Pages

Tuesday, 18 February 2025

Conservatism and the Decline of the West

For the last couple of days, London has hosted Jordan Peterson's ARC jamboree. Standing for the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship, it was touted as and proved to be a conservative wingefest. From moaners peddling the thinly disguised cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to decriers of the imagined progressive authoritarianism, not a single scintilla of original thought was on show. Instead, we got a catwalk show of ignorance, stupidity, and bigotry. Not that this prevents them from getting recycled and amplified by the billionaire owned and aligned media, or responded to by "sensible" governments bent on adapting to them.

It says everything about the wretched state of the Conservative Party that Kemi Badenoch not only spoke, but a long conversation with Peterson himself. To save you the bother of listening, it was the usual gubbins. The evils of multiculturalism, the destruction wrought by immigration, the perils of net zero. Yawn, yawn, yawn. Her actual speech was little different, but tried striking an urgent tone. Western culture is "under threat". She goes on, "This is not a crisis of values. It’s a crisis of confidence that has set in at exactly the same time that we face existential threats on the left." Assuming Badenoch hasn't crossed the floor, I guess she meant "from". She also said everything good comes from the right. But what's destroying the West now is a lack of "self-belief", when the moment requires assertiveness and confidence. Just like our friend Donald Trump who, for the Tory leader, is setting about "fixing" America's problems. We need to "get off our knees" and fight for our values, which inevitably means "tough decisions and bravery".

I think that's quite enough of Badenoch's drivel.

Lurching further right and puckering up to Trump are not the politics that are going to get the Conservatives back into the game. But this is more than just another rhetorical move to win back Reform voters. The declinist sentiment is common among (right wing) bourgeois circles because it speaks of something that is true. The West is declining.

In population terms, Western Europe, North America, and Australasia are in long-term decline. The story is the same in economics, with China, India, and sub-Saharan Africa increasingly becoming the engines of global growth with each passing year. This is well known and remarked upon. Attracting less attention, until recently, is the long-term decline of conservatism and therefore the political pull of an important section of the Western ruling class. The process of value change has long been tracked by political science, which tends to attribute the growth of social liberalism to growing affluence, mass education, and demographic turnover. There comes a point when the disproportionate advantage among older people turns into its reverse. The right can change to adapt to the rising and broadly liberal-left generations, or decline. We're at that moment now, so goes the argument, and the diminishing mass base of the right has unleashed a backlash against the values of the increasing majority of Western populations. This "postmaterialist" argument is partly true - it doesn't tell the whole story. The rise of social liberalism is inseparable from the recomposition of the working class and the restructuring of how strategic sectors of capital exploit our labour power. The problem is that as the "new" primary force of production are our brains, personalities, and sociability, the hold that workplace discipline has over us is also in long-term decline. Hence the panics about working from home and the constant refrain of returning to the office, and the ridiculous amount of boosterism around artificial intelligence.

The right do not openly say what they're about, so like Badenoch they go after stand-ins and substitutes - tropes they've come to recognise as symptoms of their declinist predicament. The Tory leader's railing against how "universities ... poison minds" is a recognition that cultural trends are against her party, and that she'd rather adopt Canute-like obstinance instead of adapting to new circumstances, which previous Tory leaders have managed to do. We see the same with the Trumpist approach to global power politics, with the bearing of American teeth the chosen strategy - among several - to mitigate the effects of decline. But if the extreme right get their way, at best all they succeed in doing is consolidating the power of their class for a little longer before something new has to be tried to arrest the demographic and cultural erosion eating away at them.

And at worst? It's obvious that if Western capitalism is to thrive in the new world of immaterial labour and growing Eastern dominance, it is by investing in its work force, throwing money at renewable energy, advanced biotech, computing, and space technologies, building up the capacity of regional and national governments as industrial activists, and ensuring the proceeds of growth are better distributed across classes and between regions. A renewed social democratic road map, in other words. But it is utopian precisely because none of the capitalist parties in Western polities, including actually-existing labour and social democratic parties are interested. They're happy to manage the decline, whereas the bleed of the extreme right into the mainstream right means their "solutions" can only accelerate the West's decline. What the Tories did to Britain during their 14 years in office made the country poorer, less productive, and weakened in the face of international competition. But the primacy of commercial and financial capital, and of capital over labour was asserted in the face of a new left and new demands placed on the state following a global pandemic - and that's what matters most. Across the sea, we see Trump dismantling the federal state. It might strengthen the American oligarchy domestically for a few years but it's only going to accelerate their decline as the world's economic and military leader over the long-term.

Badenoch talks piffle like the rest of them, but her politics are anchored in a class strategy and a class on a declinist trajectory. It's up to us - the left - to get our collective acts together and help the Tories and their ilk along the happy road to irrelevance.

