| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | Political groups in the 1790s used “Left†and “Right†to express common ground with one or the other side during the French Revolution. Before long, all political movements opposed to a sitting government were called “the Left,†with “the Right†referring to those who supported that government. |
I seem to remember it was the deliberations in the Jacobin Club rather than the Assembly that led to a parting of the ways. I don't know what the seating arrangments were there though the idea of a left or right Jacobin is hard to conjure with. (The House of Commons frequently resorts to guillotine motions to get the government -- left or right -- programme through but I think that is metaphorical.)
| The French Legislative Assembly members who, in 1791, sat to the right of the assembly president were united by a common cause to maintain the position of the king, Louis XVI. On the one hand, their politics were a continuation of an old order that had been in place for centuries. On the other hand, their politics were a response to new events unfolding in their nation. Out of a blend of old ideas and new realities was crafted the philosophy of conservatism, the precursor to the various movements today that can be classified as right-wing. |
This is preposterous. The only thing that was 'crafted' was (1) the chaos of the Directory (2) Bonapartism and (3) the return of royal absolutism. None of which could remotely be accused of having 'a philosophy of conservatism'. But enough of history, let’s hear what Dougie has to say about conservatism. Will it be a case of 'it takes one to know one'? more/
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | There are three main trajectories of right-wing thought — conservatism, reactionism, and libertarianism. |
This had never occurred to me and, true or not, strikes me as quite valuable. My first thought is that it leaves out the radical right but I assume Doug would call, say, Nazism and (Italian) Fascism as reactionary. I would tend to put them as 'harking-back Left' but modern characterisation does not allow this.
| They are at times starkly different, but they share a fundamental belief on how power should be structured. |
This is so obviously untrue I will put it down to Doug being himself left wing.
| I will discuss reactionism and libertarianism later, but first, I will address the philosophy that preceded the other two, conservatism. |
Blimey, that's bold but we'll go with the flow.
The Father of Conservatism
Edmund Burke (1729–1797) is widely regarded as the father of conservative thought because of his philosophical attack on the French Revolution. He was English, but he sympathized with the French right-wingers and their cause. Burke was no absolutist, though. As a member of Parliament, he supported laws to curtail the power of the English king. His concerns were to conserve what he saw as the proper political power structure and the validity of the status and hierarchy of the aristocracy. |
The problem here -- and it's a trap all historians fall into -- is that Britain was the most left-wing state on earth at the time -- with the exception of the USA and maybe the Dutch -- so British political arguments get pitched in terms of false perspectives. The Americans were undergoing the same weird fissiparity between the Federalists and the Republicans. But anyway it's fair enough to call Burke the Father of (modern) Conservatism. I'd put a shout in for Alexander Hamilton though. I will leave out the section on Burke which is uncontentious.
| The revolutionaries’ demand for a new power structure horrified Burke, especially in the violent manner in which they were trying to achieve it. |
This is the absolute heart of the matter. If we take it broadly that the Left wants change and the Right doesn't, we arrive at the basic political question facing all societies. Change is necessary but how do you achieve it without upsetting the applecart?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | Burke believed in citizens’ political involvement, but in the context of a body politic that delineates social ranks. A social hierarchy, he thought, was necessary for the wiser to be able to enlighten the weaker and less knowledgeable. |
This is a basic error that comes about because of an AE principle viz
(1) All societies are a congeries of unfathomable social hierarchies
(2) As we know from AE, human beings hate anything unfathomable
(3) They always come up with a grotesquely simplified model that suits their own purposes
(4) and act accordingly
| He saw democracy as a dangerous abstract rule of mere numbers. |
A case in point. Britain was a democracy by Burke's day. A democracy is not defined by the franchise (which is always limited, even when it's one person/one vote), it is defined as 'rule by the many'. True, the monarchy still had considerable powers and true, Parliament was way more oligarchical than we would be comfortable with, but British government was ultimately decided by hundreds of thousands of people (check that, Clarissa) taking part in elections.
| A nation and its decision-making must be guided by the responsible rule of a hereditary aristocracy. |
Burke did not believe that at all. He may have been a Rockingham Whig but he took his instructions from his party leader (and/or the people of Bristol) who may or may not be an aristocrat, who may or may not be a hereditary aristocrat, but basically it was the British electorate that decided the direction of travel. Burke was very, very left wing by world standards. Though not by British standards. /more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It has to be said though that Douglas's overall summation of Burkean conservatism -- of conservatism in general -- is not so much fair, as positively beguiling. It rests on the general notion that what we see all around us is the sum total of accumulated experience and wisdom and we meddle with it at our peril. Of course the Left is correct to point out that, in practice, such a view ossifies the status quo, which in turn is the sum total of how all the people who have benefitted can continue to benefit, at the expense of those who don't. How were the Americans dealing with the problem?
