Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. — Agustino

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are socially conservative, and fiscally liberal. That's literally a joke on 30 Rock.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you are socially conservative, and fiscally liberal. That's literally a joke on 30 Rock. — Maw

Might seem that way to an American but we have a socialist and social conservative party in our Parliament with about 10% of the votes.

That's true, but there were also "conservatives" who railed against the bourgeoisie from a standpoint that seems a bit different than the one that socialists and communists would eventually take. — Erik

Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance).

Don't forget that the now dead liberal wing of the Republican party was socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Nelson Rockefeller was their last presidential candidate -- even Richard Nixon had some socially liberal policies -- his drug control policy was treatment based, rather than prison based.

Pragmatism — Erik

We need an bad-tempered economic ACT UP organization for the masses. The boat definitely will need to be rocked to shake loose all that cash stored up by the oligarchs.

There is no way that these differences can be overcome peacefully. It's simply impossible. — Agustino

Of course, ideally, a "merger" between the two would be great. Adopting some of the social conservatism from the Right, and combining it with some of the more humane economic policies of the Left. But I have doubts if it will actually happen peacefully. — Agustino

Which of these two is actually your view? The second seems appropriately modest, would you presume to know that the first is absolutely the case?

can I get a job with your company — Erik

Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely.

It's gone, you know. Conservatism I mean, as a force in our politics, society or culture. Sadly, I would say. It's been suborned as a political force, as our politicians will do whatever is necessary, appeal to whomever they need to, merely to remain where they are if not take some other position in the hierarchy. Actual conservatism requires adherence to principles, and they have none. Socially and culturally it's been replaced by unthinking allegiance to certain shibboleths relating to patriotism, religion, sexual conduct, nationalism, money, and a very narrow view of what it is to be American. — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe the former conservatives have begun to congeal into a FASCIST GLOB?

From what I've been reading (comparative fascism) doctrine is unimportant. Fascism is more about method and style than content. There usually is content somewhere, but it doesn't have to be an organizing principle. Opportunistically stroking resentments, prejudices, patriotism, religious atavism, militarism, poverty, and so on and doing so inconsistently even, can be a winning strategy. It doesn't matter what so much as how.

I don't think The USA is headed towards fascism, but that doesn't mean that someone won't try. Our method of governing (checks and balances, a 2 wingéd political party that pretty much monopolizes power, pretty much fixed periods between elections, etc) doesn't allow a whole lot of room for an upstart fascist party to acquire much power.

Fascism usually governs by dictatorship, but it isn't altogether required. The terror of Jim Crow, the Ku Klux Klan, labor suppression (post WWI), McCarthyism, and the suppression of labor's capacity to organize and exercise power (current) all took place within a regularly elected political system. The KKK was the closest we came to developing a proper fascist movement.

Moreover, it isn't necessarily the case that most of the population would be miserable under fascism if we had it. Some people would be, (make up your own list) but most people would probably find that things were, you know, OK. Meyer's study of working class German attitudes toward life under the Third Reich was that many people thought it was just fine -- well, except for the bombing they had to put up with and of course there weren't many Jews to include in the study.

Is Trump a FASCIST GLOBLET? He's certainly inconsistent in a number of ways, and appears to be opportunistic. He has a following who seem to not care what he does. They like his style of doing it. "Trump fucked us, but he did it with such panache--who can hold it against him? Fuck us again!"

I don't know whether Trump is a fascist globlet, but he could be a successful fascist yet. There is no formulae for fascists to get into power -- all they have to do is find a way. He is already in a very good position to do even worse and more inconsistent things. Stay tuned.

Never mind a job with the company, large wads of cash will do nicely. — Bitter Crank

Haha yeah, even better! But seriously though, Benkei's company sounds like it would be a great one to work for on a number of levels: a sense of responsibility to the interests of the larger community, not solely concerned with the bottom line, a collaborative rather than dictatorial approach, etc. Hopefully a harbinger of things to come. Working in a situation like that, with inspiring people and goals, sounds like it would be pretty exciting. I'd gladly take less money to work there over more conventional companies. And this captures what I'm getting at: seeking out work that's rewarding in ways far beyond the immediate financial payoff.

