Ask a Reactionary

[innonimatu]

nurture values reactionaries hold dear, like courage, fortitude and erudition, it are the values that make the premodern world good and better than the status quo, at least in the countries that one can consider to be part of Western civilisation.

What exactly is the meaning of courage in this context? Is it an individual virtue, or a collective one?
Was Galileo individually courageous in challenging the authority of the Pope? Were the albigensian heretics collectively courageous? How do they compare to the catholic martyrs in anglican England, for example? And what good came out of all that courage - which is to say, how or in which situation is courage a "good virtue", and can it also perhaps be a "bad virtue", within the framework of your morals?

Now, I'm positively surprised I didn't get questions like 'OMG why u want Spanish Inquisition back?'. These are not the kinds of things of the premodern reactionaries wish to resurrect. If anything, these were massive errors and displays of moral failure which ultimately enabled the 'Enlightenment' to recast such events as necessary results of the premodern wisdom and convince the world to think in a false dilemma in which being a revolutionary is the only way to be convincingly opposed.

Let's pick the specific example you chose, because it allows for some discussion about aristocracy/monarchism. In the absence of the Spanish Inquisition, what power could have kept in check the jewish, protestant, and islamic communities in Spain? There were still large numbers of these and we can easily guess that the protestants at least would grow in number. But the aristocracy and the crown were catholic. Why would they accept the authority of this aristocracy with which they would increasingly fail to identify? In the absence of a form of representation (democracy) how woyld the stability of such a state be maintained without repression?

So we are primarily in the reactionary thing for improving the moral character of humans or at least ourselves.

Do you regard specific "morals" as absolute truths? In other worlds, do you have a fundamentalist or a relativist view of morals?

I'd say that the Enlightenment has utterly failed to end humans' ability to commit those misdeeds. Far from being a form of chrono-whataboutism, I argue that the gravest atrocities in history are the result of human failure in general and that no political ideology is able to contain it completely. I still think that overall, the humans of the past were stronger and more social individuals of today, especially in Europe and the Americas and that it is that we wish to return.

What past? What present? Given that technological evolution is continually changing both the scale of human interactions and the array of problems humans face, how can a "return to the past" work without dumping all the modern technology? The Quakers try to do it, some saudi clerics apparently would have it done also. But I know few other "success stories". Do you regard old forms of social interaction as being capable of dealing with the present needs of individuals in a world where conditions are radically different? Or would you change also the world back to the living standards of the pre-modern age?

 

[innonimatu]

Firstly we already have a solidified hierarchy of people. The iron law of oligarchy inevitably leads to the development of an elite leadership cadre in any group larger than say a small family unit. This is why we have political families and politics is effectively the rotation of factional control within the political elite. So an objection on monarchy or aristocracy (although I am not so much of a fan of a landed aristocracy as Kaiserguard) on the basis of (an elite is bad) is nonsensical. Power is already concentrated in the hands of the upper class and always has been, the difference now is that the upper class constitutes the higher echelons of the corporate world, certain inheritors of old money, academia and the political classes rather than an aristocracy based on landed title and a system of obligations and dues to the crown and the lower orders.

No. The difference is that in the modern world there are structures of political participation that allow for greater social mobility and it is specifically against social mobility, again change, that reactionaries set themselves.
To say that an institutionally solidified hierarchy of people is better that the modern demo-liberal fluid hierarchy of people is to say that social change is undesirable. But to prevent social change you have to prevent also material change.

