Quote:
|
Originally Posted by O71394658
Quote:
|
The point is that Stalin's perpetual revolution was a contradiction, and in fact a conservative force, opposed to change, and in favor of the preservation of Soviet institutions.
|
Admittedly, this issue isn't my forte, but just because you wish to preserve institutions that you've created doesn't automatically classify you as a Conservative. His mere left-wing idealogy establishes him as a radical liberal, does it not?[/i] |
That's a loaded question. In a traditionally liberal sense of non-government interventionism, and open markets, Stalin couldn't be further from the case.
In a modern "Liberal" sense, as in New Deal Liberalism, you still don't get Stalin. I think the point is like the old saying goes, today's radical is tomorrow's reactionary. This actually makes sense with arguments conservatives have made on these boards.
Folks like Vince have said that if you're under 30 and a conservative you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and a Liberal you have no brain (or something like that). People get older, see the change(s) they campaigned for reach fruition, and become more protective of the institutions they've created.
In other words, it could be argued that conservatism is a state of being, where as liberalism is much more ideological.
Hybrid Mode
