www.talkcyprus.org

[turkcyp]

Here is another juicy topic for you guys…

Issue came up because Kifeas said that I had wrongfully identified him as conservative, and for some reason he got insulted by it. (I do not know why there is nothing to be insulted in being conservative. I do not value their way of thinking but I was not trying to insult him or any other conservative for that matter).

Anyway long story short your definitions about conservatism, and liberalism. And please refrain from personalizing the issue again, like Kifeas is this or Turkcyp is that. Just debate the concepts.

Conservatism vs. Liberalism…(even though liberalism is not the exact opposite of conservatism in our current political climate it is)

Tell me what you understand from conservatism and liberalism….

[turkcyp]

Edmund Burke can be described as the foremost known father of conservatism, even though conservatism definitely exited before him. He simply theorized the existing human inertia of refusal to change. So liberalism which has to do with the liberties that human being are free and should be free to enjoy are not the exact opposite of it but rather simply a different dimension of human’s political stance.

In our current political climate though because it is the liberals who continues to push for more change in terms of providing more liberties they are branded as the opposite of conservatism.

The opposite of conservatism actually may be called revolutionist, or if you talk about less changes somebody who is open to new ideas and embrace change easier because they believe as the superiority of human reason over traditions of the societies.

The conservatism do not like the idea that human reasoning process are superior to the traditions established in one society over long periods of time. They embrace traditions as they fear that change due to reason may actually bring more danger than benefit. The warm and cozy atmosphere of tradition is a safe haven for them.

Since the beginning of humankind there were conservatism. It is not actually some sort of left – right wing ideology but rather more subtly can be described as human nature of resisting change. That is why on any given subject a conservative may be either leftist or rightist. For example, in Turkey one of the most conservative parties relating to Cyprus problem are the leftist parties and some of the most conservatism ones and some of the most right wing parties are not (AKP of current day ANAP of the 80’s etc). But change the issue for example to religion and culture then you see the role reversal.

Most conservatives are not conservatives all the time but only depending on the issue at hand. It all depends which issue you are discussing. For example in many places when we are talking about economics right wing parties are not conservative but when it comes to cultural, national, religious issues they are conservative.

I usually do not like social conservatives (people who are conservative on social issues like religion, culture, society etc. etc.) I think these kind of conservatives biggest threat to society is that their willingness to protect the institutions rather than individuals who founded the institutions and whose institutions are supposed to serve. This is where liberalism got into picture as against conservatives because liberalism subscribe to the idea that individual liberties foremost on everything should be respected and must be protected against the established institutions because established institutions often under the disguise of protecting the society tramples individual liberties but the real reason for this is usually is something more sinister like strengthening power base of few individuals who controls he institutions, or resource transfer from society at large to specific groups that supports institutions.

[cypezokyli]

well, the terms today as you also described them both lie in the "right". they were kept together for years with their only unifying factor being their anti-communism , where in that case the liberals who are in general more educated than the concervatives, played on that fear in order to take economic measures.
but that was doomed to brake apart at some point in time , because the "right" included all kinds of religious stupidity as well as strong nationalism which should by definition be against the very basic ideas of free trade or free economy. when it comes to political parties, this has indeed happenned showing that the conservatism in the right has always be stronger than the liberalism. moreover, and especially in europe there is even a new trend of extreme nationalist parties, that make attempts to reach the poorer classes - a form of lets say "national socialism".

imo, nowadays the group really fitting in the term "liberals" would be the journal "the economist". they are for sure not bound by any religious, or discriminatory or nationalist ideas. but they honestly believe that they have the solution to all economic problems - and that is free economy -as free as possible. dont really agree with everything they say, but for sure they do have some principles leading their articles. and so long they are not politicians they dont fall into bargains in terms what they believe.
....

as for "concervatism" as an idea being stuck on the current values and be afraid of change , it is true - it can be present both in the right and in the left. i would even say it is simply present in societies. so in greece for example, despite the fact that they have still extreme left wing dialectic , or in cyprus where we have 33% "communists" , when it comes to things like sex , better discuss with a german christian democrat than with a member of AKEL.

...
now back to our discussion of "toyota kerynia". i believe, resisting change even when the "practical" advantages are proving the opposite is not always bad. lets make the examples even more extreme :

language : why dont we accept that the language of all the world is english and get it done with it? if you just sit down and think how many hours are spend in learning english as a second language or even learning a third language , should be a reason enough. moreover so much money is spent on dictionaries, translators , university proffesors, books for learning languages... it is practical and more productive that we all learn one lnaguage and end of that story. besides, what other purpose do languages have other than communicating - and when many languages hinder communication , why are you so stuck in learning your own ?
well in that ... i prefer to get stuck with my language (or even worse my dialect) and i dont really care how unproductive that is.


historical places : what is really the point of having parthenon standing in the middle of athens ? i mean its just rocks almost falling apart, some completely destroyed. they dont have any religious meaning to anyone , they dont give anything to the people of athens - besides some tourists , so why keep it standing? wouldnt it be to the benefit of athens to bring them down and build a modern hospital that would benefit the people of athens? or a huge hotel with golf courts around, that would create jobs and growth for the city of athens? and as for the historical importance - well we can just take some pictures of those rocks and we can remember them and admire them , through them, to eternity. no need for those old stones to take such productive space in the centre of athens.
.... so you see, sometimes it really depends on what we mean by "being stuck in the past" , and "mooving in the future" :wink:
if the above example is mooving forward, i prefer to stay stuck in the past.
as in all theoretical debates, also in this one, it is difficult to decide what is the meaning of "mooving forward". i.e. as far as i understand it, if you destroy parthenon for any reason you are mooving backwards not forward.
the line is always very vague.

[cypezokyli]

and since you mentioned it , a question for bananiot that was a couple of days ago asked by an AKELite.

why are the leftist EDI part of the liberals ?

can you be left (whatever that means ) and liberal at the same time ?

[Dhavlos]

cypezokyli wrote: and since you mentioned it , a question for bananiot that was a couple of days ago asked by an AKELite.

why are the leftist EDI part of the liberals ?

can you be left (whatever that means ) and liberal at the same time ?

Left wing + liberal economics = the Third Way :D