You see, in my country a catholic reactionary took power with exactly the same arguments you people are making here. His name was Oliveira Salazar. And he did the same thing you guys propose to do. He spent 35 years balancing the interests of those high in the hierarchy he set up, his new aristocracy. The descendants of some of his closest creatures, the "Holy Spirit" (I kid you not) family still plague us, they just now bankrupted a big bank and left the state holding the bills. His ome overriding concert was the stability of his regime. He gave the Catholic Church a series of privileges in exchange for continued support. Because wife-beating is morally superior to divorce, abandonment and exploitation of children is morally superior to abortion, and a religious education is more useful to people than a technical education... and mind you, I know what I'm talking about, it's still very much in living memory. He deliberately suppressed the development of the country as much as he could because to promote economic development would be to "put the wrong ideas" on people's heads. Beyond reserving access to higher education to the sons of the ruling elite (the peasants and common workers couldn't afford it) and the lackeys of the catholic church (seminars were the one way poor people might get some education, but most quickly also got educated there on the Church's hypocrisy and left disgusted asap to swell the ranks of the enemies of the regime) he also had those nice little things called the political police and censorship - freezing a country in time is hard work!
His ideal citizen was the peasant, in an age where the world was already moving from industry to services. The end result was a broken county, supporting a colonial war which was all about keeping the "betters" within the solidified hierarchy ruling the "indigenous" of the colonies, until the military themselves finally found the courage and the fortitude to topple Salazar's successors. Still had a broken country as a legacy.

He was very good at making speeches aimed at impressing those who knew little of history and politics, I'll give you that. At quoting classical authors to back his ideas. He even had a state propaganda service (modeled on Mussolini's) to publish those ans show how smart he was, how erudite, how superior to the "demo-liberal politicians" he had removed from power.

Anyway, my point is: your political ideal has been implemented, as closely as possible, by Salazar. It was a corporatist state that even shunned (once Salazar closed his grip on power) all the apparatus of the fascist states: the mass media, the glorification of the leader, he dropped that. And very much took the "catholic" thing up. So, what I want to ask you is: why did it fail, and what lessens will you draw (if any) from that failure?

 

[timtofly]

This is why I suggest the scapegoat clause and move on to the next group of people in charge.

 

[Jehoshua]

No. The difference is that in the modern world there are structures of political participation that allow for greater social mobility and it is specifically against social mobility, again change, that reactionaries set themselves. To say that an institutionally solidified hierarchy of people is better that the modern demo-liberal fluid hierarchy of people is to say that social change is undesirable. But to prevent social change you have to prevent also material change.

This is erroneous. Firstly wealth and thus associated access into the higher echelons of power remains a generally closed caste to the common masses, precisely because wealth tends to perpetuate amongst the already wealthy. Secondly this wealth generally restricts higher education, particularly post-graduate education to the wealth perpetuating an intellectual caste that is coterminous with the elite ruling class. To pretend that ones vote grants one any significant influence as to the workings of that ruling elite the is just absurd, since it is undeniable that such an elite class within society exists. Finally your assertion that a "demo fluid hierarchy of people" is necessary for social change is just absurd, and callously dismissive of the agency of people. Social change is not dependent on the governing authorities decreeing it but on the organic development of civil society, albeit to say change is intrinsically good in and of itself has no rational basis.

You see, in my country a catholic reactionary took power with exactly the same arguments you people are making here. His name was Oliveira Salazar. And he did the same thing you guys propose to do. He spent 35 years balancing the interests of those high in the hierarchy he set up, his new aristocracy. The descendants of some of his closest creatures, the "Holy Spirit" (I kid you not) family still plague us, they just now bankrupted a big bank and left the state holding the bills. His ome overriding concert was the stability of his regime. He gave the Catholic Church a series of privileges in exchange for continued support. Because wife-beating is morally superior to divorce, abandonment and exploitation of children is morally superior to abortion, and a religious education is more useful to people than a technical education... and mind you, I know what I'm talking about, it's still very much in living memory. He deliberately suppressed the development of the country as much as he could because to promote economic development would be to "put the wrong ideas" on people's heads. Beyond reserving access to higher education to the sons of the ruling elite (the peasants and common workers couldn't afford it) and the lackeys of the catholic church (seminars were the one way poor people might get some education, but most quickly also got educated there on the Church's hypocrisy and left disgusted asap to swell the ranks of the enemies of the regime) he also had those nice little things called the political police and censorship - freezing a country in time is hard work!
His ideal citizen was the peasant, in an age where the world was already moving from industry to services. The end result was a broken county, supporting a colonial war which was all about keeping the "betters" within the solidified hierarchy ruling the "indigenous" of the colonies, until the military themselves finally found the courage and the fortitude to topple Salazar's successors. Still had a broken country as a legacy.