I do need to start researching companies like his in order to lay out a (more) detailed approach to a different way of thinking about work and economics more generally - one that aims to incorporate economic activity within an emerging new context. It would involve shifting the common perception of business activity - its primary aims and methods - to reflect a (possible) new set of social values.

Yes, those damned conservatives who inveigh against consumerism and wanton consumption complicate things. Sometimes what they are against is the vulgar consumerism of people who shop at Walmart. I suspect they prefer people who buy their goods at Design Within Reach (mid century modern types) or prefer Ethan Allen (solid elegance). — Bitter Crank

I'm referring more to those who lived in the era of the Enlightenment and French Revolution and the Terror (or shortly afterwards), and who anticipated both the tremendous possibilities and the many dangers of a world shaped by the bourgeoisie. Think Burke or Hegel or the Romantic poets instead of, say, Milton Friedman or Ayn Rand or Mitt Romney. Much different sort of "conservatism" imo; in many ways even more "progressive" in outlook than our current progressives.

Do let us know which century your references are in.

Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, mainly, but also influential among some conservative philosophers up to the middle of the twentieth. More cultural than strictly economic in nature. Respect for the arts, for the natural world, for the community, for "classic" notions of education, etc. To my knowledge, it's never been a unified and coherent movement that's translated into a relevant political party. Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions, but that's a contentious issue and I don't think there's a necessary connection. Highly critical of certain aspects of modernity, though, such as the emphasis on autonomous individuality, on environmental degradation, on the reduction of human beings to exploitable resources, etc. but without necessarily longing for the world which preceded it. In that it's somewhat amorphous and ambiguous.

Incidentally, some of the thinkers I have in mind have been far more influential among the Left than the Right - at least since the mid-twentieth century - as the latter has become more and more fixated on financial freedom, deregulation, limited government, etc.

That's my quick take. Have you read Tocqueville's Democracy in America? I think that nineteenth century work moves within that culturally "conservative" sphere I'm talking about.

Some would argue that fascists have indeed appropriated some of their anti-modern positions — Erik

That's possible. I posted some thoughts on fascism a bit ago. Fascism is a tricky subject because it doesn't seem to have essential content. It is more a method of operating, and not a particularly pleasant one, and less a doctrine. Communists aren't pleasant either, but they definitely had/have specific doctrines. Hitler had his obsessions, but those weren't necessarily those of the larger fascist movement. Ditto for Mussolini, the French and Hungarian fascists, et al.

For instance, the role of corporations wasn't entirely resolved in National Socialism. Some of the earlier Nazis wanted to nationalize the large conglomerates. Others were more oriented toward capitalism. Who were the truer fascists? The ones that came out on top.

We Anglo Americans deplored and denounced Germany's attempted seizure of Poland, the Baltic states, Byelorussia, and Ukraine. Those fascist bastards! But what was unique about it, other than that their occupied colonials happened to be white people instead of brown people? Belgian treated its Congo colony horribly. The British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch colonial operations were never described as "benevolent, charitable, or humanitarian operations". They were business propositions for the benefit of the Colonial powers and were carried out ruthlessly. We expanded across North America at severe expense to the natives -- like severe unto death.

I'm not excusing the fascists of course -- I'm just demonstrating that it can be difficult to nail down specific features that characterize them, and nobody else.

US data from 1994-2015 shows that the typical survival rate for a new business drops precipitously within the first five years to 55% likelihood of survival. By year 10 it's around 30%, and these survival rates don't say anything about profit rates, so the owner could just be making ends meet. — Maw

A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business. There are serial entrepreneurs out there, people who start business after business, and they build several successful companies. So it's a skill, just like anything else, a skill that can be learned. The first time you ride a bicycle you will fall and get hurt, but soon you will learn. It's the same thing here.

