Karl Marx’s famous declaration—inscribed on his tomb and drawn from his Theses on Feuerbach—reads: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Yet this call to action, once revolutionary, may have outlived its usefulness. In its place, Continuism, an emerging philosophy, offers a different proposition: the point is not necessarily to change the world, but to preserve what is worth keeping.
As someone untrained in philosophy, I cannot assess the theoretical merits of Marx’s ideas. But I can observe their real-world consequences. Marxist Communism, second only to Christianity in its global influence, has been extraordinarily successful in changing the world—invariably for the worse.
Wherever Marxism has been implemented, the results have been catastrophic. Vast regions of Eastern Europe and the Far East fell under its sway, yielding brutal regimes, agricultural collapse, mass starvation, and economic ruin. The two great communist powers, Russia and China, only began to prosper after abandoning Marxist economics—though both retain oppressive one-party rule. China’s economic success stems from embracing capitalism, not communism, while Russia remains mired in authoritarianism.
It is staggering that the musings of a single philosopher could inspire such misery, slaughter, and systemic failure. The revolutions Marx inspired invariably elevated psychopathic elites while impoverishing the very people they claimed to liberate.
In an era where radical ideologies have brought chaos, Continuism advocates caution, continuity, and preservation. It is not a call for stagnation, but for evaluating change carefully—retaining what works, discarding only what doesn’t, and avoiding disruption for its own sake.
Some might argue that conservatism already fills this role. But modern conservatism, particularly in its post-Thatcher iterations, has strayed far from Edmund Burke’s vision of prudent, gradual reform. Today, both major political parties (in the UK and elsewhere) are indistinguishable in their relentless cycle of policy reversals, achieving little beyond instability.
My introduction to Continuism came through an article by Dr Niall McCrae. Unlike ‘political continuism’ (where leaders cling to power undemocratically) or ‘continuationism’ (a theological concept), Continuism is a philosophy of human continuity—carrying forward what defines and sustains us.
It is not ideological, not revolutionary, and not tied to any religion or political faction. People of any belief or affiliation can embrace it, though its emphasis on preservation may resonate more with small-c conservatives than socialists.
Launched in 2025, the Continuism website, edited by David Fleming offers accessible explanations of the philosophy. At its core, Continuism is about ensuring humanity’s survival by safeguarding its best qualities. It does not reject change outright but insists that any proposed change must prove necessary, beneficial, and minimally disruptive.
If this sounds like common sense, that’s because it is. Yet institutions—whether universities, the NHS, or corporations—are addicted to pointless upheaval.
Universities oscillate between decentralisation and recentralisation, wasting resources and destabilising staff.
The NHS has cycled through endless reorganisations, reinventing the same structures under new names.
Leaders are rarely hired to maintain stability—they are expected to “make their mark” through reforms, even when past changes caused the problems they now seek to fix.
How much better would it be if institutions evaluated changes soberly, retaining what works and altering only what must?
Continuism is not a political movement. There is no Continuist Party, no donations to make, no manifesto to follow. Instead, it is a framework for thoughtful evolution—one that values tradition, stability, and incremental improvement.
It must operate at three levels:
- Personal – Individuals applying its principles in daily life.
- Institutional – Organizations resisting change for change’s sake.
- Political – Governments prioritising long-term stability over short-term upheaval.
It may be utopian to imagine Continuism uniting everyone—or providing answers all will agree on. But unlike Marxism, it has not yet been tried and failed. Perhaps it is time we did.
Roger Watson is a retired academic, editor and writer. He is a columnist with Unity News Network and writes regularly for a range of conservative journals including The Salisbury Review and The European Conservative. He has travelled and worked extensively in the Far East and the Middle East. He lives in Kingston upon Hull, UK.
This piece was first published in Country Squire Magazine, and is reproduced by kind permission.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Sounds a bit wet to me, genuine reform of literally everything (never attempted before in the UK) is required and long overdue. Not the pathetic tinkering and U turns of the establishment parties. The only viable alternative to that is Libertarianism, which would require a different mindset for almost everyone.
”It is staggering that the musings of a single philosopher could inspire such misery, slaughter, and systemic failure.”
The musings of a certain self-proclaimed ‘prophet’ have inspired equal misery, slaughter and systemic failure.
Don’t the Marxists, when questioned about the trail of destruction and failures in their wake, nearly always, attempt to justify that destruction, by stating that Marxism is a work in progress.