He was very good at making speeches aimed at impressing those who knew little of history and politics, I'll give you that. At quoting classical authors to back his ideas. He even had a state propaganda service (modeled on Mussolini's) to publish those ans show how smart he was, how erudite, how superior to the "demo-liberal politicians" he had removed from power.

Anyway, my point is: your political ideal has been implemented, as closely as possible, by Salazar. It was a corporatist state that even shunned (once Salazar closed his grip on power) all the apparatus of the fascist states: the mass media, the glorification of the leader, he dropped that. And very much took the "catholic" thing up. So, what I want to ask you is: why did it fail, and what lessens will you draw (if any) from that failure?

You make a good shot at trying to frame me with a strawman argument, presumably to advance your own political position which is patently evident (leftism of some kin) and associated anticlericalism, by saying my positions are the same as Salazars and proceeding to present your own view of those policies. You do this without evidence or recourse to what I have said though, and have merely engaged in rhetorical blathering which renders your argument entirely questionable, and of course mostly fallacious. You also make questionable assertion, such as the one about education for example which ignores for example that literacy (as a yardstick) improved substantially throughout the Estado Novo, from 56% in 1940 to 77% in 1950 and up to 97% in 1960. Your accusations that Salazar had a negative influence on education though do reflect however a common accusation made by his political opponents for their own reasons.

Now. While Salazar supported the Catholic Church and opposed the various schools of liberal philosophy (which I can approve of), his nationalism, corporatist policies , bid for autarky and "lusotropicalism" have nothing whatever to do with my beliefs and indeed in economic terms his position was far from ideal. To try and paint my positions as Salazarian is simply to go off as I have said and burn a strawman, even though he was not as bad as you make out (seeing as a good part of your objection is because you hold to leftist principles he refused to hold and openly and rightly suppressed in political discourse)

Oh, and btw, this forum is not for you to make an argument of your own, or a place for you to polemicise as you did here. As Kaiserguard has noted already this thread is intended for questions and related discussion and clarification as is necessary. Not for a back and forth argument.

 

[Agent327]

Now what you ask is why were humans stronger 1000 years ago? Why do we need to bring back certain political institutions of that era to the fore to make that possible? One of the biggest oustanding issues is that we have become less erudite, too overspecialised, to focussed on narrowly economic issues and overall more fragile.
How

How indeed. Erudition seems linked to literacy. Seeing as until recent times illiteracy was around 80% (conservative estimate), how 'have we become less erudite'?

 

[Tahuti]

What exactly is the meaning of courage in this context? Is it an individual virtue, or a collective one?
Was Galileo individually courageous in challenging the authority of the Pope? Were the albigensian heretics collectively courageous? How do they compare to the catholic martyrs in anglican England, for example? And what good came out of all that courage - which is to say, how or in which situation is courage a "good virtue", and can it also perhaps be a "bad virtue", within the framework of your morals?

All bad examples. A better example would be that the monarchs themselves took the battlefield. Would you see Obama do the same?

Let's pick the specific example you chose, because it allows for some discussion about aristocracy/monarchism. In the absence of the Spanish Inquisition, what power could have kept in check the jewish, protestant, and islamic communities in Spain? There were still large numbers of these and we can easily guess that the protestants at least would grow in number. But the aristocracy and the crown were catholic. Why would they accept the authority of this aristocracy with which they would increasingly fail to identify? In the absence of a form of representation (democracy) how woyld the stability of such a state be maintained without repression?

Religious sectarianism was among the things that led to the (unfair) discreditation of the premodern world. The best policy in this case is tolerance, but one which recognises the necessary differences between the communities; Something similar to the Ottoman millet system would be a decent practice to apply.