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | The Federalists When the American colonies fought a war seeking succession from Great Britain in the 1770s, Burke largely approved. |
It's worth pointing out that this put Burke on the very left edge of British politics at the time.
| For Burke, the American revolt was fundamentally different than the later French Revolution, and this speaks to the heart of conservative thinking. |
This is most unconvincing. There is no guarantee what happens when you start overthrowing the status quo.
| Whereas the French revolutionaries wanted to dismantle the old power structure and replace it, the American rebels sought a much less radical restructuring. Burke saw the colonies’ revolt not as a radical innovation but as a restoration of the rights and privileges of the wealthy class in those colonies. He had for the same reason approved of England’s so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 that had replaced the legitimate sovereign, King James II, with one more agreeable to the interests of the aristocracy. |
Being wise after the event is not what conservatism is all about.
| The Federalists in the newly formed United States were a group of wealthy landowners and merchants who supported the American War of Independence. They were successionists who thought that King George III and the British Parliament had too much power over the colonies, sidelining and ignoring their interests. Most Federalists were anti-monarchists, not just opposed to George III’s method of rule, but against the idea of a political structure of a single sovereign. |
This is just bad history. The Federalists were not 'a group' of anything. They were all Americans desirous of making sure the post-1783 arrangements held (that is broadly everyone except American Tories) and doubted that a loose assemblage of thirteen ex-colonies would suffice (as against mainly southerners who thought it would).
The chief ideologue of Federalism, Alexander Hamilton, was neither a landowner nor a merchant and they did decide on a political structure of a single sovereign, the president of the United States. Still one can see what Dougie means. /more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | The Federalists as a political faction advocated for a political structure for the new country in which a federal government united the former colonies under the general sovereignty of a Federal government. |
A word on phraseology. Only someone who opposes the Federalists would call them a 'faction'. I will pass over the details of the politics to land on this spot
| The Federalists were aristocrats in all but name, and wanted to increase the power of their class, not to the “lower†classes. |
It is hard to convey the meretriciousness of this. Their general philosophy was that government should be in the hands of those with a stake in society rather than handed over to 'the demos'. Since their chief opponents were southern slave holders operating 'an aristocratic society in all but name' I don't think Doug has entirely thought this through. There follows a discussion of the Federalist Papers which again I will leave you to browse.
| Like Burke, the Federalists favored the wealthy class as more capable of ruling the nation, and thus rejected democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Forming a political party, the Federalists were a dominant force in Congress and advanced a legislative agenda based on their conservative principles. |
Like the contemporary conservatives in Britain they managed the alarums of the period pretty well but came unstuck when peace and prosperity returned, and changing times left them high and dry. This is always the abiding problem of modern conservatism, you've got to bob and weave while holding to a philosophy of not bobbing and weaving. more/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | Consistently, the Federalists, as political thinkers and political party, advocated a conservative agenda of a power structure of national over state government, and policies that favored banks, manufacturers, and protectionism of American business. |
This is an error made so consistently it drives me nuts. Assuming what you think is left wing or right wing is the same as what is left wing or right wing. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Monarchical absolutism was left wing under the early Caesars, market capitalism was left wing in the early nineteenth century. There is nothing inherently conservative about preferring national over regional government, of favouring banks or manufacturers or any other interest, of preferring protectionism over free trade. In fact, in 1790's America, all these policies were left-wing ones since the long-established status quo was the opposite of all these things. And Doug knows it!
| During the Federalist era — the first years of the US nation, 1789 to 1800 — the Federalist faction consciously attempted to establish a new tradition for the new country. |
But while the Federalists were soon finished, Dougie isn't...
| Their vision was a social power structure based on conservative principles of tradition and hierarchical power applied to the circumstances of the new nation. The Federalist Party fell into the minority after the election of 1800, but their legacy of conservatism remains foundational to the United States to this day. |
So now you know. The reason the good old US of A has, by European standards, been a right-wing nation for more than two hundred years is 'cos a faction had their way right at the off. Founding Fathers, you might say. /more
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | The Right Hegelians The events of the French Revolution were a catalyst for a great deal of philosophical discussion in Europe. There were those who were inspired by the idea of the revolutionaries, and there were those, like Burke, who were repelled by the prospect of the overthrow of existing traditions and institutions. |
It has to be borne in mind that Europe had not experienced anything very catalytic for a hundred and fifty years and the close of the Protestant Revolution so we can expect a few rocks to be thrown into the pool. Especially as France had been the leading military and cultural power for the whole of that period. Nevertheless I would dispute the Revolution itself had as much effect on right and left as Napoleon's military campaigns did. Still let us see...
| The most influential continental European philosopher who defended traditional power structures was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831). Hegel’s philosophy was broad and obscure, easily interpreted in various ways as philosophers took what they liked from Hegel’s ideas. Interpretations of Hegel’s political philosophy fell into two camps — the Left Hegelians and the Right Hegelians, reflecting how they applied Hegel’s insights into a Left or Right view of political power structures. The most famous of the Left Hegelians are Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx. None of the Right Hegelians ever reached prominence, it was more of a general movement that influenced later German political philosophy. |
Note the 'bogus list'. Two Left Hegelians are named but no Right Hegelians are. We shall just have to take Doug's word for this 'general movement'.
