Is social conservatism the ethical equivalent to socialism?

[Einzige]

Or, at least, State socialism?

I would argue that it is so, especially when the social conservative in question deigns to back up his moral opinions with the force of the State. The basic motive for social conservatism, it seems to me, is one of leveling: the social conservative hates and fears that which is different, and especially that which he believes the upper classes indulge in at his expense (i.e. homosexuality, which the average Republican rube associates with rich hedonists), and so there is an element of ressentiment, and not a little tinge of jealousy. I'd argue this is what makes it possible for modern American conservatism to strike a populistic tone.

[Formless]

What? I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that the social conservatives, who don't want things to change, are socialists when the current state of affairs in this country is in fact capitalist, and therefor the opposite of socialism? It would seem to me that in that sense actual socialism would be progressive, not conservative.

[Einzige]

What? I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you saying that the social conservatives, who don't want things to change, are socialists when the current state of affairs in this country is in fact capitalist, and therefor the opposite of socialism? It would seem to me that in that sense actual socialism would be progressive, not conservative.

What I'm arguing is that, in many respects, the emotional pre-sentiments necessary for any intellectual cognition of either socialism (in its beery, purely proletarian form) and cultural conservatism are very much the same: a hatred of the other, a strong identification with one's class/race/sexuality, and an identification of The Other with wealth, power, and privilege - hence ranting about "the gay agenda" that apparently dominates the halls of power today.

[Formless]

No, I would still say its exactly the opposite motivation, at least in theory. Its egalitarian, a belief that all the people are equal and therefor should be treated equally. In that there is an identification of the rich as bad or the enemy its because they behave that way-- gays harm no one, but the social conservative thinks they do because of their religion. From a socialist perspective on the other hand, most rich folks got that way through leeching money off the poor to some degree or another, and he can demonstrate this on a case by case basis.

In reality, of course, your mileage may vary. Social phenomena are rather complex that way, its really not possible to categorically say that all socialists or all social conservatives behave in one convenient manner.

[Einzige]

No, I would still say its exactly the opposite motivation, at least in theory. Its egalitarian, a belief that all the people are equal and therefor should be treated equally. In that there is an identification of the rich as bad or the enemy its because they behave that way-- gays harm no one, but the social conservative thinks they do because of their religion. From a socialist perspective on the other hand, most rich folks got that way through leeching money off the poor to some degree or another, and he can demonstrate this on a case by case basis.

In reality, of course, your mileage may vary. Social phenomena are rather complex that way, its really not possible to categorically say that all socialists or all social conservatives behave in one convenient manner.

Right, I understand that socialism and social conservatism are quite distinct phenomena, and that, theoretically, their aims are almost polar opposites. My suspicion, however, is that their motivations originate out of a very similar impulse, and among roughly the same classes: the lower classes, who feel oppressed and so lash out against those they feel to oppress them. It needn't be rational in either case; I would argue that many examples of both, certainly most social conservatives, are fundamentally irrational, and must be dealt with as such.

[Samuel]

The problem is that, if this was true, conservatives would be for tax cuts or other measures targeted at the rich. They aren't.

especially that which he believes the upper classes indulge in at his expense

Can you explain? I know the emotional reaction, I'm just trying to see the chain of logic for homosexuality being indulged at the expense of the poor.

[Einzige]

The problem is that, if this was true, conservatives would be for tax cuts or other measures targeted at the rich. They aren't.

especially that which he believes the upper classes indulge in at his expense

Can you explain? I know the emotional reaction, I'm just trying to see the chain of logic for homosexuality being indulged at the expense of the poor.

I understand that, if they behaved at all rationally, they'd be at least populists. But they don't: I'm trying to understand the psychological impetus behind social conservatism, not the rationale they use on the surface to justify their 'opinions'. And in my observation of society, I've noticed a few things: social conservatives tend to come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (and, in fact, a surprising number of minority voters are quite culturally conservative, likely owing to religious influence, and especially on issues of homosexuality), exist constantly in a state of paranoia, and use anti-elitist rhetoric to justify their claims, no matter how elitist their ultimate aims actually are.

The general gist of their arguments against homosexuality, in general, seem to be that homosexuality is purely a product of a decadent and elite class - "latte liberals" who virtually own the State hook and sinker, and there seems to be something of a classist element to their homophobia. And, to an extent, this is true; certainly my own circle of acquaintances tend to be more lenient the wealthier they are.

Again, I'm not saying they behave rationally when they engage in this behavior; they obviously aren't. But it might go a way in explaining the origin of that behavior, at least in a great many of them.

[Formless]

I don't know... the socially conservative lower class doesn't tend to act so much out of a sense of being oppressed so much as just plain old fear. To take the homophobia example, they don't really think the gays are oppressing them now so much as they fear the gays will oppress them sometime in the future (the whole "gay agenda" thing). So their motivation is different in part because of the influence of time in their thinking.

