I think we're all aware by this point, in a sort of vague sense, that left and right as defining characteristics of political ideology isn't right. But is this really important? Or is it a mostly meaningless technicality?
There are decent arguments in both directions. Left and right, imperfect and imprecise as they are, are not complete nonsense. Realizing that is relatively new for me, and you could say that's the reason for the entry itself. For decades, I thought "this is complete nonsense" and I was mystified that it got traction. Just goes to prove how powerful control of the media/education/military/industrial/government complex is... well no. Not entirely.
There's something deeper here. As inaccurate as left and right are, they are accurate at a level, a particular level that is, shall we say, very close to the gut?
But it's not really an ideological or political divide this corresponds to, it's a *psychological* divide. The left is more psychologically open, to both good and bad influences, the right more suspicious of both sorts of outside influence.
So there is some truth to it, and some rational reason for people to cling to it.
But it's still, essentially, nuts. You need a minimum of two dimensions to make the slightest sense of politics *qua politics*. Right and left, as commonly presented here in the USA, conflates separate poles that have nothing to do with each other. Left is "liberal" but liberal has been a dirty word since they crucified Carter (pbuphn.) And the actual left has virtually no one left that's actually noticeably liberal in any way. Right is 'conservative' but conservative is not the opposite of liberal; and the right-wing party hasn't been noticeably more conservative than the left-wing party in decades anyway.
So let's set 2 dimensions, that means 4 poles. Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian, conservative is the opposite of radical. I know, not a new thought, Nolan will sue me, but at least my labels are correct. What we actually have is two extremely authoritarian parties, one slightly radical and the other extremely radical. There are no liberals, nor conservatives, allowed space on the field at all.
Trump is currently the closest thing that is permitted to exist, per the mainstream media. And they're outraged that he exists. He's not very liberal at all, but there's only maybe 3 or 4 congresscritters to his 'left' in the classical sense in all of Washington!
He's not very conservative either, though I'd think about twice that many congresscritters could flank him there.
As there are ~550 congresscritters, this is a very depressing statistic for a conservative, or a liberal, let alone someone like myself who is tending towards both positions.
And why is this all important? Because as long as they can focus on this artificial division, between ostensibly 'liberal' progressives (whose actual positions range from radical liberal to radical authoritarian, with a heavy bias towards the latter) and ostensibly 'conservative' fascists (whose actual position, in my terms, would range from conservative liberal to conservative authoritarian, with a heavy bias towards the latter *in leadership* but not necessarily in the rank and file) the authentic liberal positions are systematically marginalized and made invisible.
The game is to keep the liberals split, with conservative liberals in one party and radical liberals in the other party - while both parties remain safely under control of authoritarians.
And this is why it's important. Because if there is any alternative to dystopia, it must be for the conservative liberals and the radical liberals to unite and overthrow our common oppressors - the authoritarians, the authoritarian mind, and all that resembles it.
We can't do that while we're busy dividing up into right-tribe and left-tribe. We can't do that while we're smacking each other in the head with bike-locks to impress our particular oppressors and curry favor with our tribe.
We can't be human beings while we are slaves to these distorted images of tribes that never really existed to begin with.
Left and right is wrong, but why is that important?
There are decent arguments in both directions. Left and right, imperfect and imprecise as they are, are not complete nonsense. Realizing that is relatively new for me, and you could say that's the reason for the entry itself. For decades, I thought "this is complete nonsense" and I was mystified that it got traction. Just goes to prove how powerful control of the media/education/military/industrial/government complex is... well no. Not entirely.
There's something deeper here. As inaccurate as left and right are, they are accurate at a level, a particular level that is, shall we say, very close to the gut?
But it's not really an ideological or political divide this corresponds to, it's a *psychological* divide. The left is more psychologically open, to both good and bad influences, the right more suspicious of both sorts of outside influence.
So there is some truth to it, and some rational reason for people to cling to it.
But it's still, essentially, nuts. You need a minimum of two dimensions to make the slightest sense of politics *qua politics*. Right and left, as commonly presented here in the USA, conflates separate poles that have nothing to do with each other. Left is "liberal" but liberal has been a dirty word since they crucified Carter (pbuphn.) And the actual left has virtually no one left that's actually noticeably liberal in any way. Right is 'conservative' but conservative is not the opposite of liberal; and the right-wing party hasn't been noticeably more conservative than the left-wing party in decades anyway.
So let's set 2 dimensions, that means 4 poles. Liberal is the opposite of authoritarian, conservative is the opposite of radical. I know, not a new thought, Nolan will sue me, but at least my labels are correct. What we actually have is two extremely authoritarian parties, one slightly radical and the other extremely radical. There are no liberals, nor conservatives, allowed space on the field at all.
Trump is currently the closest thing that is permitted to exist, per the mainstream media. And they're outraged that he exists. He's not very liberal at all, but there's only maybe 3 or 4 congresscritters to his 'left' in the classical sense in all of Washington!
He's not very conservative either, though I'd think about twice that many congresscritters could flank him there.
As there are ~550 congresscritters, this is a very depressing statistic for a conservative, or a liberal, let alone someone like myself who is tending towards both positions.
And why is this all important? Because as long as they can focus on this artificial division, between ostensibly 'liberal' progressives (whose actual positions range from radical liberal to radical authoritarian, with a heavy bias towards the latter) and ostensibly 'conservative' fascists (whose actual position, in my terms, would range from conservative liberal to conservative authoritarian, with a heavy bias towards the latter *in leadership* but not necessarily in the rank and file) the authentic liberal positions are systematically marginalized and made invisible.
The game is to keep the liberals split, with conservative liberals in one party and radical liberals in the other party - while both parties remain safely under control of authoritarians.
And this is why it's important. Because if there is any alternative to dystopia, it must be for the conservative liberals and the radical liberals to unite and overthrow our common oppressors - the authoritarians, the authoritarian mind, and all that resembles it.
We can't do that while we're busy dividing up into right-tribe and left-tribe. We can't do that while we're smacking each other in the head with bike-locks to impress our particular oppressors and curry favor with our tribe.
We can't be human beings while we are slaves to these distorted images of tribes that never really existed to begin with.
Tikkum Olam ("Mend the world"), all of you.
Especially you, Ethanol ;)
-Arik Yehuda (the Lion of Judah.)
Post Comment