Most respectable in conservatism

Question

Bertrand Russell wrote in his "History of Western Philosophy" describing John Locke, the following:

He makes a great deal of the imperishable character of the precious metals, which, he says, are the source of money and inequality of fortune. He seems, in an abstract and academic way, to regret economic inequality, but he certainly does not think that it would be wise to take such measures as might prevent it. No doubt he was impressed, as all the men of his time were, by the gains to civilization that were due to rich men, chiefly as patrons of art and letters. The same attitude exists in modern America, where science and art are largely dependent upon the benefactions of the very rich. To some extent, civilization is furthered by social injustice. This fact is the basis of what is most respectable in conservatism.

I didn't understand the connection he made between conservatism and what he mentions about social injustice and inequality.

What does he mean by "This fact is the basis of what is most respectable in conservatism" ?

Answer 1

A standard view of conservatism is that it is committed to preserving the status quo, the existing state of things. This view could have a variety of supports. One is that the status quo is more desirable, choiceworthy, than anything that could or is likely to replace it. Another is a preference for what is familiar, regardless of its merits. Or the existing state of things may be defended because we do not have a predictive policy science; if we change institutions or practices on a large scale we have largely unreliable insight into what the actual as opposed to intended consequences will be.

None of this connects readily with Russell's quote unless we add a gloss that conservatives support a market capitalist economy, which is both now and in Russell's time a part of the status quo in the West. Such an economy produces, not necessarily but de facto, significant or even extreme differences in wealth. While this is (for reasons Russell does not explain) socially unjust, it does provide the rich with the means of making benefactions of considerable benefit to civilisation.

This is his basic idea. It is weakened by its being a narrow view of conservatism. There is no inherent and necessary connection between conservatism and a market capitalist economy; such an economy may not be a part of the status quo and hence not valued by conservatives. Russell's view is too confined to a Western European 19th and 20th century context.

A conservative might even be opposed to a market capitalist economy. The market, as FA von Hayek, famously pointed out, produces a spontaneous social order - unpredictable winners and losers. He welcomed market capitalism but a conservative might see such an economy, and fear it, as a dissolvent of the existing state of things.

Russell's immense greatness as a philosopher did not on the whole lend subtlety or insight to his political views.

Answer 2

Well, this is not Russell's best book. But if you wanted to do a case study on this, you could look at Chile in the last century. The Guggenheims were able to make a lot of money off of nitrogen (guano), which I guess because of cheap labor and a sort of monopoly contract, they were able to make huge profits despite the Haber process.

No doubt the Guggenheims did some good things with their money, particularly involving art, the museum and so on, but one would have to look at the history of the little man in Chile too, and it was not so good for the working class. Not in the least.

What is conservatism? Well, it is not liberalism, but we don't explain to Americans what liberalism is. (At the end of the day it stands for nothing, there is a general inability to "take a stand" under liberalism, it approves everything, including, not surprisingly, laissez-faire economics!). And by the way, Marxism is not liberalism, though most trendy American "Marxists" don't know this.

Well now might be the time to read Popper (his supposed sober middle ground). I think the philosopher who was most subtle on some, not all, of these issues is Galvano Della Volpe (Rousseau and Marx). I think M. Unamuno is good, at the end of the day, his Basque stubbornness, and his wisdom, allowed him to stand up to the Franco regime.

I like B. Croce, but he had certain blindnesses. We all have certain blindnesses we have to take into consideration in the political realm. We have to be at least somewhat cautious of our own biases, especially me!

Answer 3

I think Russell's viewpoint is wrong. The core idea of conservatism is to maintain the status quo, not injustice. In fact, from the history of modern society, it is often social injustice that leads to the proliferation of conservatism.

If we understand nostalgia and retro psychology from a physiological perspective, they are essentially a genetic rebellion against will and reason.

Simply put, the progress and development of society disrupt people's pace of life, making it increasingly fast. The nervous system finds it difficult to adapt to these changes in the short term, as the human body is also a complex system with inertia requirements for stability and priority.

So even though social progress can allow us to use more material rewards to numb our nerves, it still cannot completely curb the reversal of genes. People will still unconsciously miss those years that made our body and mind more comfortable.

A more serious situation is that if the material rewards allocated are not proportional to the effort put in as the fast-paced labor becomes faster and faster, the reversal of genes will become more severe. The most common phenomenon is spontaneous questioning of so-called progress, also known as conservatism.

So, the basis for conservatism to maintain the status quo is that people's physical and mental well-being is comfortable, rather than social injustice. If social inequality breaks through a critical point, I think the most conservative people will also demand a change in the status quo.