otherwise, why use the category at all? And you have, as yet, failed to do so, your little divagation regarding "percepts" notwithstanding.

As noted, I have already specified what social arrangements I prefer to the current ones. I don't want to have to repeat myself--just read over some earlier posts.

Daisy:

No insults intended. I got a kick out of this statement of yours:

That statement should be taken outside and shot.

A keeper, and I may use it sometime.

I don't believe in compelling people to be good. So I reject command-and-control models of socialism. SSM has nothing to do with socialism, though. It did, however, have popular support when it passed.

ET:

I forgot about that "test of rigour" matter.

To be rigorous, in the current discussion, a definition should distinguish one ideology from another. Your definition of "conservatism" doesn't meet that test.

Dawg,

Your list of socialist values would take implementation. I fail to understand how a socialist government would be able to implement anything (given the fuzzy definitions) without the suspension of democracy, and police state enforcement - which is largely what's happening in Venezuala today.

In fact, given Chretien's description, this is how Canada became 'Officially Bilingual'. Chretien said that had it been put to democratic vote, bilingualism wouldn't have passed into law.

Now look at the bigotry caused by that dictated and non-reality based law.

As I recall, SSM had less than the majority of Canadians supporting it at the time. And the Conservatives were the only party allowed to vote their conscience. I would also disagree with you that SSM has nothing to do with socialism, in fact it has everything to do with socialism - moral relativism being one thing.

David Orchard, Canada's favourite sub-normal politician.

Implementation doesn't really "take" unless there is popular assent. It's that assent that I am interested in cultivating.

Why do you guys always introduce new topics at the drop of a hat, by the way? Chavez keeps winning elections, the press in Venezuela keeps attacking him like rabid pitbulls, and you people keep gnashing your teeth and claiming that he's suspended democracy.

well now that it's been mentioned...

http://www.vcrisis.com/index.php?content=letters/200604251640

here is a link to the list of voters on the REP, including the 39.000 over 100 years old, and of course Mrs.Josefa Molina Lantz who is soon turning 175 years.
(this is from the Venezuela government... "Registro Electoral Permanente". REP

It's quite a list of people with the same names on the same birthdays. Spend a few moments reading their own government stats.

Note that nobody is allowed to see the secret code these elections are counted with.
Nobody. including Jimmy Carter, and his apologists.

Democracy is... 1 person = 1 vote. laws that apply equally to all people.
that's why.

Definition of socialism: a regime of democratic liberty -- i.e., "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all" (to quote Marx and Engels, though admittedly that was their vision of what they called communism). Socialism and liberalism have in common a commitment to liberating the individual from the constraints imposed by traditional institutions. On the other hand, socialism has in common with conservatism the idea that the community is the necessary context for human flourishing. But socialism differs from conservatism in its rejection of social hierarchy -- at least, if by socialism we mean socialism of the left. The Nazis called themselves socialists only because they were conservatives who placed an extreme emphasis on both hierarchy and the national community. Hence Goebbels' statement in 1926: "The Socialism that we want has nothing at all to do with the international-Marxist-Jewish levelling out process. We want Socialism as the doctrine of the community. We want Socialism as the ancient German idea of destiny."

I would also disagree with you that SSM has nothing to do with socialism, in fact it has everything to do with socialism - moral relativism being one thing.

With all you people busy defining socialism for me, there's no need for me to delve further into this, it seems. :) ET might want to avoid binaries now that he's been alerted to them, but for most here, it seems that "socialism" is whatever they don't like in government policy. Conservatism 1/ socialism 0.

Aeolus has arrived just in time to encapsulate the matter in a few words. Like any definition, the one he provides is incomplete, but his succinctness makes up for the heavy weather I was making of the question. Perhaps his comments will refocus this discussion.

Socialism and liberalism have in common a commitment to liberating the individual from the constraints imposed by traditional institutions

A non answer. What happens when socialism is the traditional institution? Not to mention that it says nothing that cannot be applied to other forms. Conservatism - a regime of democratic liberty. ie. rejection of socialism.

This is where socialism proves to be the pipedream that it is. It may attempt to reject the social hierarchies but there always is one. Human nature cannot be bypassed this easily. Can socialists ever admit defeat or will this go on and on endlessly?
enough

Dawg,

there is no point refocusing a discussion when there is no discussion. For neo-cons, conservatism is whatever furthers the neo-con agenda, and socialism is anything that does not.

Which would lead to two further discussions: 1.) what is neo-conservative as opposed to right-wing or conservative, and 2) what is the agenda. Those are important, because conservatism vs, liberalism vs. socialism previously only were matters of party politics. They were elevated to life-or-death matters of ideology only with the rise of neo-conservatism around 2000.

