|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: High Tory Socialists?
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
It seems to me that the word 'Tory' gets used in at least two very different ways. The more common way, familiar from Union marches and sometimes leaking on to the pages of the New Statesman, seems to be an entirely derogatory term for members of the Conservative Party, and sometimes also for their alleged allies ('Tory scum'). Nobody self-identifies as this sort of Tory, anymore than anyone unironically identifies as a 'Bolshie' or a 'Pinko'. The targets of such comments would probably self-identify as 'Conservatives'.
The second use of the word 'Tory' seems more precise and refers to a form of English conservatism, not well represented in the current Conservative party, that is rural rather than urban, Christian (and particularly Anglican) rather than secular, and monarchist.
I currently know at least two people who strongly identify as being Tories in the latter sense but also as socialists. Both are strong critics of the current government, and at least one of them believes that capitalism is a failure.
For what it's worth, they are both devout Anglicans, and probably more high than not. In fact, now that I think of it, they both have ties to Westcott House
I have some sympathy with their views, but I wonder how widespread they are. Is this a real movement in England not represented well in politics, or a fringe movement confined to a few High Anglican intellectuals?
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
[Hand up] I think that's more or less my position. Most of my High Church/Anglo-Catholic friends would also fit somewhere into the description as well. I'm fairly sure there aren't many of us.
The Conservative Party is in many senses the opposite of 'true' Toryism, which is usually centred around established orders of society (rather than rapacious aspiration) and Chistian morality (rather than amoral permissive-ism), with a paternalistic concern for the poor and a strong emphasis on duties rather than 'rights'. We also tend to like hunting and despise the National Trust, but that might be localised to my acquaintance...
Though interestingly I know many Roman Catholics who'd fit under the umbrella, which is quite amusing considering the historic antipathy of the Tories towards anything other than the Established Church. I think in some respects the admirable Jacob Rees-Mogg epitomises the Old Tory style, and he is in communion with Rome. CUCA (the Cantab: Conservative Association) was full of Roman Catholics of a similar mindset (at least when I was up a few years ago: I hear it's more Conservative now).
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
It's a view I have much sympathy with because it's more or less the same as mine, only replace Anglicanism with Orthodoxy and England with Finland.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...centred around established orders of society (rather than rapacious aspiration)...
Might I ask which of those orders of society you happen to be in?
I ask only because I've never yet heard anyone decry "rapacious aspiration" who wasn't already in the social stratum being aspired to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
It's a position quite well represented in historic (C19) CofE Christian Socialism : someone like Charles Kingsley, perhaps, although he wasn't AIUI a High Churchman or, I've heard it said, FD Maurice.
But previous posters are quite right: there's very little proper Toryism evident in today's Conservative Party. And of course there's no Christian Democrat tradition here.
I wonder how far someone like Roger Scruton would be, in his vision of the ideal society, from some who would call themselves Socialists?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vade Mecum
Shipmate
# 17688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
...centred around established orders of society (rather than rapacious aspiration)...
Might I ask which of those orders of society you happen to be in?
I ask only because I've never yet heard anyone decry "rapacious aspiration" who wasn't already in the social stratum being aspired to.
I'm a soon-to-be unemployed student from a working class background who aspires to a life of relative poverty in the priesthood, but thanks for playing.
--------------------
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.
Posts: 307 | From: North London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Originally, I believe the Tory party were those opposed to the principles of the Glorious Revolution. Since the Whigs were dominant, some tended more towards social protest than the Whigs did. Swift and Johnson are good examples. (But Pope was a 'whatever is is right' man. He was more of a deist and less Christian than the other two.)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
[Hand up] I think that's more or less my position. Most of my High Church/Anglo-Catholic friends would also fit somewhere into the description as well. I'm fairly sure there aren't many of us.
