Conservatism - What are its benefits and weaknesses?

This thread really illustrates the discrepancy between Anglo-Saxon conservatives and European ones.
Hailing from Europe myself (the cucked part), my country is well known for its social benefits and amounts of money spent on the less fortunate.
I still consider myself to be a conservative, although my local party has become increasingly drunk on power and seem to use more & more inflammatory rhetoric (their current majority stems in part from disgruntled extreme right wingers).
Who knows, I might even vote for the (classic) liberals this time around.

Generally, it's about wanting to keep things the same, or at the very least being slow to introduce change.
Doing so too quickly can often lead to disastrous results.

I also agree that the military draft should've remained, preferably 1 year as opposed to 6 months, mainly because
it renders the participants in good shape, gives them a good circle of friends and a taste of adult work ethic.
eastern europe here. here it's really complex because we have been communist and during the 90s or even early 2000s being conservative meant being communist because they wanted the old communist regime. so being nationalist or liberal at the time meant being an american type of conservative where we got the inversion. being conservative meant being leftist and being liberal meant wanting some more right wing pro capitalist reforms. but parties work differently here. nobody is a member of some party because he believes in it, okay maybe there are some but they are lunatics and a very tiny minority. people only join whatever party is the strongest so they could get something out of it, we kept the old communist mentality "one party one people". the only elections here i can remember that were close encounters between two candidates for president were 2004 , 2008 and 2012. that's 3 elections out of 8 we had. we usually just switch between autocrats and they will do whatever will keep them in power and in good relations with the west so they dont't get toppled like our first democratic president.
 
eastern europe here. here it's really complex because we have been communist and during the 90s or even early 2000s being conservative meant being communist because they wanted the old communist regime. so being nationalist or liberal at the time meant being an american type of conservative where we got the inversion. being conservative meant being leftist and being liberal meant wanting some more right wing pro capitalist reforms. but parties work differently here. nobody is a member of some party because he believes in it, okay maybe there are some but they are lunatics and a very tiny minority. people only join whatever party is the strongest so they could get something out of it, we kept the old communist mentality "one party one people". the only elections here i can remember that were close encounters between two candidates for president were 2004 , 2008 and 2012. that's 3 elections out of 8 we had. we usually just switch between autocrats and they will do whatever will keep them in power and in good relations with the west so they dont't get toppled like our first democratic president.

Interesting, my country has a huge emphasis on compromises between political parties, people need to constantly get along as there is a huge divide in culture between North and South.
North is pretty nationalistic and right-wing (I hail from there, surpise) and has a good economy.
South is no wasteland, but quality of life is lower and average income per citizen is vastly different compared to North.
South is, of course, left-wing.

The local conservative party actually wanted to rend our country in twain, until 2 years ago, when they held a majority in the federal government and had to stow those plans away.

As it stands, the oldschool socialist are being threatened by what were formerly marxists, now rebranded as progressives, they are losing face fast and have had multiple instances of being ousted as hypocrites, I needn't tell you how deadly that can be in today's political environment.
The greens (progressives with an emhpasis on the environment) are slowly gaining ground in the North as well.
Both of these are small parties who have never been on the ruling side of the parliament, but what worries me and many others is this: North elects rightwing in next election, South elects extreme leftwing - a federal government has to be formed with at least those 2 majorities.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: KemChy
however i'm also pro-military and think that the mandatory military service should come back to my country (until 2010 you had to serve 6 months here, then the social liberals scrapped it) which i think was a mistake since we live in a hostile society

I also agree that the military draft should've remained, preferably 1 year as opposed to 6 months, mainly because
it renders the participants in good shape, gives them a good circle of friends and a taste of adult work ethic.

Whether you are conservative or liberal, the arguments against mandatory military service are far stronger than the arguments for it. First, there is the practical argument that professional armies are better, and that the draft imposes an opportunity cost on the economy that can be related back to the broken window fallacy. Second, there is the compelling philosophical argument that conscription is totally at odds with the spirit of a free society (which in the Western world at least, both conservatives and liberals are keen on fostering).

As far as I'm concerned, a country which is either unable or unwilling to depend upon the voluntary service of it's citizens is one that doesn't deserve to be defended.
 
