Some of the things that Blond says are interesting, and he is right to try to re-articulate a Red Toryism or Progressive Conservatism. Even if I don’t identify with that tradition, there is value to having Red Tories in the debate trying to reassert the importance of community. But his reading of liberalism is extremely narrow, and he comes close to caricaturing Rousseau, Locke, and Mill. It is perhaps plausible to say that Hobbes is an ‘atomistic individualist,’ but Rousseau, Locke, and Mill were definitively not. They all cared about pity (Rousseau); the “sentiments of humanity” and charity (Locke); and sympathy (Mill). Adam Smith, whom Blond does not mention, also cared a lot about sympathy. It is as if Blond formed his understanding of their thinking by skimming through their most famous quotes and de-contextualizing them. As a result, he dismisses liberalism entirely despite the fact that there are things in liberalism that even non-liberals should probably acknowledge and salvage (e.g., the moral worth and equality of all people), and despite the fact that there are resources within the liberal tradition that can help contribute to a sense of community. Accordingly, anti-liberals like Blond end up being apologists for autocrats like Orban who seem to champion a sense of community and oppose atomistic individualism… but who are still, at the end of the day, autocrats. “Individualism” and “community” need each other are not mutually exclusive; BOTH “individualism” and “community”, untethered to each other, will probably lead to bad results. The failure to recognize this is very dangerous.
Singapore is technically "autocratic" (though they have county/borough type elections for local reps. But it works. A pre-liberal or post liberal community: though I doubt Blond is advocating such ( however much it makes one think about what is possible, peacefully in the coming post-liberal or even post "democratic" experience ). Blond simply points (Mostly elsewhere) liberalism simply borrowed (stole, really) the moral worth and value of all human life and it's freedom from Christianity. He is simply taking it back from Rousseau's infernal individualization of that freedom as "guaranteed" by an ever expanding TRULY autocratic super liberal pan-sexual post-ethical statism "managing" the war of all against all, into which that bare individualism ever degenerates.
@@jeremysmyth9955 So two things. First, I think his lumping Rousseau in nearly in the liberal camp is extremely hasty and probably unjustified. Rousseau is certainly a democrat, but his liberal credentials are far from clear. Second, I think the proof is in the pudding when he starts excusing so-called illiberal democrats like Orban. He is not simply pointing out that liberalism inherited some Christian intuitions; he is actively endorsing projects that wish to suffocate individual discretion in the name of community and Christianity - a project that Christian democrats properly understood incidentally have categorically rejected.
We have had an economic collapse in 2008 and one in 1929 and countless minor booms & busts. That tells us the current system is flawed. The root cause for the crashes was that debt after debt was poured into land because gains on land were tax free - speculation. LAND is one of the 3 vital factors of production. Geonomics is the way forward, the Single Tax, the only tax, no INcome Tax, based on Land Valuation Tax. Prevents land speculation and distributes a society's gains more fairly
Universal grants were stopped under Thatcher. Blair, Cameron, and Clegg's administrations have aggressively pursued further privatisation. 'The Market,' alone, has arrested further social mobility; its seventies benefactors (Blond speaks for the current élite of which he is a member) now seem content to pull up the gangplank.
This doesn't make sense at ALL! Government can not be the force to define social ethics, or community values or societal ethics. This is like saying a state can teach tolerance....surely the whole entire premise of this argument is lopsided that is why Cameron's big society utterly failed. When people who do not understand how society i.e normal people live and reason, take it upon themselves to make a project that would dictate to govern that, that is essentially an argument that shall never see the light of day. The elite lack a basic understanding of life.
Phillip Blond's entire approach was less 'the government decides everything tops down' and more 'the government plays a partnership role with local communities, where the power of the centralized government is restricted, where more power is spread down to local communities, and where the local communities themselves ultimately decide what is good for themselves in relation to their own unique conditions and circumstances. You can see this if you look back on the literature on the Big Society initiative through its common themes of volunteerism, social capital, non-profits, charities, social enterprises, cooperatives and charter schools which aimed to shift power away from government agencies such as welfare agencies and towards more localized organizations that were more in touch with the unique circumstances and conditions of their respective communities. As for the apparent 'failure' of David Cameron's 'Big Society' platform, the failure wasn't anything to do with the policies itself, Communitarian-Libertarian Syncretic politics have been implemented successfully in other regions such as Italy and parts of the US, the failure occurred simply because David Cameron wasn't willing to put enough time into the Big Society platform. Social reforms, progressive or conservative or whatever type, take time to develop and build roots in a society. Something as big as the Big Society would have needed far more time than the 4 years it had before Cameron tossed it aside.
People like Blond are required to articulate the need to start a new vision for politics and a new system for economics.