Image Credit

9 comments:

  1. As an aside; the people behind this are religious fundamentalists. Philippa Stroud who leads it, and then Paul Marshall who provided much of the funding - with his ties to GBNews, the Spectator and the subject of quite comprehensive Prospect article: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65415/the-marshall-plan-paul-marshall-gb-news

    ReplyDelete
  2. In a period when a Labour Chancellor gives the go-ahead for a massive concrete pour in Greater London, while you can’t be sure of reaching Sheffield on time by rail from Manchester, I’m glad to see you give the nod to what is distributed to regions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I’m so angry about this I’d consider joining the CCP rail construction project.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that Western decadence is obvious, but I don't see the left putting forward a persuasive counter argument. It's mostly virtue signalling apologism for the root causes of that decadence. This theoretically offers long-term political success, although the prize may be substantially debased. The current strategy is to mitigate declining birth rates by subsidising uneconomic migration, particularly from the more backwards parts of the world, whilst making it taboo to comment of the backwardness or it's fundamental unviability, even that we should be more tolerant of the backwardness (well, at least when it comes to those backward people because they don't know any better) and the working class should feel some kind of faux-solidarity in subsidising this because, well, err, if it doesn't have faux-solidarity it doesn't have anything else.

    I wonder are the rising powers following this same winning strate

    ReplyDelete
  5. @kamo "Virtue-signalling apologism" is up there with "Tofu-eating wokerati" as a slogan. Virtue-signalling is used as an insult mainly by those on the right, presumably because lacking any virtue they would be incapable of signalling anything much at all, other than their own moral turpitude. Depravity-signaling is a feature of Trump, Musk and the rest of the neo-reactionary, neo-fascist, broligarch, ethno-obsessive, meta-populist feudo-regressive kakocrats seeking to return us to an imagined golden age of absolute rule by a clique of sociopaths - only with AI and Tech.

    As for your use of 'backward' as a euphemism for non-white, sadly typical of the Depravity-signaller. Look at me, a racist who believes I am part of a superior race that is being hindered by all these backward people coming over here and doing all the work we don't want to do (or can't). Bloody surgeons and engineers and care workers and builders and farm workers. How dare they! Don't they realise we could force our own underclass to do this sort of work (the care and farm stuff, obviously, not the clever stuff - that's for people like Kamo, God help us)! Even some of our soldiers are backward! I definitely saw some with a tint of backwardness recently. Where will it end?

    ReplyDelete
  6. «The process of value change has long been tracked by political science, which tends to attribute the growth of social liberalism to growing affluence, mass education, and demographic turnover. [...] The right can change to adapt to the rising and broadly liberal-left generations, or decline [...] instead of adapting to new circumstances, which previous Tory leaders have managed to do.»

    I will refer to the venerable Political Compass with their social vs political left/right and their classification of the parties in the 2024 general election: https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2024

    They put all 4 major parties in the upper right quadrant, being both politically and economically conservative. The socially liberal parties in the bottom socially liberal half took perhaps 5% of the votes. My guess is that while the Conservative Party is in a bad state, conservativism is still quite popular, especially economic conservativism.

    I feel confused by our bloggers arguments therefore as they seem to switch very easily between politics as interests (progressive/left or conservative/right economic policy) to politics as values (progressive or conservative social policy). Perhaps it is his arguments that are confused.

    I think a considerable complications is that in the past 2 decades right/conservative economic policy interests, and those “previous Tory leaders [who] have managed” to adapt (plus corporate HR, corporate executives, investor aligned media, investor sponsored politicians, ...) have strongly supported progressive values ("wokeism", "identity politics", LGBQT+, feminism, racialism, ...) because they have proven of great benefit to investors. It turned out that progressive social values help in splitting workers into identity groups rather than interest groups and in supporting the "disparate impact" argument that opposition to immigration and offshoring is "objectively" racist since most of the world outside the UK has "people of global majority" (that happen to have typical wages of 1/10th of UK ones).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. > They put all 4 major parties in the upper right quadrant, being both politically and economically conservative. The socially liberal parties in the bottom socially liberal half took perhaps 5% of the votes. My guess is that while the Conservative Party is in a bad state, conservativism is still quite popular, especially economic conservativism.

      You're confusing political sentiment with political representation.

      There are huge swathes of the population who have no political representation - that is, they don't feel that there is any party which they can vote for which has a chance of being elected. This situation is quite systematic, if not deliberate.

      Politics in a democracy is supposed to be open to anyone - but forming and running a party which is actually electable at even local scale, never mind national scale, tends to take quite serious MONEY, and connections. And so, the spread of major parties doesn't reflect the political sentiment of the majority of the population at all. It reflects the political sentiment of rich people.

      If you want to talk about the political will of the whole population - as opposed to the political will of only the sections of it that are considered sufficiently non-threatening to rich people - then quote social attitude studies, not analyses of parties.

      Until recently, of course, overt racists and sexists were among the systematically disenfranchised crowd. But political firewalls against overt racism and sexism are the weakest, since many rich people are overtly racist and sexist, even though they aren't nativist or xenophobic. When the favoured political ground of their class becomes untenable, the racists and sexists among the rich find opportunistic common cause with the nativists and xenophobes among the commoners.