| Foundational to Hegel’s political philosophy is his notion of historicism. |
I ought to know more about this but I don't.
| For Hegel, the history of the world and society is to be understood as the working of an objective, rational order. |
This is, I think, new. Philosophers rarely get this down and dirty.
| Hegel observed that we can only understand events after they occur. |
I doubt if he expressed it with this degree of truism.
| Human reason and freedom are historical achievements, each generation dependent on earlier ones. |
I doubt that Hegel believed that Paleolithic human beings lacked either reason or freedom but perhaps Hegel/Giles are referring to more recent times when Church and State tended to repress both.
| Only through studying objective history can we know ourselves and understand how the nation should be structured. For Hegel, rationally realizing one’s role as a cog in the machine of history is the realization of freedom, and the fullest realization of this is understanding one’s role in the political nation-state. |
My own view is that when it comes to all things left and right, macht is to philosophy as who is to whom, to cite that master Left-Hegelian, Vladimir Illych. It is a general (AE) error, when philosophising about philosophy, to overestimate the importance of philosophy. But it is arguable. more/
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | Hegel did not advocate absolutism, as Hobbes had. |
This is quite monstrous. Hobbes advocated no such thing. He did, however, point out something that radicals of both left and right should take note of. When it comes right down to it, we all put law'n'order above all things when it breaks down.
| Instead, Hegel called for a constitutional monarchy — the rule of a sovereign possessing power but bound to the law of the constitution and the interests of the aristocracy. |
If he did -- and as I say, my knowledge of Hegel is way below Dougie's -- he wasn't being very original. It's the holy grail sought by all political theorists going back at least as far as Classical Greece. I suppose there's no point in pointing out that all monarchs are constrained to some extent by prevailing usages and their (fellow) aristocrats. And that 'constitutional' monarchs are nowadays defined as those that have no power. I'll cherry pick from the discussion of Hegel...
| Hegel’s historicist system is clearly a defense of the nation and its existing power structures. In that, it is a right-wing political philosophy. |
Unless the nation happens to be a left-wing one.
| Hegel’s insight that freedom exists within the framework of an ethical order is profound and clearly accurate. |
I expect so.
| It’s an insight that has significantly inspired philosophy and the social sciences, in particular, clarifying the need to see the rule of law as the means for people’s both positive and negative freedoms. |
As per (at least) Locke and Montesquieu.
| The right-wing interpretation of Hegel’s philosophy extended the notions of historical inevitability and a hierarchical rational order as the basis of the social power structure. |
Then they were right.
| Right Hegelians also emulated Hegel’s strong strain of nationalism and the idea of German society as superior, a bulwark to radicalism. |
And then wrong. /only a wrap-up to go
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Douglas Giles wrote: | | This chapter is by no means an exhaustive account of right-wing thought. It serves as a background for the assertions and actions made today by adherents to right-wing ideas. Conservatism is in essence a positivist standpoint — what is ought to be — that is skeptical of novel ideas to change existing power structures. Conservatism’s worldview puts trust instead in heritage and the social hierarchy. |
I have to say this is straightforward tosh. For a start, the whole schtick of the right is that it is not based on thought. It is based on the status quo. Sure, there are thinkers on the right because the status quo is always on the move but they don't hark back to ye olde philosophers when doing so. (Well they do constantly, but only for effect.) And, yes, conservatives (I don't accept there is such a thing as conservatism) put the status quo in as rosy a light as they are able -- hardly surprising since they are relying on it.
They do not, repeat not, put their trust in heritage and the social hierarchy. If they did they'd be in the tumbrils before they could say Jack Hobbs. They recognise the power of heritage and the social hierarchy, they exploit them for all their worth, but what they rely on is their own ability to read the current runes correctly. Not philosophy. /ends
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Burke is going to be airbrushed out of parliament, as he has been designated by the UK Parliament’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art as a supporter and beneficiary of slavery.
The problem is, I believe, that Burke voted aginst immediate abolition, instead favouring a more long-term gradualist plan to abolish (although he never published his plan).
Anyway he is probably going to disappear firstly from parliament then all polite circles, despite actually being an advocate of getting rid.
https://bitly.ws/34Doy
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Well, Bristol was where statue-toppling got started so I expect they'll have a dry run there first. I wonder what they call the Colston Hall bus stop now, the one I used to make for in my days of National Express travel. I am moving to the point of advocating an amendment to the constitution forbidding all such re-engineerings of the past.
PS Burke himself goes in and out of fashion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| PS Burke himself goes in and out of fashion. |
Much like Julius Caesar. He used to be held up as something of a cynosure but I noted, during yet another BBC retelling of his story, Julius Caesar: The Making of a Dictator, that the talking heads are now casting him as a precursor to Donald Trump.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
