Conservatism of Edmund Burke — Richard Bourke

Historian Richard Bourke on the French Revolution, Marxism-Leninism, and the defense of liberty

[abeaboud]

Most western conservative thinkers (Thomas Sowell and Roger Scruton for example) do not view conservatism as acceptance of the status quo or a refusal to progress. They understand that progress and change are the way of the universe. They do however regard radical change that doesn't take into account subtle complexities, human nature, and other constraints as folly. That leads them to be cautious and fearful of bloodbaths and collapse into darker situations. Sowell explains this in "Conflict of Visions" and "Marxism".

[vincentvoelz]

By Aristotle logic: “we are what we repeatedly do”.
As Burke did conserve what was best in society and was open to new improvements, that makes him a conservative.

[conservativeminds]

Conservatism respects the 'specific and bold moral rule' created throughout whole human history, and, if necessary, chooses to innovate yet does not rebel.

[andreassalomonsson]

Is it just me or is it funny that Bourke is talking about Burke

[themeadowlarkminutewithpau]

Hierarchies form naturally whether we like them or not. Look at the animal world. They should be functional and fair, but not stagnant. Trying to pretend like we can eliminate them is as foolish as trying to eliminate gravity.

[themeangene]

Conservatism is about retaining the lessons of the past while innovating very carefully.

The modern world needs a little bit more conservatism.

[theicyridge]

The irony that conservatism is a new movement is marvelous.

[moyathekilljoy]

this was actually a good explanation and it made me reconsider Burke as less of the big old privileged fart he was and yk i actually began to see his point of view outside of my modern political understanding

[RebeccaRonDaraf]

Thank you for this very understandable explanation of conservatism, I probably watched 5 videos and read 3 essays on the subject and still could not understand. Until now!

[TehMuNjA]

i find the line in the thumbnail "why is a revolution a self-destroying power?" very misleading... Bourke does not say anything about "revolution" generally, only about The French Revolution in particular, nor do I think this claim of self-destruction is even asserted by Bourke, he only clarifies why the 18th century thinker Burke considered the French Revolution self-defeating, the video is mainly about being mindful of Marxist views of history that many today seem to have around the French Revolution and the complications of understanding old political thought in terms of modern concepts like conservatism

[freesiaaleah]

3:15 arguments
1. Western Settlement
2. Communist Movement
3. serves as the stepping stone for comprehensive proletarian world revolution)

5:16 Burke "the attempt to
1. Parliamentary Monarchy had no durable foundation should have elements
a. Intermediary ranks in the society
b. System of Property
c. Authority

5:57 Important part

6:41 emphasis to opposition of Burke

6:53 event; stand in public
Defense w two principles
1. Liberty
2.

[ThiagoCorbari]

This is amazing. It's clearly a leftist approach on Burke's work, but we do not have this in Brazil anymore. The leftist philosophy is so predominant in the universities and society in general that we developted a lazy type of "intellectuals", a kind that has a very "strict diet" and do not need to confront any different ideas. Take this Corona crisis as an example. We were talking about diminishing the State before it stroke, but as soon as it came, they abbandon this proposal, showing, in truth, that nobody here really has liberty as a principle, and we're now talking about a "Marshall plan for the Economy", "taxing the rich" and "universal basic income", the shocking part about this is that the elected Government and Parliament supposed to be a "Right wing" one.

[LiamSGue]

I think something few understand about Burke is not that he is opposed wholesale to change or, more specifically, to reform. Rather, he sees those as necessary in order to preserve institutions, nations, traditions, etc. What he opposed was taking a rotten structure, blowing up its foundations, and trying to construct something entirely new that ends up being worse.

[TheInfamousHoreldo]

Look at this comment section <3

How refreshing on YouTube. I am home.

[_studios]

Summary:
Burke was reacting the the turbulence of the French Revolution.