Starting a business while in debt, without a supporting network is highly risky, and lacks stability. — Maw

It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business.

what currency you are using — Maw

USD equivalent.

Guests give money as well (typically $75 - $125 depending on how close you are with the couple) — Maw

Little money compared to US wages.

costs between $25K - $40K — Maw

Very expensive. A lot more expensive than here. Here a good wedding is around $4-5K. Luxurious one can be in the $25K-40K, but then so would the gifts (presumably, if you will organise such a wedding, the guests will also have $$) ;)

Teenagers have sex. No one is going to stop that. — Maw

I don't think this is right. As I said, here during communism sex for teenagers was quite rare. Sure, some sex will be happening, but more important than that is the culture that surrounds it.

I can't speak to what occurs in Eastern Europe but we aren't experiencing moral depravity simple in America at least because of sex. — Maw

I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc.

With regards to the communist countries and this:
http://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/columnists/04-08-2009/108593-marxism-0/

Have you considered changing banks? You can utilise the DJSI and other sustainability indices to inform you and then to change banks and spend your money with different companies.

See for instance: https://yearbook.robecosam.com/companies/#gold

So in the US that would be Bank of America or Citigroup (bronze group). You can also go with ABN AMRO but not sure if they offer retail banking in the US.

I think Sinclair Lewis was right. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." I don't say fascism will come here, but "wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross" seems to me to be as good a description as any of those prominent politicians and pundits who claim to be conservatives these sad, sorry days, and it appears all that one must do to obtain the acclaim of those who pass for conservatives now is to waive the flag, and brandish the cross.

I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc. — Agustino

But pop culture and Hollywood are only several threads in a skein of influences. Peers, family, church, school, work, "public opinion", the press, etc. all add numerous additional threads to the skein of influence on individual behavior.

"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience,

The secret about advertising with sex is this: Sex is bait only as long as sex isn't too available. The tension between "X is a sexy product; buy it and you'll be sexy too" plays against the backdrop of social restriction on sex. (Yes, you think there are no restrictions on sexual behavior in American -- but it is not so.)

Selling cars with fried chicken and french fries wouldn't work very well in the US because there is so much fried chicken available. Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity.

The sub-set of the typical American who actually try to have carefree unlimited sex is a very frustrated group.

A statistical analysis tells us precious little about why the 10-year survival rate for businesses is around 30%. It also doesn't tell us what makes for a successful business — Agustino

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? I am not suggesting that no one should start a business, but that it's an extremely risky venture, not to mention exhausting and time-consuming. If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary.

I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised.

It is risky, but so is the alternative. I remember the story of Bill Bartmann when he was $1 million in personal debt after a bankruptcy. And he was saying that you can't pay back $1 million working a job, that is ridiculous, so the only alternative for him was to start a business. — Agustino

The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt.

I don't buy that. It is sufficient to give a cursory glance to Hollywood and pop culture to see that sexual promiscuity is marketed and advertised like crazy. To say that you are not experiencing moral depravity in America because of sex seems hardly conceivable. All the daily sex scandals with celebrities, etc. — Agustino

This is simply circular, because you're already defining sexual promiscuity as inherently immoral without reasonable justification. Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive, why would that be the default recommendation to young people whose backgrounds, experience, and network you know nothing about? — Maw

Well, when you finish University, you pretty much know nothing about anything when it comes to money-making. Might as well learn how to earn for yourself.

If I were starting a family, and wanted to spend time with them, starting a business would not be in my best interest. It's not a comparable recommendation to a waged salary. — Maw

That depends, you can run your business such as it's basically a one-man operation. It works in the service industry at least. That's what I did for a long time actually. Personally, I was still making a lot better than I would have otherwise. And the interesting thing is that I know that I can always make money, I don't need anything or anyone else. Even if my business fails as I try to grow it, that's not an issue for me anymore, I will always be able to go back to earning as an individual contractor. And what's more, I also know that I can learn pretty much any useful activity and make money out of it, because that's what I've done. I need no university degree, no certification, no nothing. There is, in a funny way, no better security than this.