[Einzige]

I don't know... the socially conservative lower class doesn't tend to act so much out of a sense of being oppressed so much as just plain old fear. To take the homophobia example, they don't really think the gays are oppressing them now so much as they fear the gays will oppress them sometime in the future (the whole "gay agenda" thing). So their motivation is different in part because of the influence of time in their thinking.

Even that fear indicates that there is a leveling element to their line of thought; in some fucked-up way, they imagine themselves egalitarians, plucky populists "fightin' for the little guy" and sticking it to the Man.

And if it be true, the best possible stance I can think of to adopt towards them is one of elitism: I am superior - objectively superior - to you, because I ground my opinions upon the rule of reason, and do not sacrifice my intellect to faith or obedience.

[Formless]

I don't know... the socially conservative lower class doesn't tend to act so much out of a sense of being oppressed so much as just plain old fear. To take the homophobia example, they don't really think the gays are oppressing them now so much as they fear the gays will oppress them sometime in the future (the whole "gay agenda" thing). So their motivation is different in part because of the influence of time in their thinking.

Even that fear indicates that there is a leveling element to their line of thought; in some fucked-up way, they imagine themselves egalitarians, plucky populists "fightin' for the little guy" and sticking it to the Man.

And if it be true, the best possible stance I can think of to adopt towards them is one of elitism: I am superior - objectively superior - to you, because I ground my opinions upon the rule of reason, and do not sacrifice my intellect to faith or obedience.

That is quite true-- they need to be educated in the difference between facts and propaganda. Most of the things they fear are things their corporate masters The Party tells them to fear. Or things their religion tells them to fear. But I repeat myself.

[Patrick Degan]

The resentments of the socialist are based upon something tangible: exploitation of the workers by the upper class. The resentments of the social conservative, on the other hand, are based entirely upon a wholly arbitrary offence-by-definition —and that being based on what they imagine offends the Invisible Cloud-Being.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And if it be true, the best possible stance I can think of to adopt towards them is one of elitism: I am superior - objectively superior - to you, because I ground my opinions upon the rule of reason, and do not sacrifice my intellect to faith or obedience.

To literally preface your rhetoric and politics in such forms is extremely tactically unwise, and I would go further (as I am a libertarian socialist) to suggest it is grossly unfair, as the predominantly ignorant are, as you yourself noted, largely lower class in character and are systematically made reliant on reactionary and intellectually collectivist institutions like the Church, and discriminated against grossly in terms of the quality of education, media, and information and socialization generally that society's institutions provide them. If you are born poor in the Deep South, I doubt severely you have a reasonable expectation to be raised in a cosmopolitan community, to receive adequate - much less progressive or democratic - education, to not be brainwashed from day one in the bloody and hateful rhetoric of Christ's Swift Sword, and to not be submerged and bombarded incessantly with crude and naked far right-wing populist propaganda. All of these social institutions and tendencies in American society are actively buttressed by, and provide significant benefits to, entrenched elitist power and privilege. I do not believe it is some spontaneous magic mutation in grassroots American culture but missed our extremely close Anglosphere brethren that has cultivated such widespread religious fanaticism, and has just-so-happened permitted the growth of devout Christianity ONLY when it conforms to the interests of power and business (the contrast with social Catholicism in Latin America and Christian Democracy in Europe could not be more stark by comparison).

[Darth Wong]

@Einzige: To assess an ideology based on the perceived emotional motivations of its supporters is a textbook ad-hominem fallacy. Do you realize this?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't think he's assessing the logical content of social conservatism, merely making an observation which we can interpret in light of its virtue as a philosophy (i.e., nonexistent if we're impassioned elitists, perhaps sympathetic or pity-worthy in some fashion if we're populists), or to understand its appeal and take appropriate action politically based on its root psychological or emotional basis. One could challenge such an approach as obnoxious Freudianism, hopelessly vague and based on pseudoscientific, fiat-based reasoning, but I don't think he's approaching it from the point of view of assessing whether social conservatism is "wrong" based on why people who believe it do.

[Darth Wong]

Well, then perhaps he should not call ideas "ethical equivalents" based on his perceptions about their supporters' emotional motivations.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That is a good point. Talk about not noticing the forest for the trees on my part. That's extremely sloppy reasoning.

[Einzige]

@Einzige: To assess an ideology based on the perceived emotional motivations of its supporters is a textbook ad-hominem fallacy. Do you realize this?

If I were basing my opinion of it purely on the line of reasoning its supporters use to reach it, then I'd agree with you. But I'm purely value-neutral in my judgment of it when I make that judgment: what's more, since social conservatism seems based purely on emotionalism, then any answer or rapport to it, it seems to me, must be based along similar lines. I oppose it because of its effects; but I make my prognosis of it on what I take to be its origin, which lies in a puerile form of class-resentment, or something along very similar lines.

The great error most secular humanists make in combating such bigotry is, I think, to cede to it that its origins lie in some sort of reasoning. I simply don't believe it's so; but I do think some understanding of those origins has to be had before it can be confronted.