Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Burke was strongly against metaphysical abstractions, but any consistent hold onto a set of principles is an abstracted conduct. So I wonder, how the Burkean philosophy applies to itself when it is more a zeal than an organic spread.

Burkean conservatism applies ironically to the American Independence and Civil wars. The government was certainly based on abstract principles. Bitter partisanship developed right away, originally between the (progressive, pro-capital) Federalists and (conservative, agrarian) Jeffersonian Democrat-Republicans. When Jefferson became the president in 1801, he was compelled soon to compromise own congruent conservatism and keep many "overreaching but working" Federalist institutions, policies. And when the US approached the Civil War, a compromise on slavery was not a sound resolution.

Transformations have their own aesthetics, and not all of them are visibly bloody. The libertarian, pro-capital revolutions and shock doctrines (as in Naomi Klein's book) tend to have much better appearances. Revolutions "from below" might be easily discredited by hacking. In any case, making a revolution means taking unapologetic leadership.

It is clear that the Left has essentially conservative aspirations (to preserve the socially progressive institutions) for a while now. Yet they are loosing ground continuously. Isn't some change inevitable,  after all? Or even inevitably desirable, like CO2 emissions?

by das monde on Thu May 26th, 2016 at 05:08:46 AM EST
The only philosophical propositions of which I am aware that are fully self consistent are tautologies.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Thu May 26th, 2016 at 10:35:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series