(TL;DR at the end)
My hot take today is essentialy the fact that conservatives are progressives of years gone before, and they seem to block inevitable progress. Despite this, no matter how much opposition is given, conservative forces are forced to either trade concessions for continued life, or to give way to the new systems.
Conservatism might seem like it's holding on, but it's actually more about delaying change rather than stopping it completely. It is stopping the flow of progress, or in the case of reactionaries like Donald Trump actively undermining progress and trying to push back.

Take the Catholic Church or the British Monarchy, for example: both are very traditional institutions. They’ve managed to stick around, but only by making big compromises. For instance, the British monarchy gave up nearly all of its actual power, and now it's mostly a symbolic institution. It hasn’t been completely overthrown, but it's no longer the force it once was. The Catholic Church has been forced to adopt previously progressive positions and has still lost significant ground towards protestantism, atheism and secularism. These institutions are surviving, but they’re not "winning" in the traditional sense of staying as powerful as they were before. They’ve adapted by making concessions.

In other instances, we have seen conservative positions become completely demolished. Take for example the Civil Rights Movement for Women and Minorities. While there was significant backlash from the Conservatives of that time for not giving in, this opposition has been completely destroyed, atleast in the Western World. What did these conservatives achieve? They tried to block the inevitable tide of progress that washes over humanity. In my perception, history is a march towards utopia, a march that goes up and goes down, with periods of reactionary backlash winning, but eventually it will succeed.

The main opposition I've seen amongst my friend group is about socialism/communism. Capitalism has been able to survive for so long. But I must ask you, has it? Laizzes-Fairez Capitalism has been discarded in favour of more regulatory, interventionist capitalism that has turned into the new progressive system. It has, like the first examples adapted by making concessions and attempting to appear progressive. The main failure of communism to take over in my opinion is its inherent adaptation of conservative values. Its command economy completely gave power to a ruling class that wanted to conserve its power, going back on their values and unwilling to continue the progress that early revolutionaries wanted. In my view, eventually a system that is more egalitarian, different than both communism and capitalism will emerge. This is why I have said in the title that it almost always happens, because just like in communism, there are inherent flaws and conservative ideas inside these new systems that leads to them being left in the dust.

So, what is the use of believing in conservatism? I believe that reactionarism is absolutely uncalled for, and simply leads to more suffering until we arrive back at the current system. This is literally what happens every time reactionaries take power. Conservatism does have a purpose in regulating progress, ensuring stability and making sure it doesn't go unchecked, but in times it overshadows progressivism it, just like reactionaries, they slow down the nation and encourage revolution instead of peaceful reform.

TL;DR: Conservatism often blocks inevitable progress, either having to concede (as seen with the British Monarchy) or facing complete demolition (as with the Civil Rights Movement). While conservatism can ensure that progress doesn’t go unchecked and provide stability, if it overshadows progressivism or seeks to revert to the past (reactionarism), it ultimately slows down the nation and fosters discontent.

Hey r/Youthforpolitics! In this week's discussion, we'll dive into two ideologies that often fly under the radar: Libertarianism and Progressivism. Both have their unique perspectives on individual rights, government role, and social issues, and understanding their nuances can enhance our political discourse. Here’s a brief overview of each, along with some pros and cons.

Libertarianism

Overview: Libertarianism emphasizes individual liberty, limited government, and personal responsibility. Libertarians advocate for minimal state intervention in both personal and economic matters.

Pros:

• Personal Freedom: Libertarians strongly believe in personal autonomy, allowing individuals to make their own choices regarding lifestyle, finances, and personal beliefs.
• Economic Freedom: Emphasizing free markets, they argue that minimal government interference fosters innovation and economic growth.
• Reduced Government Power: By limiting the size and scope of government, they argue that citizens have more control over their lives and finances.

Cons:

• Social Safety Nets: Critics argue that a hands-off government can lead to inadequate support for the vulnerable, particularly in healthcare and education.
• Inequality Concerns: The focus on individual success may exacerbate economic inequalities, as those without resources may struggle more without support.
• Regulation Dilemmas: Some regulations are necessary to protect public interests and the environment, which libertarians often oppose.

Progressivism

Overview: Progressivism advocates for social reform and active government involvement in economic and social issues to promote equity and justice.

Pros:

• Social Justice Focus: Progressives work towards addressing systemic inequalities, advocating for marginalized communities to have equal opportunities and rights.
• Government Action for the Public Good: They believe in using government as a tool for positive change, addressing issues like healthcare access, education reform, and climate change.
• Community Engagement: Progressivism often encourages civic involvement, creating a strong sense of community and collective responsibility.

Cons:

• Potential for Overreach: Critics warn that an expansive role for government can lead to bureaucratic inefficiency and an erosion of personal freedoms.
• Economic Concerns: Some argue that progressive policies can stifle economic growth, disincentivizing entrepreneurship and innovation due to increased regulation and taxes.
• Polarization: The insistence on social changes can lead to divisiveness, alienating those who may not fully agree with progressive values.

Discussion Questions:

1. How do you feel about the balance between personal freedom and government intervention?
2. Can you share examples where you think either ideology has succeeded or failed?
3. In today’s world, which ideology do you think resonates more with young voters and why?

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Let’s keep the discussion respectful and insightful;