Do you regard specific "morals" as absolute truths? In other worlds, do you have a fundamentalist or a relativist view of morals?

Good things are always good, bad thing always bad. That would make me pretty much an absolutist. That being said, there are cases in which soothing circumstances apply, and forgiveness should not only be encouraged but mandated. That might be considered relativistic, though full relativism will lead to nihilism.

What past? What present? Given that technological evolution is continually changing both the scale of human interactions and the array of problems humans face, how can a "return to the past" work without dumping all the modern technology? The Quakers try to do it, some saudi clerics apparently would have it done also. But I know few other "success stories". Do you regard old forms of social interaction as being capable of dealing with the present needs of individuals in a world where conditions are radically different? Or would you change also the world back to the living standards of the pre-modern age?

Certain technological advances can make it harder to keep a social order intact. However, I am not a dialectical materialist - as noted in my earlier answers to Mouthwash - and I believe people and not technology makes ultimately the difference.

How indeed. Erudition seems linked to literacy. Seeing as until recent times illiteracy was around 80% (conservative estimate), how 'have we become less erudite'?

We have become more 'mediocre'. It seems literacy has improved at the cost suppressing genuinely superior intellect.

Because of recent innovations like the internet, I doubt literacy will decrease at this point, nor do I support an all-out effort to decrease it. Yet it is in my view better to have an intellectual of the greatest intellect possible and low average literacy than a high average literacy but without any people that truly stand out.

How does this refute my point about disequilibrium?

You may have to be a bit clearer here. What disequilibrium are we talking about?

Why do you, again, have to assume this is permanent? "Liberalism" is a product of its environment, and is no more a fundamental ideology than antiestablishmentarianism. If history had proceeded along a different course, we might see different terms associated with arbitrary aspects of it.

Liberalism by definition thinks pretty much in 'rights' humans deserve, as well as in economic gains. As such, that is pretty inimical to the kind of values reactionaries seek to resurrect, regardless of the general legitimacy it has in society.

 

[Perfection]

How is genuinely superior intellect currently being suppressed?

 

[Senethro]

Are you ever seized by concern that your idealized monarchy is even more uselessly utopian than what the silliest college communist can come up with?

Waiting for the the immoral corrupt mediocre rest of society to die off so you can have your little kingdom is a really weird revenge fantasy. Wait, my 9 year old self just reached across and tapped me on the shoulder and has informed me this is literally the plot of some of the videogames he was playing. Ok, heres my question - would you ever be a supervillain and use a doomsday weapon that only your followers, picked from the elite of society, would survive?

 

[Tahuti]

How is genuinely superior intellect currently being suppressed?

In general, governments viewing lack of availability to higher education as an injustice. This can manifest in affirmative action, the crowding out of traditional trade schools and the increasing rate in which students attend college. To elaborate on the latter case, I do not truly believe 'college-age people' have collectively become that much smarter and that because of that, we are inflating degrees and decrease the general state of higher learning.

Are you ever seized by concern that your idealized monarchy is even more uselessly utopian than what the silliest college communist can come up with?

Both communism and monarchies are actually types of government that exist and have existed at some point. Hunter-gatherer tribes are communist and still exist in Africa. Monarchies likewise still exist in every continent. I do not truly worry about the feasibility of my political ideals in my lifetime or thereafter for that matter.

Ok, heres my question - would you ever be a supervillain and use a doomsday weapon that only your followers, picked from the elite of society, would survive?

Certainly not. Everyone in society is needed and has a unique role to fulfill. Why only the elite?

 

[Plotinus]

...it is generally better presuming society is interested in civil liberties and good order for the electorate to be restricted to men with property and over a certain age who contribute more to society than they take (my personal thing would be male, over the age of 21, who own land and pay more taxes than funds they receive from the state).