This piece was fascinating. It is the first time I have viewed a sort of human mobius strip. You know, that is where you twist a long strip of paper over on itself and glue the ends together. If you imagine a little figure setting out to walk along it, he will eventually come back on the olther side and upside down. And so here in real life the newly minted hero sets out to slay the dreaded monster, The Tommy and slashes away with his sword venting loud curses as he strides forward. It is not at all clear why The Tommy is so terrible, however the display of ferocity cannot be doubted. But wait a minute, the paper trail before him is twisting right round, as he begins to see virtues in the dreaded one. He begins to praise what he has found, which he now calls a "Christian." Look out! He is coming back and one fears he will collide with himself, upside down!.
Or one could say he is an honest fellow if just a little naive. Ah but in that case he must follow the words of the Poet who said "Cancel the Past? Aye, when you are just and amend the present ."
He has not done that yet, maybe he needs a breather after all that pointless sword waving.

Yikes, a philosopher.

agitfact,

When will your type get over the neo-con bit? It's a used up euphemism invented by your ilk in order to insult. The problem is, nobody knows exactly who you're insulting (could it be zionists embedded in the American government, for example?). And never did. So it's hardly an effective tool, other than showing how out of touch you are.

Conservatives these days are just as likely to be more environmentally concerned and informed than socialists. And more likely to do something about it. Afterall, it's highly unlikely the NDP will ever come to power in this country. To many of us that's part of what Conservatism means - to Conserve. To conserve historically proven institutions, laws, definitions, etc. that benefit man and society. And to change things that don't, ie. Slavery.

Most don't define Conservativism as being what it's not, ie socialism. Socialism is anathema to Conservatives only because it's not rational, stands against individual liberty and freedom, and always ends in disaster - as proven over and over again by history.

From a review of The Conservative Mind, 7th Revised Edition : From Burke to Eliot (Hardcover), by Russell Kirk:

There are certain ideological threads that carry throughout the book including a belief in the stratification of society. Voting should be the privilege of a small minority rather than universal democracy which Kirk saw as contributing to a degradation of society. Kirk writes, "What men really are seeking, or ought to seek, is not the right to govern themselves, but the right to be governed well" but what he offers is a lack of true representation. The author pines for the days of the aristocrat and although he defines the elites by wealth, intellect and lineage he clearly includes race and gender. Is it so surprising that Kirk lauds some of the worst racists in American history like Nathanial Bedford Forrest whom he describes as `magnificent' before quoting his racist vitriol? In a particularly galling move he referrers to pro-slavery advocate John C. Calhoun as a `defender of minorities' and praises John Randolph for, among other things, opposing doctrines of racial equality. Kirk goes on about Calhoun's support for states rights but his support only extended to southern states as he supported the Fugitive Slave Act which forced federal officials and law officials in Northern states to return runaway slave under penalty of $1000 fine. He supported laws that would make it illegal for northerners to even protest slavery. For Calhoun states rights were nothing more than a self serving attempt to keep slavery safe. Kirk shows his own racist stripes when he refers to northern `anti-slavery agitation' and supports Calhoun for choosing racial preservation over liberty, although Calhoun has an extremely warped view of liberty. One wonders if Kirk could even fathom the supreme irony in stating the Calhoun mounted a `strong protest against domination by class or region'.

garhane: A nice image indeed, with much truth. Tommy Douglas was a family-values, Christian, conservative socialist. This moderate, community-oriented conservative/socialist overlap is very Canadian. So much of the antipathy directed at Douglas by posters here seems to be because he wasn't liberal enough. And this from people who think of themselves as conservative. Isn't it ironic? (Alanis, please note.) What a long, strange Mobius trip it's been.

Dawg,

Lincoln was a Conservative. There was no slavery in the northern republican states at the time of the civil war. However, there was, obviously, in the southern democratic states. The same states that later introduced the KKK. Ever heard of the great liberal and southern general Pike?

I'm not sure about your post - but this is history.

Daisy:

Your post indicates the poverty of labels--the "democratic" South was arch-conservative in its policies. Next you'll be telling me that Strom Thurmond was a "liberal." Using the word "conservative" to describe Lincoln sums up for me the impossibility of defining world-views in labels--or definitions, for that matter. There's something ahistorical about both.

I was merely responding, in any case, to your notion that conservatives stood against slavery. Not according to Russell Kirk, whose own conservative credentials are impeccable.

the impossibility of defining world-views in labels

"the impossibility of summing up world-views in labels" makes a little more sense.