Whether you are conservative or liberal, the arguments against mandatory military service are far stronger than the arguments for it. First, there is the practical argument that professional armies are better, and that the draft imposes an opportunity cost on the economy that can be related back to the broken window fallacy. Second, there is the compelling philosophical argument that conscription is totally at odds with the spirit of a free society (which in the Western world at least, both conservatives and liberals are keen on fostering).

As far as I'm concerned, a country which is either unable or unwilling to depend upon the voluntary service of it's citizens is one that doesn't deserve to be defended.
i'm speaking for my country generally, i don't know how did it affect other countries. but here if you ask older people who have served (and they don't have to be much older, everyone 30+ served) 80% will say it is a pity that it was scrambled. it also had a positive effect on depression rates (people got to spend time in a new enviroment which could change their perspective on life), less obesity rates (self explanatory), people were self-defence literate, and the skills they learned during the military were also useful even after serving, giving them a bigger role on the job market (anything from being a cook to a professional dog walker or a weapons instructor). what's funny, even the most liberal people who served also supported it. my country isn't a NATO member (and it hopefully never will become one) so you don't get sent overseas. it's more like boy scouts, and it gives everyone a purpose. those who are pointed out as better could continue in their military career, others would just get a new experience. and the thing is losing 1 professional soldier also means losing a lot of $ you put into him to train him. it turns out much more costly in times of trouble.
 
As it stands, the oldschool socialist are being threatened by what were formerly marxists, now rebranded as progressives, they are losing face fast and have had multiple instances of being ousted as hypocrites, I needn't tell you how deadly that can be in today's political environment.
The greens (progressives with an emhpasis on the environment) are slowly gaining ground in the North as well.
Both of these are small parties who have never been on the ruling side of the parliament, but what worries me and many others is this: North elects rightwing in next election, South elects extreme leftwing - a federal government has to be formed with at least those 2 majorities.
this is in particular in post communist countries such as mine. here we have 2 types of communists, old school and new school. old school are the supporters of the previous communist regimes and are usually very conservative and nationalist in their views. the new school communists are everything opposite of that, and the old communists denouced the new ones, even attacking them rather than nationalists.
 
Whether you are conservative or liberal, the arguments against mandatory military service are far stronger than the arguments for it. First, there is the practical argument that professional armies are better, and that the draft imposes an opportunity cost on the economy that can be related back to the broken window fallacy. Second, there is the compelling philosophical argument that conscription is totally at odds with the spirit of a free society (which in the Western world at least, both conservatives and liberals are keen on fostering).

As far as I'm concerned, a country which is either unable or unwilling to depend upon the voluntary service of it's citizens is one that doesn't deserve to be defended.

i'm speaking for my country generally, i don't know how did it affect other countries. but here if you ask older people who have served (and they don't have to be much older, everyone 30+ served) 80% will say it is a pity that it was scrambled. it also had a positive effect on depression rates (people got to spend time in a new enviroment which could change their perspective on life), less obesity rates (self explanatory), people were self-defence literate, and the skills they learned during the military were also useful even after serving, giving them a bigger role on the job market (anything from being a cook to a professional dog walker or a weapons instructor). what's funny, even the most liberal people who served also supported it. my country isn't a NATO member (and it hopefully never will become one) so you don't get sent overseas. it's more like boy scouts, and it gives everyone a purpose. those who are pointed out as better could continue in their military career, others would just get a new experience. and the thing is losing 1 professional soldier also means losing a lot of $ you put into him to train him. it turns out much more costly in times of trouble.

Was typing, @KemChy beat me to it.

I would also add that it brings people together, no matter your race, sexuality or religion, suffering together is an easy and effective way of forming bonds between people (the hazing rituals in students clubs for joinees can attest to that).

By the way, conscription being at odds with the free society is an interesting argument.
My only response is: you were born and raised in this country, you owe it to said country to, if not defend it, at the least be capable of defending it should the need arrive.