These restrictions I consider preferable because a) the young have short time preferences and lack the foresight to vote in the interests of society (thus why today we don't allow children to vote) b) it is best if the electorate is invested in the interests of society and the common good and is financially independent, since those who aren't tend to vote for candidates to office who satisfy their financial dependence to an ever greater degree resulting in harm to the state and society as a whole (thus why Europe and America are perpetually in debt). Ownership of land and an investment in the goods of that society via positive financial contribution in taxes are yardsticks simplistically trying to assess that competency then (since personally assessing every potential voter is impractical). I would restrict women from the franchise for similar functional reasons, considering the female franchise is positively associated with increased government spending and legislative restrictions. Their political participation I would conceptualise as being adequately met through the votes of their male relatives with voting rights (who should preferably vote in the interests of their families) and through extra-electoral channels which all people legitimately of course can engage with.

I'm rather astonished to see someone here actually advocating disenfranchising women, and even more surprised that no-one appears to have picked up on it. So here are some questions about it.

First, it seems that your reason for wanting to stop women from voting is solely that they tend to vote for things that you don't approve of. This differs from the reason for not allowing children to vote, since one can actively point to characteristics of children (lack of experience and understanding) that explain why they're less able to make a useful contribution to the political process. When you complain that women vote for "increased government spending and legislative restrictions", you're assuming that that is something so bad that it's worth disenfranchising half the population to avoid it. But how can you be so certain of this? As a man, couldn't it be the case that women have a perspective on these matters that you've missed? Aren't you assuming that the typical male perspective is the correct, standard, default one, and that the typical female one is divergent and transgressive? And isn't that just irrational?

Second, you say that women's interests would be met by the votes of their male relatives. But what of women who don't have male relatives? In particular, what about whole classes of women who don't have male relatives, such as widows or the childless? More fundamentally, how can you guarantee that men will vote for what is actually in their families' interests, and not simply what they think is in their families' interests? Just to give one example, do you think that marital rape would ever have been made illegal if only men had ever voted on the matter? Indeed, would a "reactionary" prefer it if that change in the law had never happened?

Third, and most fundamental of all, isn't it the case that when one group of people has less power than another, they get exploited and lose whatever power they had? Don't we see this today with the incredible aggregation of wealth into the hands of a very few super-wealthy people? Those with power inevitably exercise that power for their own interests, not for the interests of those without it. A world where men vote and women don't is a world that's run for the benefit of men, not women. Even if all the men are benign and attempt to look out for the interests of women - something that wouldn't happen - it would still marginalise women because they would have to put up with what men think is in their interests, not with what they they think is in their interests. Doesn't this infantilise women and patronise them, by making them out to be little more than children who have to be looked after because they're too stupid or irresponsible to understand what's in their own best interests? And isn't this not only a profoundly immoral outlook, but one that's irrational and lacking in evidence? If not, what evidence can you give to show that men know what's best for women better than women themselves do?

Fourth, and relatedly, black people (at least in Britain, and I think in the US too) are statistically much more likely than white people to vote for left-wing parties and causes. Does it follow, by your logic, that they should also not be allowed to vote? If not, how does their case differ from that of women? Other groups who tend to vote in a more left-wing direction include university professors, Quakers, and gay people. Would you prevent them from voting too? Indeed, if you take this to its logical conclusion, wouldn't it simply result in the policy that the only people allowed to vote would be those known to have the "correct" political views? In which case, would there be any point in having a voting system at all? Is this why you express dissatisfaction with the whole notion of democracy in the first place and seem to think that having elections at all is not a particularly desirable system - because you think that, really, those who disagree with you on political and social matters just shouldn't have any say in them?

