Max B. Sawicky wrote: > One interesting Big Question this suggests ... is a) on the merits; and b) > politically, it is apt to junk the critique of "individualism" and focus on > modern conservatism as an ideology of corporatism. Obviously the facade of > conservatism is the fantasy of individualism, but the practice is quite > different.<
There's a problem with terminology. "Conservatism" has had (at least) two meanings since the 1950s, when William F. Buckley created a shotgun marriage of "free market conservatism" (laissez-faire) and traditionalist or Burkean conservatism (preserve tradition, family, church, community, nation, and the distribution of wealth).[*] (And then there's "corporatism," which could mean that the corporations should rule -- or it could mean Mussolini-type fascism.) To my mind, it's clearer to say that "laissez-faire" has _always_ suffered from a contradiction between its sometimes fine-sounding theory (individualism, market libertarianism) and its abysmal practice (pro-rich, pro-business, anti-democratic policies). Anyway, I agree with Max's point. [*] the shotgun that allowed this union was fear of (and loathing toward) the USSR. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
