the most exploitative takes the semblance of precisely the opposite.
Political parties that espouse an ideology that seeks to maintain asymmetry and often times loosen up regulations on wealth accumulation (Conservative UK, Republican US) adopt a rhetoric of precisely the opposite of what wealth accumulation perpetuates. They preach conservation of 'family' and national values, gender roles (Japan Liberal Democratic Party until recently), race identity, ethnicity, religion etc. and yet the consequence of their policies is cultural dissolution, poverty, racial mixity (migrations, war), urbanisation, density, breakup of family etc. etc. etc.
Those parties which seek to conserve certain rules for the society (Labour UK) that maintain a role of state in mediating the market generally adopt a more tolerant welcoming and open rhetoric. a rhetoric of acceptance on almost all issues other than resource distribution disparity. Interestingly, if all governments in the world were socialist there might be very few of the same 'problems' being highlighted by 'conservative' parties. In that world - would we enter a real conservative state? Would we need to define a new criteria for what growth or progress is?
Conservative here means find whatever rhetoric we can and carry the banner of whatever reactions our policies are perpetuating in what is simply a smokescreen of banter, a total disconnect - between rhetoric and policies, outcomes and consequences.
Political parties that espouse an ideology that seeks to maintain asymmetry and often times loosen up regulations on wealth accumulation (Conservative UK, Republican US) adopt a rhetoric of precisely the opposite of what wealth accumulation perpetuates. They preach conservation of 'family' and national values, gender roles (Japan Liberal Democratic Party until recently), race identity, ethnicity, religion etc. and yet the consequence of their policies is cultural dissolution, poverty, racial mixity (migrations, war), urbanisation, density, breakup of family etc. etc. etc.
Those parties which seek to conserve certain rules for the society (Labour UK) that maintain a role of state in mediating the market generally adopt a more tolerant welcoming and open rhetoric. a rhetoric of acceptance on almost all issues other than resource distribution disparity. Interestingly, if all governments in the world were socialist there might be very few of the same 'problems' being highlighted by 'conservative' parties. In that world - would we enter a real conservative state? Would we need to define a new criteria for what growth or progress is?
Conservative here means find whatever rhetoric we can and carry the banner of whatever reactions our policies are perpetuating in what is simply a smokescreen of banter, a total disconnect - between rhetoric and policies, outcomes and consequences.