Similar points apply to the suggestion of rolling back the clock so that only landowners can vote. That's again giving the wealthy more privilege than they already have. It makes the fundamental error of assuming that those with wealth and power are more "invested" in society than those without it. But of course this isn't true. They're just luckier. Indeed, isn't the reverse the case - they are less invested in the good of society? If I have no job and no wealth, it's very much in my interest that the economy should be in a good condition such that the state is able to support me while I look for work and that there are jobs out there for me to find. But if I'm as rich as Croesus' lawyer then I really don't care how things are going, because I've got enough to be assured of a comfortable life no matter what happens. It's the people who are losing out under the current system who know what's wrong with it, not those who are doing well. Aren't you just making the same mistake as the Prosperity Gospel, the assumption that moral value and material success are directly correlated? Would you really think that Francis of Assisi should have less right to a vote than Silvio Berlusconi? And do you really think that people were, overall, better off when voting systems like the ones you prefer actually existed, e.g. in Dickensian Britain, than they are today? Were the poor better off? Were women?

Finally, are views such as the ones you've articulated here common among those who identify as "reactionaries"?

 

[Senethro]

See this is why I'd make a terrible supervillain, I hadn't thought ahead as to who would clean the office after the Great Winnowing!

Edit:

I'm rather astonished to see someone here actually advocating disenfranchising women, and even more surprised that no-one appears to have picked up on it. So here are some questions about it.

Haha, I hadn't even picked up on that because I was only skim reading at best. I'd just immediately pigeonholed him as a wordier C_H level religious nut.

Jehoshua, why are you a fascist apologizing scumbag who thinks women should be disenfranchised because they vote for dirty leftists? Yes, you're polite and pseudo-scholarly about your belief but its pretty vile. I mean, whats more aggressive and impolite here, you making a statement about the capabilities of women or calling you out on it?

 

[GenMarshall]

Is there a differance between reactionary and fascism?

 

[Tahuti]

Is there a differance between reactionary and fascism?

There is a strong difference: Fascism is a democratic mass ideology; It uses the democratic nation-state as a starting point of all its ideological discourse. The origins of fascism are in part to be found in the terror phase of the French revolution. The concepts of nationalism are relatively foreign to the reactionary. Whereas fascism likes homogenous nation-states, the reactionary might be considered a bit multicultural in contrast (though not in the postmodern, progressive, affirmative action, diversity for the sake of diversity way).

Reactionary by contrast is anti-popular: Fascism spends a lot of time honing democratic legitimacy (hence, it is considered to be totalitarian, alongside Stalinism, while reactionary thought isn't) whereas the reactionary in a way doesn't care about popularity. This is not to say the reactionary does not care about the interests about of the common people or democrats - and fascists in particular - do, but rather that the reactionary completely rejects democratic viewpoints whereas fascism, not unlike liberalism and communism notwithstanding their differences, does not and often explains itself in democratic terms.

 

[Agent327]

Actually, it is decidedly antidemocratic, so your basic premiss is flawed. Especially in Germany (but not exclusively) Fascism could make use of reactionary support - amongst others.

We have become more 'mediocre'. It seems literacy has improved at the cost suppressing genuinely superior intellect.

Because of recent innovations like the internet, I doubt literacy will decrease at this point, nor do I support an all-out effort to decrease it. Yet it is in my view better to have an intellectual of the greatest intellect possible and low average literacy than a high average literacy but without any people that truly stand out.

Assuming that 'superior intellect' exists, how would general mediocrity suppress it? And what has any of this to do with being reactionary? I am seriously lost at this point.

 

[Tahuti]

Actually, it is decidedly antidemocratic, so your basic premiss is flawed. Especially in Germany (but not exclusively) Fascism could make use of reactionary support - amongst others.

Fascism is against liberal democracy. Considering it is totalitarian, it decidedly has a democratic element in it, as it claims to represent the majority - and with justice. Totalitarianism is essentially the synthesis between authoritarianism and democracy.

Assuming that 'superior intellect' exists, how would general mediocrity suppress it?

Cause->Effect. General mediocrity is the result of attempting improve the lowest common denominator and so a general mediocrity is the result. Reactionaries tend to judge societies by their highest values, not by their averages.

And what has any of this to do with being reactionary?

Because all this is part of a general trend towards creating an intellectual climate that is hostile to the reactionary. Consider the popularity of Marxism and Postmodernism among Humanities faculties.