      Delete
  7. «The problem is that as the "new" primary force of production are our brains, personalities, and sociability»

    That is an elegant way of saying that in periods of under-employment, when the economic activities mostly employ people in other countries, the traditional solution is for people to seek to become obsequious, zealous, genial servants, no longer house servants but shared servants: instead of a maid who goes shopping for the master a van driver who delivers the shopping to the master, instead of valet who goes to deal with some banking tasks for the master, a call centre operator deals with some banking tasks for the master, etc.

    It used to be that 30-40% of the workforce were servants, and that has happened again, and their pay is much the same as it was: enough to pay for board and lodging, plus some pocket money for clothes plus a few pints once a week.

    «the hold that workplace discipline has over us is also in long-term decline.»

    I hear that offshore employers are pretty harsh as to discipline, and domestic employers just blacklist any gig/minimum wage worker who dares to be uppity as "there is a long queue outside". The best disciplining tool employers have is that famous "reserve army":

    «It's obvious that if Western capitalism is to thrive in the new world of immaterial labour and growing Eastern dominance, it is by investing in its work force»

    Actually from what I have seen for the past 40 years western investors have been delighted to invest in offshore and immigrant workforces and consider native workforces not so necessary.

    For example recently a nearly bankrupt large university wanted to close their nursing school: there is very little funding and demand for training native nurses because it is much cheaper to hire nurses trained at the expense of foreign taxpayers and there is a very large supply of them. Same for doctors:

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/feb/09/britain-needs-to-double-the-number-of-doctors-it-trains
    “Last year 59% of new registrations in England had been trained by other countries, writes Prof Rachel Jenkins [...] The number of medical student training places in the UK needs to double. This should not be as expensive to Treasury as feared”

    Those "people of global majority" are not inferior to native UK workers as to “brains, personalities, and sociability” and have zero training costs and require lower labor costs. A win-win!

    ReplyDelete
  8. You've missed a key driver of the decline in "Conservative" sentiment among the general population in the West.

    After wage growth was decoupled from GDP growth by the newly ascendant neoliberal orthodoxy in the 1970s, and ever since, politics has been all about distraction. For the first few decades this came in the form of offering social change, via stampeding advances in consumer technology and social liberalism, to make sure that the middle classes failed to notice and chafe at their worsening relative material circumstances. In short, enormous concessions by the ruling class on the social political axis were traded for enormous concessions by the other classes on the economic political axis. The former was allowed to surge left so that the latter could surge right - the new elite orthodoxy having decided that they cared a lot about funneling all of the real wealth and power upwards, and didn't really care that much about regimenting the population.

    It worked fantastically well, and created a mass movement of social liberalism at the same time as exponential wealth inequality. But then the inevitable bubble burst came in 2008. The neoliberal order had to change their distraction game in order to cling onto power.

    Since then it's been all about divide and rule for the neolibs: ensuring that the social gains of their era, for the masses, are politically welded to the masses' economic losses, such that neither can be preserved in isolation. The more animalistic 50% of the population were encouraged to believe that their worsening lot was due to the leftwards social change rather than the rightward economic change. They duly formed an angry reactionary mass, threatening to roll back all of the social progress; at which point the other 50% of the population were asked, repeatedly, to defend the new economic status quo in order to defend their newfound social freedoms. Any political force which might offer the preservation of the social gains, without preservation of the economic losses, was systematically suppressed as an absolute priority.

    And that worked too... For a few years, and not very well at all. Because the dumber 50% obediently coalesced into a fanatical death cult, but the other 50% began to lose interest very quickly in playing this new game.

    The writing was on the wall as soon as Trump became the Republican candidate in 2016 and failed to suffer an obliterating loss. But the neoliberals don't appear to have a plan C. Having ceded control of the right wing parties to agents of pure reactionary populism, the only thing that they seem able to do is to keep hoping that as long as they maintain iron control of the "left" parties, the increasingly horrifying reactionary bogeyman will eventually scare their voters into line again - which won't happen, because not being inclined to fall into lines is the defining feature of those voters! They've committed themselves to playing chicken against a solid wall. The only possible end result is that they'll be absolutely replaced as the ruling orthodoxy, by those upstart malcontent elites who positioned themselves to hold the reins of the far right beast. Even if incompetence from Trump 2.0 grants the Democrats another turn in the White House and lack of opposition grants Labour another term on the government benches, if their direction of travel doesn't change, then it's merely a stay of execution.

    In short... With the socially liberal majority - that was deliberately created by the neoliberals, in order to cover their heist - having been subsequently deprived by them of any viable political representation, in order to hold onto the loot which they stole; power will fall to the only coherent political force which remains. Monsters, that is, riding on the anger of the cast-offs who fell through the cracks of the neoliberal era. Now is the time of monsters indeed.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are under moderation.