I am not an authoritarian by any means, but I find having a stricter hold on today's youth
to be a worthwhile benefit for the country as a whole.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: KemChy
i'm speaking for my country generally, i don't know how did it affect other countries. but here if you ask older people who have served (and they don't have to be much older, everyone 30+ served) 80% will say it is a pity that it was scrambled. it also had a positive effect on depression rates (people got to spend time in a new enviroment which could change their perspective on life), less obesity rates (self explanatory), people were self-defence literate, and the skills they learned during the military were also useful even after serving, giving them a bigger role on the job market (anything from being a cook to a professional dog walker or a weapons instructor). what's funny, even the most liberal people who served also supported it. my country isn't a NATO member (and it hopefully never will become one) so you don't get sent overseas. it's more like boy scouts, and it gives everyone a purpose. those who are pointed out as better could continue in their military career, others would just get a new experience. and the thing is losing 1 professional soldier also means losing a lot of $ you put into him to train him. it turns out much more costly in times of trouble.

I don't really see how the benefits you mention are denied to a professional force. The only difference is, people have chosen of their own volition to be there. It is true that professional armies are more directly expensive, but statistically speaking, their advantages over conscript armies make the extra cost worth it, which is why more and more countries have made the transition to an entirely professional force.

I am nevertheless glad that the people in your country who served feel like they got something positive out of it, and that the cost to them personally wasn't too great. I come from a country that is a member of NATO, and so the prospect of being expected to serve in the military carries much more serious implications.

Was typing, @KemChy beat me to it.

I would also add that it brings people together, no matter your race, sexuality or religion, suffering together is an easy and effective way of forming bonds between people (the hazing rituals in students clubs for joinees can attest to that).

To frame suffering together and hazing rituals in a positive light is strange to me. It strikes me as almost masochistic. Are you aware of the immense harm that has been caused by practices such as hazing? I would be interested to hear what your thoughts on this is, in case I am misunderstanding your position.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: mrdk_04 and KemChy
as i said, i'm again speaking for my country generally. when war erupted in my country at the beginning of the 90s professional soldiers were being protected like diamonds, because for every dead professional you lose the money you invested in his training and weaponry. now in my country's particular case (the breakup of yugoslavia), 10 local peasants with AKs who served for a year proved more efficient than 1 professional soldier. even if it does sound heartless, losing 10 regulars is less of a cost than losing 1 professional. not to mention that with a conscripted army your numbers would increase 5 to 1. and it's not just war either, it helps in terrorism cases or being kidnapped, etc.
 
To frame suffering together and hazing rituals in a positive light is strange to me. It strikes me as almost masochistic. Are you aware of the immense harm that has been caused by practices such as hazing? I would be interested to hear what your thoughts on this is, in case I am misunderstanding your position.

I assume you're American.
Hazings are most common aboard (cargo) ships, the military, sports clubs and student clubs.
I disapprove of these practices at work, but when you're forced to work together for months, if not years, in confined spaces... I'd argue an intitation ritual of some sort is necessary, makes appectance by the old guard easier.
As I understand it, Americans generally do not approve of this and supervision by outsiders is very limited, scandals are common, etc.

My country is well known for its burgundian outlook on life: eat good food and drink fine wine/ beer.
There's a reason we're famous for our beer across the globe.
The age of consent is 16 here, same with drinking, to give you some perspective.
The Benelux has student clubs imbedded in its higher education and they all have a different theme, emblem, color scheme, etc. Some may focus on studying, others on networking, most on having fun.
They aren't compulsory, you join of your own free will and get access to certain events (parties, cantus, ski trip).
They compete, drink, study and help each other when organising big events (a cantus in the town square).

In order to join the vast majority of these clubs,a hazing (baptism) of some sort has to be undergone by joinees.
Rituals vary from club to club (as does the span of time). An average baptism in my city would be: 2 weeks, the rituals involved vary, although most involve drinking, getting filthy and learning songs and names by heart.
Afterwards, you'll be assigned to a personal supervisor and will have to play errand boy for the rest of the year, for the club as well as your 'owner'.
In practice, you'll have to clean up the hangout, do stupid shit for the supervisor, have a nickname and you'll have to wear a sash to club events at all times.
If you can't make it because you have to study or because of an emergency they'll understand.
At the end of the year there is a final ritual in which you are allowed to wear your sash correctly (right shoulder, left side) and you're officialy a member. Depending on your deeds and reputation, the club may even elect you for a higher position next year.