Finally, are views such as the ones you've articulated here common among those who identify as "reactionaries"?

I'm okay with the reasoning behind Jehoshua's proposals. Actually, I'd go a bit further and limit the voting franchise to nobility. Yes, It'll mean I'll be disenfranchised too given I do not belong to nobility - as far as I am aware of - though I am prepared to accept that.

 

[Plotinus]

General mediocrity is the result of attempting improve the lowest common denominator and so a general mediocrity is the result.

What evidence is there that such an attempt has such an effect? Wouldn't common sense suggest the reverse? If everyone has equal access to education, then gifted people are more likely to realise their potential. If, however, resources are unevenly distributed so that e.g. only the wealthy or those of a certain social class can get the best education, then talent among those denied access to it will be wasted.

Reactionaries tend to judge societies by their highest values, not by their averages.

This seems inherently unjust to me. Would you say that a society in which a few people are extremely wealthy and most people are quite poor is preferable to one in which everyone is somewhere in between? And the same for other metrics, such as happiness, education, social mobility, etc? Since you say you believe in the truth of all religions, how can you square this emphasis on the higher values rather than the lower with the consistent biblical concern for the poor rather than the rich?

 

[Tahuti]

What evidence is there that such an attempt has such an effect? Wouldn't common sense suggest the reverse? If everyone has equal access to education, then gifted people are more likely to realise their potential. If, however, resources are unevenly distributed so that e.g. only the wealthy or those of a certain social class can get the best education, then talent among those denied access to it will be wasted.

While it isn't untrue, its applicability isn't universal. Many central European governments in the 1930s restricted access of Jews to higher education with the goal of making it more accessible to the native populace. Likewise, American universities are trying to have more Hispanic and Black students at the expense of Asians and Whites. Now, there are undoubtedly extremely gifted Black and Hispanic students, though they are overall less of them than gifted White and especially Asian students. We may be on our way where on needs to have a PhD to become a janitor, and this is not just a matter of the degree itself being dumbed down; education itself is being dumbed down. Degrees are increasingly more in demand for non-academic occupation, with the corrallary that the corporate world has increasingly more power to corrupt institutions of higher education.

This seems inherently unjust to me. Would you say that a society in which a few people are extremely wealthy and most people are quite poor is preferable to one in which everyone is somewhere in between? And the same for other metrics, such as happiness, education, social mobility, etc? Since you say you believe in the truth of all religions, how can you square this emphasis on the higher values rather than the lower with the consistent biblical concern for the poor rather than the rich?

That assumes that we deeply value wealth for its own sake, which isn't the case. Wealth is not a virtue and actually one of the reasons we dislike the current status quo. We judge by its highest values, but only for values we actually care about. When you seek bravery, do you want the most brave, or those that happen to come from a group that on average might be more brave but never more brave than the bravest?

 

[Senethro]

While it isn't untrue, its applicability isn't universal. Many central European governments in the 1930s restricted access of Jews to higher education with the goal of making it more accessible to the native populace. Likewise, American universities are trying to have more Hispanic and Black students at the expense of Asians and Whites. Now, there are undoubtedly extremely gifted Black and Hispanic students, though they are overall less of them than gifted White and especially Asian students.

What would your explanation for why there are fewer extremely gifted Hispanic and Black students be?

 

[Plotinus]

We may be on our way where on needs to have a PhD to become a janitor, and this is not just a matter of the degree itself being dumbed down; education itself is being dumbed down. Degrees are increasingly more in demand for non-academic occupation, with the corrallary that the corporate world has increasingly more power to corrupt institutions of higher education.

I don't think this is true at all. Most postgraduate degrees are considered a hindrance to most jobs, not a bonus - at least in Britain. (It's different in Asia.) This is because most postgraduate degrees are considered vocational qualifications for academia and therefore a waste of time for anything else.

