The New Right?

[Matty_UK]

I was thinking to myself about this today; it seems that amongst younger conservatives there seems to be a lot of Randian and "libertarian" rhetoric, a rhetoric very different from the moral conservatism espoused by older tories. Obviously, I'm relatively new to political activism as I'm only 18, but it seems to me that this seems to be the development of a new conservative ideology. Could the older members confirm if they agree this is the case, or has libertarian/randian rhetoric always been the driving ideology of the right?

I was wondering if what we are seeing is the crystallisation of a pure bourgeois ideology; the moral values of old conservatism, family values and so on, don't seem to have much of a material basis in capitalism where each individual is an atomised economic unit. The libertarians and objectivists typically support legalisation of drugs, and no restrictions at all with responsibility purely the individuals responsibility. This is not progressive libertarianism but rather a logical extension of the belief that the bourgeois class ought to have absolute freedom with no responsibility, and it is very much opposed to traditional conservatism.

Another root of this ideology is an unwavering faith in the neoclassical school of economics and "laissez faire." It seems in effect to be the bourgeoisie for the first time developing an ideology completely free of the historical influence of past epochs. It is an ideology completely self conscious of their demands as a class with a drive to push these demands into society.

We tend to ignore these sort of ideologues, BUT is it more of a threat than we believe? Historically, the bourgeois state has a degree of independance from the bourgeoisie due to it's inability to represent each one of their competing interests. But if these ideas are rising, do you feel that it represents the bourgeois maturing into being able to take on the role of absolute ruling class? The libertarian condemnations against "statism" are not for freedom at all, they are a demand for absolute power of the ruling class which is partially restricted by the state. (obviously, they deny class exists by redefining it in exclusively feudal terms which allows them to be so callous.)

Also of interest is how it seems to mimic revolutionary ideology? Objectivism clearly aims to be a rightist alternative to marxism with Ayn Rand as the great mind to rival Marx (haha!) as you can see by it's conceited pseudo-intricacy as an ideology system. Furthermore it has appropriated leftist labels like "libertarianism" "liberalism" and claimed liberal thinkers like Tom Paine, John Stuart Mills, Rousseau, etc as their ideological predescessors. I've also noticed a lot of politicisation of Nietzche to make him some sort of anarcho-capitalist. This perhaps has something to do with the spectacle, (in commodity society each ideology must be ahistorical and equal to any other so therefore must have an opposite equivalent) or perhaps it's to give what is a superficial ideology that merely represents direct class interests an intellectual air.

So what do you guys think about this?

If it is growing, I reckon the first step should be for students to organise campaigns in opposition to the zealous teaching of neoclassical economics and to make an effort to learn a strong marxist critique of that school and to spend a great deal of time discrediting it. Discrediting this ideology in academia, which can only be done effectively by marxist economics, could win over a lot of social democrats who have a great deal of difficulty arguing with libertarians, and also give marxism back the prestige it lost after the USSR and allow it to see a some kind of rennaissance in the west.

[Matty_UK]

Furthermore, if this is on the rise, the fight against it is a struggle for the western left to carry out. As only imperialist countries can benefit from laissez faire due to the 2 way nature of capitalism, it is finally something where the western left with virtually no connection to the workers movement which is generally limited to the developing world can make themselves useful for.

[Raúl Duke]

Even if these new members have new ideology based more on Rand, laissez-faire, etc suppose they won't get much votes (due to that the people who vote for these parties want old-style conservatism) untill maybe the next generation of voters that would think similarly...

It seems people are so naive that they believe all this fairy tales about the market forces, laissez faire,etc to be the solution of our problem.

In the US we have a "libertarian party" that basically is the "new right" that you talk about. I'm not sure if they are really on the raise here....people seem to vote conservatively (at least where I'm at) and probably would continue doing so. Also the libertarians are trying to get anyone from dissatisfied voters (of both republicans and democracts).



Another root of this ideology is an unwavering faith in the neoclassical school of economics and "laissez faire." It seems in effect to be the bourgeoisie for the first time developing an ideology completely free of the historical influence of past epochs. It is an ideology completely self conscious of their demands as a class with a drive to push these demands into society.
We tend to ignore these sort of ideologues, BUT is it more of a threat than we believe? Historically, the bourgeois state has a degree of independance from the bourgeoisie due to it's inability to represent each one of their competing interests. But if these ideas are rising, do you feel that it represents the bourgeois maturing into being able to take on the role of absolute ruling class? The libertarian condemnations against "statism" are not for freedom at all, they are a demand for absolute power of the ruling class which is partially restricted by the state. (obviously, they deny class exists by redefining it in exclusively feudal terms which allows them to be so callous.)

Interesting analysis....maybe it is the class representing its wants directly. Let's say that the population of the US turnd from conservative voting to libertarian voting...This would usually mean the middle classes and the upper classes, since the lower classes don't feel that voting would change anything (thus low voter turnout). When society gets worse because of laissez faire..the workers would continue to feel that voting wouldn't change anything. So in the end soiciety would be stuck in a right libertarian hellhole. However, if society progresses this way wouldn't revolutionary politics gain more weight among the workers?


Also of interest is how it seems to mimic revolutionary ideology?

This is interesting...they do this maybe to get the interest of voter to show they are a "radical" alternative to liberal and conservative parties.
In the future scenario I pointed out, this would probably work to discredit us because the workers might associate imitation revolutionary ideology with the real. thing

[Demogorgon]

That's always been the case. Back in the eighties, the Conservative Students Association was wanting to have Harold MacMillan put on trial for war crimes, much to the chagrin of the Conservative party who quietly shut them down to save the embarrassment.

THe thing with having a Randian viewpoint is it's popular amongst the young but they quickly grow out of it and either become more traditional Conservatives or very often switch over to the left.

Incidentally, if you look carefully at what people like Rand believed, you'll find that in many ways it is actually more authoritarian than whattraditional Conservatives believe.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

I've encountered vast numbers of e-Libertarians, but I think that they're people who more or less want to have their cake and eat it too. They wish for a "free" society with high levels of social tolerance, but at the same time they consider capitalism and rampant obsession with guns in a society with no government to be beneficial to freedom, not detrimental. You combine the poverty capitalism brings with little government and you do indeed get chaos. You can have one or the other; a cooperative society without government or a competitive society with government. They can't be reconciled.

[BreadBros]

There is a "new right", its called neoconservatism. Generally neoconservatives support government that reserves quite a lot of power and authority and they are more tolerant of social spending and less tolerant of racism than traditional conservatives, but are far more hawkish on foreign policy. They sort of represent a transition in the conservative movement from being dominated by "old boy" networks and wealthy elites to right-wing think thanks staffed by bureaucrats. They still practice imperialism but they code it in terms of "democratization", "nation building" and "liberalization" instead of traditional nationalism. Also they completely support free trade, unlike more traditional conservatives like Buchanan who support protectionist tariffs and the such.

[Angry Young Man]

Erm You can't really get a "new" conservatism. Look at the word through the eyes of a linguist: conservatism. They came onto being at the dawn of capitalism when the feudal nobility were worried about losing their power. They don't radically change: they try to adapt, often hilariously. See "Reactionary Socialism: Feudal Socialism" of the Manifesto. They want to keep as much of what they know as possible.