What you describe is the position of the Tory Wets and is not really the socialism being referred to in the first post (which seems to actually be some kind of Social Democracy-lute).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
The idea that the 'established order of society' is in any way compatible with socialism is laughable. Socialism is about equality, first and foremost, and all this 'paternal concern for the poor' aka patronising from people who will never experience poverty instead of empowering the poor, just reminds me of 'different but equal' bollocks. 'separate but equal' isn't equality.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
John Milbank fits the Tory Socialist mould better than Scruton, I think. Scruton, like many of us, is a High Tory adrift on the shores of this strange "new" world. His resolutely aesthetic "turn" is significant in this respect. Even though I like Burke, and to the extent that I identify myself strongly with the Non-Jurors, I think I could be classified as an Old High Tory: Pro Deo, Regi Patriaeque.
[ 30. July 2013, 13:04: Message edited by: Gottschalk ]
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that the 'established order of society' is in any way compatible with socialism is laughable. Socialism is about equality, first and foremost, and all this 'paternal concern for the poor' aka patronising from people who will never experience poverty instead of empowering the poor, just reminds me of 'different but equal' bollocks. 'separate but equal' isn't equality.
I guess then that you believe that there is no true socialism in the UK since the Labour party is full of millionaires and people who when they have 'checked their privilege' probably shouldn't say anything at all, and let's not forget those working class trade union leaders who earn 6 figure salaries and proclaim a form of social organisation that deepened inequality in Russia and China amongst other communist countries beyond anything that capitalism has ever.
Tory-ism was founded on proper intellectualism, but that is another thing lacking in all our politicians these days, and the Conservative party would do well to return to its roots and become the intellectual party once more.
As a person who does refer to themselves as a Tory (and yes I am the kind of Conservative member who believes in Monarchy, that aspiration has its place but that we should also make the most of the lot we have in life, a paternalistic approach to those that need help - because surely helping others as a father is better than having a faux-concern and patronising approach that left-wingers seem to take (pure hypocrisy most of the time) - small government, reasoned evolution of society and law... etc. etc.) I have no problems with the label, and wear it as a badge of honour despite how people use it as an insult.
Whilst I may be fairly liberal (I accept SSM but think it was rushed, the change should have been slower and better thought through) and respect what the current government has done in part, it is the fact that I am a Tory that inspires me to critique the party that I support rather than toe-the-party-line in the way that dissent is not always looked upon with friendliness from within the left (ISTM).
But then I blame myself, the rest of the Conservative membership, and society in general for having reduced our politicians to the level of popularity contestants, and as such the demise of High Tory ideals is down to our own lack of intellectual credibility rather than the fact that the philosophy itself is discredited.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The idea that the 'established order of society' is in any way compatible with socialism is laughable. Socialism is about equality, first and foremost, and all this 'paternal concern for the poor' aka patronising from people who will never experience poverty instead of empowering the poor, just reminds me of 'different but equal' bollocks. 'separate but equal' isn't equality.
I guess then that you believe that there is no true socialism in the UK since the Labour party is full of millionaires and people who when they have 'checked their privilege' probably shouldn't say anything at all, and let's not forget those working class trade union leaders who earn 6 figure salaries and proclaim a form of social organisation that deepened inequality in Russia and China amongst other communist countries beyond anything that capitalism has ever.
Tory-ism was founded on proper intellectualism, but that is another thing lacking in all our politicians these days, and the Conservative party would do well to return to its roots and become the intellectual party once more.
As a person who does refer to themselves as a Tory (and yes I am the kind of Conservative member who believes in Monarchy, that aspiration has its place but that we should also make the most of the lot we have in life, a paternalistic approach to those that need help - because surely helping others as a father is better than having a faux-concern and patronising approach that left-wingers seem to take (pure hypocrisy most of the time) - small government, reasoned evolution of society and law... etc. etc.) I have no problems with the label, and wear it as a badge of honour despite how people use it as an insult.
Whilst I may be fairly liberal (I accept SSM but think it was rushed, the change should have been slower and better thought through) and respect what the current government has done in part, it is the fact that I am a Tory that inspires me to critique the party that I support rather than toe-the-party-line in the way that dissent is not always looked upon with friendliness from within the left (ISTM).
But then I blame myself, the rest of the Conservative membership, and society in general for having reduced our politicians to the level of popularity contestants, and as such the demise of High Tory ideals is down to our own lack of intellectual credibility rather than the fact that the philosophy itself is discredited.