Whether the BA is being dumbed down, I'm not sure, but I don't see any particular evidence for it. On the contrary, the average undergraduate today works far harder than their parents or grandparents probably did. And certainly postgraduate degrees are harder than they used to be, because anyone wanting to enter academia has to have masses of publications and teaching experience that previous generations didn't. One still occasionally encounters elderly academics today whose title is plain "Mr", because they never even did a PhD - they didn't have to in the 60s. You could meander comfortably into an academic career back then with nothing more than a decent BA and a kind word from your old tutor that you were a good chap. Unthinkable today! Standards now are far, far higher.

If the corporate world has greater power to corrupt higher education, which it probably does, this is not because of changes to the education itself but because universities are increasingly reliant on private funding since governments are cutting the amount they invest in it. In Britain the massive recent rises in tuition fees mean that we're slowly returning to the bad old days when only the wealthy could afford to go to university.

That assumes that we deeply value wealth for its own sake, which isn't the case.

I don't think my question does make any such assumption, and you haven't answered it!

I would say that most of us value not wealth for its own sake but the equitable distribution of it - or, if not of wealth itself, then of the opportunity to make it. But a society with a few super-rich people and a large mass of very poor people would lack this equability.

We judge by its highest values, but only for values we actually care about. When you seek bravery, do you want the most brave, or those that happen to come from a group that on average might be more brave but never more brave than the bravest?

I wouldn't particularly call bravery a value I care about. But either way, I'm not talking about what we seek for a particular task. Certainly if I were putting together a squad to rescue prisoners from the enemy I'd want them all to be as brave as possible, but that's not because I want a society with a few very brave members and everyone else very cowardly. I'm talking about what goods we value in society as a whole, and whether we think it's worth many people lacking those goods as long as a few people have them. Take happiness, then. Would you prefer a society with a few extremely happy individuals and everyone else extremely miserable? Or freedom - how about a society with many slaves and a few slave owners? Or would it be better if everyone had more freedom than a slave?

To put it another way, isn't the fair distribution of goods - whether material or not, and whatever they happen to be - a key element of justice? Or do reactionaries have a different understanding of what justice is?

 

[Tahuti]

If the corporate world has greater power to corrupt higher education, which it probably does, this is not because of changes to the education itself but because universities are increasingly reliant on private funding since governments are cutting the amount they invest in it. In Britain the massive recent rises in tuition fees mean that we're slowly returning to the bad old days when only the wealthy could afford to go to university.

The best source of funding for universities would be charities geared towards education, religious groups and willing individuals (this may include monarchs). I tend to be distrustful of the effects of both corporate and government funding of higher education on intellectual life.

I don't think my question does make any such assumption, and you haven't answered it!

While, the short answer is basically that judging its highest values only makes sense when you support that value and only for specific values, because...

Would you prefer a society with a few extremely happy individuals and everyone else extremely miserable? Or freedom - how about a society with many slaves and a few slave owners? Or would it be better if everyone had more freedom than a slave?

Well, no! It's of course better if everyone has the maximum amount of happiness possible. Though I also think that in this case, it is less a case of zero-sum game. A well-run society will have a large degree of hapiness across the board.

To put it another way, isn't the fair distribution of goods - whether material or not, and whatever they happen to be - a key element of justice? Or do reactionaries have a different understanding of what justice is?

In regards to economic matters, most reactionaries support distributism. It supports property rights, yet also is deeply distrustful of finance and extreme wealth. It generally is in favour of an economy of craftsmen and artisans to get there.

What would your explanation for why there are fewer extremely gifted Hispanic and Black students be?

A combination of genetics and upbringing. That being said, I reject racial nationalist claims that race is a be-all-end-all identity as a modernist concept that has no place in a traditional world order. Ultimately, having a black skin colour is a cosmetic variable and while it may correlate with character traits and membership of certain ethnic communities through genetic inheritance, there is no immediate causal link between that and skin-colour. Whenever I speak of 'race', I likely speak of a specific ethnic community.