Who is a conservative?

From Maxim Gorky’s My Universities:

And I remembered Ibsen’s lines:

“Am I a conservative? Oh, no?

I am still the same as I have been all my life,

I don’t like moving the pieces from one square to another,

I would like to move the whole game.

I can remember only one revolution

It was more clever than those that came after

And it could have destroyed everything

— I mean, of course, the Flood”

Comments

He was prescient too: just moving the pieces around. Why is it that people hang on to each "revolution" when the reality is that it's not? The contrast between perception and reality has never been greater.

Tyler's fascination with labels is very boring.

Is it boring to everyone or just you? If just you, why should I care. Are you going to tell me that you don't like chocolate ice cream? That's just as interesting too me.

You probably think your "game changing" insight makes you some kind of genius. No.

There's only one true genius on this board, and it ain't TR.

Notice the chess theme, which drew TC's eye to this passage. Gorky was a chess player.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1387603
Lenin vs Gorky, note, ironically, they played the Alekhine Defense as an opening, named after GM Alexander Alekhine, a White Russian world champion grandmaster who supported the Nazis in WWII, and some claim, somewhat plausibly, was assassinated by the Soviets after WWII (he was found ostensibly choked on a piece of meat in a contrived position with a chess board out, not unlike the suspicious, posed death of UN Secretary Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl Hammarskjöld in Zambia in 1961)

Now, who's the genius on this board?

Answer: it's Alehkine.

telescopy tells
just what photography shows:
all we see is past.

Made into a movie, actually - sorry, no English seems available - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKpstSbaLBs (though with ads, replacing the Soviet long play form into a properly American free video experience.

> into a properly American free video experience

So, more JIT-product placement, more violence, and the character development removed?

Ah, no, just that the movie is interrupted every 10-15 minutes by a commercial.

Of course, for those with a bit of talent in using the command line, the public domain youtube-dl can turn your video viewing experience from bourgeois to being a vanguard of the revolution.

(Hint - streaming is actually a fiction, as of course all the data required for viewing is downloaded to your system.)

If you actually believe that "the Flood" was an actual event AND if you believe some supernatural entity (intentionally) caused it, then "mass murder" and ecological devastation as well as mass extinction level event would be an accurate description. There's no statute of limitation on murder...

I guess TC believes that most conservatives are judeo-christian. Or that the grossly parochial attitude Gorky expressed is worthy of repeating.

+1. Judeo-christian conservatives should deport themselves to the middle east since they love it so much.

it's an hyperbole, relax.

Even the atheistic non "judeo-christian" communists recognized that Gorky was a great writer. So who is being parochial here?

Gorky was an atheistic non "judeo-christian" communist. See the Wiki.

Avoiding the marxist-postmodern love of verbal sophistry:
Conservatism consists in:
- Empiricism as a defense against hubris.
- Meritocracy as a defense against hubris.
- Private Property as a defense against hubris.
- Markets as a defense against hubris.
- The common (natural) law of tort as a defense against hubris
- The Jury-of-requisite-scale as a defense against hubris.
- Late Marriage as a defense against hubris.
- Intergenerational lending as a defense against hubris
- Taking no action for which one cannot perform restitution(Reversal) as a defense against hubris.
- Competition between the Scientific, Legal, Philosophical, and Theological as a defense against hubris.
- Small Nation States as a defense against hubris.
- Militias as a Defense against Hubris.
(That should be enough to get the point across.)
Not that Dunning-Kruger's universal law, or the French Revolution, or all of continental philosophy, or the pseudosciences of Marx, Boas, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; or the innumeracy of the general theory's change of economics from measurement by balance sheet to measurement by income statement; or the sophisms of Derrida through Rorty and Rawls .... none need explaining to a Conservative. ;)

-Cheers

Yet Conservatives elected the most "lacking in hubris" leader of all time.

There's no way conservatives voted for Obama!

You're right. He's probably referring to cuckservatives who worship at the feet of Dear Leader Trump.

Presumably those voters were not oblivious to Trump’s flaws. But they were not a problem for those voters given that Trump’s rival HRC was perceived as even more flawed. He was seen as the better of two awful choices?

Meritocracy as a defense against hubris.

Actually meritocracy is a liberal innovation conservatives were uncomfortable with. The previous social structure, based on inherited class rank, of course, was deeply threatened by meritocracy.

Even today you can find conservative skeptics of meritocracy. A lot of Obama hatred, for example, was racial but it was also hatred of meritocracy (see references to him as 'professor' for example, and of course Trump is the exact opposite of voting on meritocracy). Charles Murray, if you move beyond the whole IQ and race aspect of his work, has a lot of work on the long term downside of meritocracy

You forget the American Revolution. That was something conservatives back then were very much against. Democracy too.

Of course the American Revolution was a mistake -- better off Canadian. And everyone knows that the best polity takes features of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy -- the Westminster model is superior to the Washington model.

conservatives have blah blah blah blah....as a Defense against Hubris.

And then they fell for Trump because, errr, flight 57 election.

& u go on 2 teach, the magic u r in

plenty of wine, and, tobacco around

I'm a conservative in that I think we should keep the radiative balance of the atmosphere near to what it was in the good old days. If 290 PPM of CO2 was good enough for Queen Victoria then it's jolly well good enough for me.

LOL. Like the Left is seriously going to propose dismantling globalism. They've been calling actual environmental conservation "racist" since at least 2014.

Not even wrong you are

There are two very different visions of "conservatism" in competition with each other. Broadly stated, one is ideological and the other is nativist, or Team Trostky vs. Team Home-and-Hearth. Or Francis Fukuyama's End of History vs. Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. The split, which has been brewing since the second Bush presidency, is now accelerating, with the Trotskyites like Bill Kristol and Max Boot making their short, happy journey back home to the Left. Tyler, like a lot of people, has apparently had his head in the ground on this since at least in July 2009.

Comments for this post are closed