Baptism is an accepted and supervised practice with clear laws in place.
There is a codex everyone has to follow, as well as police supervision during the baptism periods and around hangouts in general. That said, it does get out of hand sometimes.
4 years ago, someone died of being thrown down the stairs between 2 matresses, that club has refused baptisms since.
Depending on the rituals your club prefer, you can end up with alcohol poisoning, although most clubs will switch you to water when they see things getting out of hand.
Clubs are often accused of sexism, and while they are clearly male-dominated, most clubs have a 4:6 female to male ratio with women in leadership positions being 1:2,5.
Strict fraternities and sororities are rare where I live.
Rape is practically nonexistent.
There are no heartfelt testimonies of people being traumatised by their experiences, as there are always more casual organisations to join.
Some clubs are elitist and look down on other clubs, but considering the sheer amount on offer, such gripes are inconsequential and barely ever become violent.
Not to mention, both colleges and universities have clubs and they can range from being tied to institutions, to certain locations, to degrees, gender, sexuality or simply a desire for partying.

I speak about all this in a positive light because I underwent 2 baptisms myself, and I was given a steady circle of friends, a reputation, something to add to my CV and a great time overall as a reward.
It improved my lot in life remarkably and made me part of a unique (though often gross) culture.
It is masochistic and I am aware of the downsides, but we are liberal enough to keep the these negatives to a minimum.
Compared to your average greek fraternity/ sorority, we are far more inclusive and open-minded.
 
Last edited:
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Ravelord
Its benefits are the comfort of already played out culture, fully explored political horizons and results. Seemingly no cultural surprises and everyone fully knows the world of yesterday.

If the world is 100% perfect it makes sense to keep it as is and not even consider change (it might even be dangerous).

Or in more isolated terms,
it makes sense to be conservative towards say the existence of institutions providing education because everyone knows that society would suck without *any* schools. Even pondering the question of a society without any schools is ridiculous and counter-productive.

The drawback is the rejection of progress, regardless if said progress is rational or not, due to the fact that the (Amish-lvl pure) conservative simply doesn't believe in any progress.

Needless to say, it can easily become fear of the dark.
 
"Conservatism", as a universal concept, is more properly set in opposition to "radicalism". Conservatism desires to avert anything but the slowest change; radicalism wants all the changes today.

How that manifests depends on where you are and when. American rebels were the radicals and the "loyalists" were the conservatives during the Revolution; today, those who espouse the colonists' principles are the conservatives, and those who would push for unification with other nations (globalists, etc.) are the radicals.

You can't build a "universal definition" for conservatism that embraces any political or sociological points.


That's it: strictly "conservatism' is about conserving the current status quo and culture. So a literal "conservative" in 2018 Sweden would be a pro-Islam feminist socialist, and a Swede who wants an unregulated capitalist economy and the death penalty for women who get abortions is like the opposite of a "conservative".

Both "conservative" and "liberal" have drifted so far from their original meanings they seem almost arbitrary now.
 
As someone that used to identify with the alt right I feel pretty exceptional for having done so every day.

Can I ask- what do you think drew you in to the alt right? And what made you change your mind?
 
Can I ask- what do you think drew you in to the alt right? And what made you change your mind?
Most of my life was terrible for reasons out of my control but it resulted in me being an angry person for years with no friends and family hated me. During that time the DAY OF DA ROPE and fighting DA JOOZ gave me something to not blow my brains out over. As I worked to improve my life I realized their perception of reality was that of someone who never saw the real world and their ideals and theories became increasingly less appealing to me.
 
Most of my life was terrible for reasons out of my control but it resulted in me being an angry person for years with no friends and family hated me. During that time the DAY OF DA ROPE and fighting DA JOOZ gave me something to not blow my brains out over. As I worked to improve my life I realized their perception of reality was that of someone who never saw the real world and their ideals and theories became increasingly less appealing to me.

If it makes you feel any better, some Jews blame external forces for their personal shortcomings. So do whites and blacks and yellows etc. Its a human thing.
 
Back