EDIT: I misread the comment above, which I completely agree with. I ended up writing a reply about the dangers of allowing the meaning of concepts to change along with dominant narratives. Not really relevant to the discussion, but keeping it below because why not.
I understand this argument from an American point of view - if I were conservative I certainly wouldn’t brand myself as such if I were American.
I have two counterarguments. First, this is a form of surrender, where we accept that the word has lost its meaning and we no longer have the vocabulary to talk about conservativism in its original sense. Language is essential for thinking, and by destroying the language and the words we use to understand concepts the ruling classes can keep us from understanding them at all. Everything becomes meaningless. Fascists, conservatives, nazis, libertarians, libarals, centrists all become the same as concepts are blurred and lose their meaning to the point where we cannot think of anything any more. This type of rhetorical class warfare is common in the US - there has been active efforts to destroy any word associated with socialism for a hundred years now. I think we should insist on the meaning of words and their distinctions because we should insist on thinking. The two are, fundamentally, the same thing.
My second counterargument is that this guy on the train was German. Europe is not America, we don’t want to import your stupid politics. We are better off on our own. Call this a conservative argument if you will.
Please understand my point was a deference towards a more precise and accurate definition of conservatism and an appeal to understanding the difference of when conservatism becomes reactionary or fascist.
It was kind of a corroboration of your point.
…which now I am unsure of since you are so readily disagreeable with it on grounds of American.
Ah, yeah, sorry, I didn’t read your comment carefully enough. Misread it as being a point about constants through change in terms of understanding ideology, and that conservatives are becoming something new that they were not before. My bad! It has been a long day.
EDIT: I misread the comment above, which I completely agree with. I ended up writing a reply about the dangers of allowing the meaning of concepts to change along with dominant narratives. Not really relevant to the discussion, but keeping it below because why not.
I understand this argument from an American point of view - if I were conservative I certainly wouldn’t brand myself as such if I were American.
I have two counterarguments. First, this is a form of surrender, where we accept that the word has lost its meaning and we no longer have the vocabulary to talk about conservativism in its original sense. Language is essential for thinking, and by destroying the language and the words we use to understand concepts the ruling classes can keep us from understanding them at all. Everything becomes meaningless. Fascists, conservatives, nazis, libertarians, libarals, centrists all become the same as concepts are blurred and lose their meaning to the point where we cannot think of anything any more. This type of rhetorical class warfare is common in the US - there has been active efforts to destroy any word associated with socialism for a hundred years now. I think we should insist on the meaning of words and their distinctions because we should insist on thinking. The two are, fundamentally, the same thing.
My second counterargument is that this guy on the train was German. Europe is not America, we don’t want to import your stupid politics. We are better off on our own. Call this a conservative argument if you will.
Please understand my point was a deference towards a more precise and accurate definition of conservatism and an appeal to understanding the difference of when conservatism becomes reactionary or fascist.
It was kind of a corroboration of your point.
…which now I am unsure of since you are so readily disagreeable with it on grounds of American.
Ah, yeah, sorry, I didn’t read your comment carefully enough. Misread it as being a point about constants through change in terms of understanding ideology, and that conservatives are becoming something new that they were not before. My bad! It has been a long day.
Totally agree with your point.