Oh I absolutely believe that there's no true socialism in the UK! The level of millionaires and career politicians within the Labour party is appalling. Don't worry Sergius-Melli, I criticise faux-socialists (fauxcialists?) as much as I criticise pro-capitalist Liberals and Tories ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlav12
Apprentice
# 17148
|
Posted
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
Posts: 34 | From: Albany, New York | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
I think that might be the most pertinent comment to come out of this thread ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlav12:
I sympathize with the High Tory position but can't quite claim that label for myself (being on the wrong side of the pond and all). Socialism seems incompatible with High Toryism, which is concerned with established order, as others have said. Socialism seems to be the desire to end that order. Toryism acknowledges candidly that everyone has superiors and inferiors whilst socialism pretends to make everyone equal.
I don't know where you stand on issues of faith, but 'God is no respecter of persons'. The idea that 'everyone has superiors and inferiors' seems rather incompatible with Galatians 3:28. As a Christian, the reality for me is that nobody has superiors or inferiors, because nobody is superior to anyone apart from God Himself, and one's 'inferiors' are one's brothers and sisters in Christ.
For me, socialism isn't about making everyone equal but acknowledging that God has made everyone equal in His sight.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Yes, Jade, but a High Tory or Christian Democrat would agree with that last sentence: some liberals would too. I think that you were right earlier when you suggested that socialism required some degree of equality, or at least of egalitarianism, which went beyond that: in which there were not, for example, gross disparities of wealth and privilege. That's why I consider myself to be some kind of socialist- although because I believe that we are meant to live in the context of strong relationships with others I would much rather live in a High Tory 'bind in a living tether/ the prince and priest and thrall' society than in an individualistically liberal one.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
although because I believe that we are meant to live in the context of strong relationships with others I would much rather live in a High Tory 'bind in a living tether/ the prince and priest and thrall' society than in an individualistically liberal one.
Sure - except that this is a utopian dream that never existed at any point in the past.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
For me it's at best a seciond-class utopia, fater a socialist one: but as an aspiration it sure beats the dystopia of atomistic liberalism.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Albertus - forgive my whale-omelette thickness on this, but what on earth is "individualistic liberalism", what is "atomistic" in this context and why is it bad?
I personally like being left to get on with my own business. Not sure if I'm individualistically atomistically liberal or not. Or why it'd be bad if I was.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, Jade, but a High Tory or Christian Democrat would agree with that last sentence: some liberals would too. I think that you were right earlier when you suggested that socialism required some degree of equality, or at least of egalitarianism, which went beyond that: in which there were not, for example, gross disparities of wealth and privilege. That's why I consider myself to be some kind of socialist- although because I believe that we are meant to live in the context of strong relationships with others I would much rather live in a High Tory 'bind in a living tether/ the prince and priest and thrall' society than in an individualistically liberal one.
But that's 'separate but equal' which isn't equality at all. A lack of upwardly-mobile people would mean a solidly middle-class Parliament and clergy for instance, with working-class people excluded. To be honest we're pretty much there at the moment, and it's not a good thing.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
Parhaps I'm misusing the terms, Karl. What I mean by them is a society in which the individual is left to sink or swim, according to his or her own luck and/or efforts, in which every individual is the supreme judge of what is good or right, and in which relationships are patterned after 'rational' economic transactions- every relationship a one-night stand based on claculations of short-term advantage. This is of course as much a 'type' (that is, a model towards which societies might tend but which no society, probably, actyually fully achieves) as High Tory neo-feudalism or socialist egalitarianism: but it is a type towards which many of the economic and political orthodoxies of the contemporary Anglo-American world are tending. And it stinks.
Jade: my point was that wanting a society in which it is recognised that God has made everyone equal in his sight- a statement with which I agree- is just a starting point. It doesn't necessarily lead you to socialism or any other particular form of social order, although it does rule some out.
[ 30. July 2013, 15:47: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
John Milbank fits the Tory Socialist mould better than Scruton, I think.