Some of the things that Blond says are interesting, and he is right to try to re-articulate a Red Toryism or Progressive Conservatism. Even if I don’t identify with that tradition, there is value to having Red Tories in the debate trying to reassert the importance of community. But his reading of liberalism is extremely narrow, and he comes close to caricaturing Rousseau, Locke, and Mill. It is perhaps plausible to say that Hobbes is an ‘atomistic individualist,’ but Rousseau, Locke, and Mill were definitively not. They all cared about pity (Rousseau); the “sentiments of humanity” and charity (Locke); and sympathy (Mill). Adam Smith, whom Blond does not mention, also cared a lot about sympathy. It is as if Blond formed his understanding of their thinking by skimming through their most famous quotes and de-contextualizing them. As a result, he dismisses liberalism entirely despite the fact that there are things in liberalism that even non-liberals should probably acknowledge and salvage (e.g., the moral worth and equality of all people), and despite the fact that there are resources within the liberal tradition that can help contribute to a sense of community. Accordingly, anti-liberals like Blond end up being apologists for autocrats like Orban who seem to champion a sense of community and oppose atomistic individualism… but who are still, at the end of the day, autocrats. “Individualism” and “community” need each other are not mutually exclusive; BOTH “individualism” and “community”, untethered to each other, will probably lead to bad results. The failure to recognize this is very dangerous.
Singapore is technically "autocratic" (though they have county/borough type elections for local reps. But it works. A pre-liberal or post liberal community: though I doubt Blond is advocating such ( however much it makes one think about what is possible, peacefully in the coming post-liberal or even post "democratic" experience ). Blond simply points (Mostly elsewhere) liberalism simply borrowed (stole, really) the moral worth and value of all human life and it's freedom from Christianity. He is simply taking it back from Rousseau's infernal individualization of that freedom as "guaranteed" by an ever expanding TRULY autocratic super liberal pan-sexual post-ethical statism "managing" the war of all against all, into which that bare individualism ever degenerates.
@@jeremysmyth9955 So two things. First, I think his lumping Rousseau in nearly in the liberal camp is extremely hasty and probably unjustified. Rousseau is certainly a democrat, but his liberal credentials are far from clear. Second, I think the proof is in the pudding when he starts excusing so-called illiberal democrats like Orban. He is not simply pointing out that liberalism inherited some Christian intuitions; he is actively endorsing projects that wish to suffocate individual discretion in the name of community and Christianity - a project that Christian democrats properly understood incidentally have categorically rejected.
Excellent work. I totally agree. Virtue is the only way forward.
We have had an economic collapse in 2008 and one in 1929 and countless minor booms & busts. That tells us the current system is flawed. The root cause for the crashes was that debt after debt was poured into land because gains on land were tax free - speculation. LAND is one of the 3 vital factors of production.
Geonomics is the way forward, the Single Tax, the only tax, no INcome Tax, based on Land Valuation Tax. Prevents land speculation and distributes a society's gains more fairly
Universal grants were stopped under Thatcher. Blair, Cameron, and Clegg's administrations have aggressively pursued further privatisation. 'The Market,' alone, has arrested further social mobility; its seventies benefactors (Blond speaks for the current élite of which he is a member) now seem content to pull up the gangplank.
God Save the Queen and
God Save the Scheme
Fast forward to now (2021).ask the Labour Party about Red Toryism. Even their faithful deserted them over Brexit
@mewga2008, "Virtue is the only way forward."
My God! You must vote Tory.
This man is definitely lacking the Jewish intellectual virtues as described below.
This doesn't make sense at ALL! Government can not be the force to define social ethics, or community values or societal ethics. This is like saying a state can teach tolerance....surely the whole entire premise of this argument is lopsided that is why Cameron's big society utterly failed. When people who do not understand how society i.e normal people live and reason, take it upon themselves to make a project that would dictate to govern that, that is essentially an argument that shall never see the light of day. The elite lack a basic understanding of life.
Phillip Blond's entire approach was less 'the government decides everything tops down' and more 'the government plays a partnership role with local communities, where the power of the centralized government is restricted, where more power is spread down to local communities, and where the local communities themselves ultimately decide what is good for themselves in relation to their own unique conditions and circumstances.
You can see this if you look back on the literature on the Big Society initiative through its common themes of volunteerism, social capital, non-profits, charities, social enterprises, cooperatives and charter schools which aimed to shift power away from government agencies such as welfare agencies and towards more localized organizations that were more in touch with the unique circumstances and conditions of their respective communities.
As for the apparent 'failure' of David Cameron's 'Big Society' platform, the failure wasn't anything to do with the policies itself, Communitarian-Libertarian Syncretic politics have been implemented successfully in other regions such as Italy and parts of the US, the failure occurred simply because David Cameron wasn't willing to put enough time into the Big Society platform. Social reforms, progressive or conservative or whatever type, take time to develop and build roots in a society. Something as big as the Big Society would have needed far more time than the 4 years it had before Cameron tossed it aside.
Exactly! Cameron abandoned Blond and his plan to give decentralized power and wealth and real back to regional society.. That is why Cameron failed.
"Progressive Conservatism" is an oxymoron.
Hence his avoiding such a term.
This is junk
Nope. It is gold. And is changing history.
@@jeremysmyth9955 how do you take care of the poor?