(6:56) Burke is associated with two principles:
- Right to resist illegitimate gov't (but only under extreme conditions)
- Liberty (which has preconditions for its security)
Burke defends a notion of legitimate authority to secure liberty of the people.

(8:19) Burke was seen as defending authority, which had two main components:
- Authority is legitimate insofar that is has popular consent.
- Authority is entrenched in what we call "tradition" or "history."

Readers often conflate Burke's argument with the defense of any & all sources of authority (and their traditions).
Burke did not defend tradition "at all costs;" he argues for tradition as subservient to individual freedoms and rights.
Tradition is a means of protecting rights, but rights were more fundamental than tradition.

Thesis: Rights > tradition. Tradition is conditional.

(10:20) Afterthoughts:
Burke supports some for of tradition in his critique of the French Revolution, so it is fair to call him conservative with our modern categories. However, it is not fair to say that Burke pushed for a conservatism that defended tradition for its own sake. One should also note that "conservatism" as a political term did not exist in Burke's time.

Furthermore, every ideology seeks to conserve something eventually, whether they are left or right leaning politically. Every long-term political project will eventually establish its own traditions. Therefore, "conservatism" is often a self-defeating label when viewed over time.

[e.jenima]

When i was younger (like moste idelaists) i thought the freanch revolution was a good thing WRONG! when u study the aftermath of revolution the effects of it on a society are in both the long or short term never good. After the revolution in france you had the Terror which in 1 year was reponseable for the sluaghter of 55, 000 pepole., then for a while there was unstability, then napolion took power but was himself nothing more than a dictatore, then finally the royals were restored but only for about 25 years . in short Revolution allmost allways never works out well and cuases more damage than good.

[nelsongonzalez]

Progressive conservatives, neoliberals and neoliberalism, socialists democrats, Communists, neoconservatives, anarchists, Christian democrats, they are come from different ideologies and human thoughts and beliefs and hopes for the future. It's us against them. It reflects that we all differ in life about how things should be done ✅...some believe in constant change and others that we should preserve the status quo and protect it.

[bchapman]

What Burke objected to was the French belief that they could create a more just society de novo. Liberty Equality Fraternity is not a blue print for a more just society but ideals that needed to be grounded in rights and traditions which are handed to us through long developments towards them.

[jameslabs]

After listening to this I learned, .. Anyone from the past can be interpreted in any way, to suit the needs of contemporary wishes. Thanks

[sirnilsolav]

The idea of conservatism as simply an adherence to the Status Quo is a view most conservatives reject. The fundemental ideas of conservatism are things like:
1. Organic view of society
2. Human Nature as having both virtious and sinful aspects
3. Empericism rather than rationalism as foundation for political actions.

The idea that "rights" are more important than these things is what Burke rejects. To say he thinks rights trump tradition would just make him a liberal of the French sort. Rather, Burke believes that the only method upon establishing rights is by recognising the ideas and values mentioned above.

From these ideas that make up any conservative thinking and the problems conservatives have with liberalism. For example, conservatives see humans as social beings who need community rather than as pure individuals. Individualism is good, but only as long as the need for community and social interaction is recognised.
It also means that hierarchy is seen as something good but needs to function properly were due honour is given to all members of the hierarchy. The call for more equality never manages to dismantle hierarchy, but it just leads to a new hierarchy without the same sense of nobless obliege and honouring towards the organic society.
The view of Human Nature as having sinful and virtious aspects is why conservatives believe you need good institutions in order to keep human beings in check so that something like the desire to have sexual intercourse confines itself within marriage for example.
This is also why religion is so valued because religion and belief in God recognises not only that mankind is broken and cannot save itself and need to repent and try as best they can to act according to good virtious and duties, but it also recognises hierarchy. God is the Creator and King that humanity should humbly honour and worship.
And the reason conservatives say that tradition is of value is because it based on empericism of what has survived throughout the centuries, though changed, means that getting rid of it is not good for stability.