At least one of the people I'm thinking of is definitely very much aligned with Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy, so that makes sense.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Albertus - forgive my whale-omelette thickness on this, but what on earth is "individualistic liberalism", what is "atomistic" in this context and why is it bad?
'Atomistic' is the belief that all there is to a complex system is the smallest component parts ('atoms') and everything else can be explained in terms of the interactions between the atoms. In the context of political philosophy it is the belief that really there is no such thing as society; there are individuals and there are families.
I leave it to you to decide whether you think there's anything bad about that.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Jade: my point was that wanting a society in which it is recognised that God has made everyone equal in his sight- a statement with which I agree- is just a starting point.
I would agree with Jade that most of the sort of 'everyone knows their place' societies would tend to break this starting point.
Furthermore I think it's instructive that the real apologists for this (not you Albertus) will always point to particular societies in which it is obvious that a marginal amount of surface contentment was bought by a lot of oppression at the core. In this sense 'true Toryism' seems to resemble 'true Communism'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
In practice most hierarchical societies might, but in theory not necessarily.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
It seems to me that the word 'Tory' gets used in at least two very different ways. The more common way, familiar from Union marches and sometimes leaking on to the pages of the New Statesman, seems to be an entirely derogatory term for members of the Conservative Party, and sometimes also for their alleged allies
Hardly derogatory. Members of the Conservative Party refer to themselves as "Tories" all the time.
But yes, I think you are sort of right. There are such things as Tories who are Tories because they are Conservative supporters, and there are also Tories who are just Tories because that's what they are.
And in the second sense, not all Conservitves are Tories, and not all Tories are Conservatives (though most of them are).
In that sense Margaret Thatcher was probably not really a Tory, and David Davies certainly isn't. Even thogh both Conservatives. But the present Prime Minister is very much a Tory, though he hid it well before he got in.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
What is said of Tories could equally well be said of "socialists"
New Labour, old Labour, and very very old Labour.
And Len McClusky.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Also I'm pretty sure that someone who was an extreme type-two Tory, no lets just call them "High Tories" because that's what we've been calling them for decades; someone who was an extreme High Tory couldn't consistently be a socialist. Obviously they could have some things in common with some socialists, but then so can anybody, as political positions are complex and messy. But not everything, otherwise they'd be socialists and not Tories.
The three marks of the True Left-Wing Church are Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, the famous Rights of Man. And I don't see how you could be a real Tory and also passionately committed to all three of those.
The High Tories might be fine with the idea of Fraternity, social obligation, a connected and mutually supportive society. But a lot of them are weak on Liberty (as are a lot of supposed left-wingers as well, there are plenty of unpleasant authoritarians in the managerial/Fabianist side of the Labour Party, just think of any of the most recent Labour Home Secretaries, or Tony Blair after 9/11 killed his honeymoon - but just as individual conservatives can have some left-wing opinions, so can individual socialists have some right-wing ones) And as others already said, they are going to be soft on Equality. The whole point of being a High Tory is an ordered, stratified, society. Monarchy, Aristocracy, the Established Church, the privileges of rank and class and gender and race and nationality. The opposite of the commitment to radical equality that Socialism and Christianity have in common when both of them are at their best.