I'm astounded that you, a self-proclaimed entrepreneur, have paid so little attention to the obvious risks of starting a business. But then again, you rarely give thought to anything, so I guess I'm not that surprised. — Maw

Starting a business is risky, but remaining a salaried employee for a very long time is also risky (I would even say MORE risky). The risk may not feel the same, since, as a salaried employee, the risk is spread over a much longer period of time, whereas the risk of a business is concentrated in a shorter time frame.

The strongest takeaway from this story is don't start a business while in debt. — Maw

Well, Bartmann did pay his $1 million dollar debt back after his company succeeded.

Having multiple consenting sex partners isn't "morally depraved" regardless of your inane, toxic, puritanical views — Maw

I would disagree, it damages your capacity to bond with your partner and the degree of intimacy you can achieve. Now there are gradations. Having multiple long-term partners due to failed relationships and some such is bad, but not as bad as promiscuity for example.

Exactly, so without knowing why only 30% of businesses survive — Maw

So you should investigate it.

Sex still works for selling products because actual sexual satisfaction is still a scarce commodity. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but why is sexual satisfaction such a scarce commodity? Isn't it precisely because it's not really possible to achieve sexual satisfaction through promiscuity and the like? Afterall, merely having sex doesn't mean that the sex will be satisfying. Sexual satisfaction is difficult to achieve precisely because of the overabundance of sex, and its mismanagement.

"Celebrities" are in many cases nothing more than circus acts. 99% of the population can tell the difference between a clown and any given member of the audience, — Bitter Crank

Are you sure that 99% of the population can tell the difference? I would think it's the other way around, only 1% of the population can tell the difference.

The Romans had a phrase. To rule over the plebs, give them bread and circus. It is precisely because the plebs, which are the majority, cannot see beyond the circus, that they get so distracted by it, and thus caught up in it.

If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there?

Holy fucking shit

I think the best argument against social conservatism is to simply look at Agustino's comments.

Holy fucking shit — Maw

Which bit upset you boss?

It's not a matter of being "upset", but being dazed by a barrage of stupid arguments, comments, and ideas over and over again.

C'mon bro, this is a philosophy forum, don't be such a crybaby when people disagree with you.

If we did an experiment, and Brad Pitt walked up to a randomly picked woman on the street, and asked her for sex, out of 10 women, how many do you reckon would say no in the US of A? Or Angelina Jolie walked up to 10 men and asked them for sex... how many you reckon would say no there? — Agustino

If AJ walked up to me in the street and asked me for sex (again, she really needs to stop doing that), I'd be like "Angelina baby, you gots to stop listening to Agustino. He's been sniffing powdered holy books and really needs to get out and meet some real live humans that don't just exist in his fevered sex-addled imagination fuelled by watching too many Russian porno vids starring Donald Trump, urine, and assorted women of ill-repute". And then I would bless myself and walk away knowing I had made the world a better place.

Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. That is objectively fucking terrible advice to give. You constantly spew these puritanical notions revolving around sex and women without any justification, while constantly ignoring my evidenced counterarguments. In conversation after conversation, for years, you've treated the evidence I provide to you as inferior as your own anecdotal experience. In one instance, you stated "I base my statements about what I observe in my own soul", which is something you do far more often than you would ever admit. I think that statement sums up who you are. This is a philosophy forum, but you rarely ever do philosophy. You just spew nonsense, and I'm frankly tried of it.

Dude you used an example size of one, a businessman who succeeded in starting a company while in debt, as a justifiable reason for others to pursue starting a business, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of new businesses end up failing. — Maw

No, I said you should investigate why only 30% of businesses survive more than 10 years. You have done no such thing, and by your own admission, you are ignorant of it. And yes, my business may close in 7 years say. But in those 7 years I may have earned hundreds of thousands that I took out of it. In your books, that counts as a failure (survived less than 10 years), but not in mine. There are quite a few such situations actually.