On the other side your Low Tories (as I suppose we have to call them) tend to make nice noises about Liberty (at least before they get into power, when you scratch a right-wing Libertarian you nearly always find a hidden authoritarian) and some of them even seem to mean it. (You have to approve of David Davis on ID cards and detention without trial and torture) And they can sometimes talk the talk about equality. They are on the modern side of the Great Reforms of the 19th century, business-friendly Peelites, more like the 18th and early 19th-century Whigs than the Tories of those days. It would be perfectly accurate to call Margaret Thatcher a right-wing liberal (though maybe not a "Liberal Conservative" since that name was already taken by a very different set of Tories), She and her Low Tory followers entirely bought in to the world-view of 19th century liberalism. They are the philosophical grandchildren of the Peelites, and the organisations descendents of the Liberal Unionists that Chamberlain brought into the Conservative Party. Also calling them right-wing liberals would confuse lots of right-wingers who don't know their history which is always fun (not to mention almost all Americans) who conflate liberalism with being left-wing)
But those Low Tories do differ from the real Liberals, never mind the Left, because they fall short on Fraternity. they have the whole stand-on-your-own-two-feet, there-ain't-no-such-thing-as-a-free-lunch rhetorical stance of the technocrat libertarian-lite self-appointed elite. The High Tories and Liberal Conservatives look on the Welfare State as a neccessary evil. For the Fabnianist-managerial wing of the Left its a great achievement qand a valuable instument of social control. For at least some of the true-believing loony-left its a herald of a better world. But the Low Tories hate it. They fear and despise it. For them giving money to the poor is an un neccessary evil. Better to let them starve if they are too weak to work or too proud to beg. You don't need socially enforced hierarchies if you are Low Tory, a right-wing liberal, because the iron fist of the free market policies its own boundaries. Those who fail to prosper are by definition those who deserve to fail.
[ 30. July 2013, 19:38: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gottschalk
Shipmate
# 13175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
quote:
Originally posted by Gottschalk:
John Milbank fits the Tory Socialist mould better than Scruton, I think.
At least one of the people I'm thinking of is definitely very much aligned with Milbank and Radical Orthodoxy, so that makes sense.
Blond?
Ken's post is very interesting. High Toryism is founded on the notions of order, customs, tradition, rights (not abstract right), contract, duty, obligation and liberties (not abstract liberty) . It is a true corporatism in the sense it views society as a body whose limbs perform different functions. Look at the Monday Club before Thatcherites took it over - and you'll gain a fair idea of the modern version of High Toryism.
--------------------
Gottschalk
Ad bellum exit Ajax
Posts: 157 | From: The Kingdom of Fife | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
So, ken, in your view, would being a monarchist be incompatible with socialism, properly defined? I gather that a strong belief in the merits of a Constitutional Monarchy as opposed to a Republic, is one of the most coherent aspects of the political ideology of those who identify themselves as 'High Tory Socialists'.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
Nobody self-identifies as this sort of Tory, anymore than anyone unironically identifies as a 'Bolshie' or a 'Pinko'.
I do. Socialist but far from communist, 'Pinko' thats me.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
So, ken, in your view, would being a monarchist be incompatible with socialism, properly defined? I gather that a strong belief in the merits of a Constitutional Monarchy as opposed to a Republic, is one of the most coherent aspects of the political ideology of those who identify themselves as 'High Tory Socialists'.
I hope ken doesn't mind me stepping in, but I certainly would consider the two to be incompatible. Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
According to Ken's analysis I am probably a Conservative with Tory principles!
But I would reject the OP's position that "Tory" is pejorative in any way.
I call myself Tory all the time, and proud to use that label as indicating I'm a member of the Conservative Party, and every member of the party I know uses the word to describe themselves.
It's news to me that it appears to have multiple levels of meaning outside the Conservative Party, because it certainly doesn't appear to do so within it.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
So, ken, in your view, would being a monarchist be incompatible with socialism, properly defined? I gather that a strong belief in the merits of a Constitutional Monarchy as opposed to a Republic, is one of the most coherent aspects of the political ideology of those who identify themselves as 'High Tory Socialists'.
I hope ken doesn't mind me stepping in, but I certainly would consider the two to be incompatible. Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
So a monarchist such as CR Attlee can't have been a socialist, then?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
Tony Benn springs to mind, a wealthy aristocrat turned champagne socialist.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Tony Benn springs to mind, a wealthy aristocrat turned champagne socialist.
'Champagne' socialist is hardly the term I would associate with Tony Benn. Mug of tea socialist more like. One of the few politicians with integrity.
(Not that there is anything wrong with being a socialist and enjoying champagne. Socialism is about us all having a share in the good things of life.)
[ 31. July 2013, 11:34: Message edited by: Angloid ]
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism. The list of what is incompatible with socialism is very long indeed.
In fact it would be quicker to list those things that are compatible with socialism...
- A bleeding heart
- Economic illiteracy
- Judicial shortsightedness (it's not fair!... I think.)
- A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Tony Benn springs to mind, a wealthy aristocrat turned champagne socialist.
'Champagne' socialist is hardly the term I would associate with Tony Benn. Mug of tea socialist more like. One of the few politicians with integrity.
(Not that there is anything wrong with being a socialist and enjoying champagne. Socialism is about us all having a share in the good things of life.)
He was my MP for twenty-odd years, and in all that time he lived in Holland Park. Champagne socialist. The mugs of tea were for show.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I think that you'll find that Tony Benn, wealthy and (very recently: Viscountcy created c1945 to strengthen Labour in the Lords) aristocratic though he no doubt is, is a republican. He's also certainly not literally a champagne socialist: whether or not the mugs of tea are for show I don't know but he is a longstanding teetotaller.
As for living in Holland Park: that's a throwback to an earlier style of politics. If you go back to the earlier and mid-C20, when Benn's political practices were being formed, it was very usual for MPs, of all parties, not to live in the constituency. This was especially so of the professional politicians (like Benn and his father, and also like Churchill, Macmillan, and so on) as opposed to the more obscure squires and semi-retired trade unionists who were more likely to represent the places that they lived in anyway. But most constituencies didn't expect their member to live there or even to visit very often - one visit a month, if that, was considered perfectly satisfactory.
[ 31. July 2013, 12:08: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism. The list of what is incompatible with socialism is very long indeed.
In fact it would be quicker to list those things that are compatible with socialism...
- A bleeding heart
- Economic illiteracy
- Judicial shortsightedness (it's not fair!... I think.)
- A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.
Are you confusing liberalism with socialism? The two are not the same. And no, owning an XBox and a Playstation isn't incompatible with socialism. Socialism is just about enabling everybody to have a fair amount of things, not just the wealthy. I do sometimes wonder if you have the same Bible as me, since the rich hoarding their wealth isn't seen as a good thing by God. God's economics are pretty socialist - do you think God is economically illiterate?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Someone having immense wealth and importance (which happens even with a constitutional monarchy) because of an accident of birth is totally incompatible with socialism.
Well yeah, but only because someone having wealth and importance for any reason is incompatible with socialism...
No, that's not true. The status of the monarch due to an accident of birth doesn't fit in with the equality that's at the heart of socialism. Socialism means everyone has an equal chance to be head of state, and monarchy goes against this.
And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist. What's the point of making things fairer for people if you exclude the royal family from that fairness? Monarchy is as unfair on the royals as it is on everyone else - if you're in line to the throne, you don't get a choice.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by deano A desire for equality but only by reducing the good, not improving the bad.
Careful, deano, your presuppositions are showing! Haves = good, have nots = bad. What a bizarre thought, and a really original take on the beatitudes, I think. What a strange universe you inhabit.
And, of course, socialism is not opposed to wealth per se, and never has been. What it is opposed to is a system which deliberately generates immense wealth for the few and (globally) abject poverty for the many, rather than sufficiency for all, be they good, bad or indifferent.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Owning both a playstation and an xbox are incompatible with socialism.
Would either exist under socialism? I can't see a State Leisure Time Committee ordering the creation a games console, not even under a five year plan.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Socialism means everyone has an equal chance to be head of state, and monarchy goes against this.
So your brand of Socialism means that everyone theoretically starts from the same place, but may end up in very different places with very different levels of wealth and power?
Wouldn't that be better defined as meritocracy?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist....
I think, with the greatest respect, Jade, that I would rather look to Attlee than to you for a definition and indeed a model of what socialism means.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...And Albertus, Attlee being a monarchist would prevent him from being a socialist....
I think, with the greatest respect, Jade, that I would rather look to Attlee than to you for a definition and indeed a model of what socialism means.
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever? If you carry on casting out people for not being true socialists you'll sooner or later get to 'pure' socialism. And presumably a room to yourself to expound your beliefs.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Isn't this a spin off of the old joke that if you put two Socialists in a room you'll get three ideological splits or whatever?
Whereas if you put three Tories in one room...???
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
