SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by Arik
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.
Tikkum Olam ("Mend the world"), all of you.
Especially you, Ethanol ;)
-Arik Yehuda (the Lion of Judah.)
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.)
Left and right is wrong, but why is that important?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 31 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without
your help.
-- Miss Manners
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday August 20 2018, @09:36AM (3 children)
Nice start, but which of the nine tribes are you the lion of, in particular? There are very basic disagreements about very basic belief about the nature of the universe, of society, and of the individual that separate right and left, but as you point out so well, these are rarely laid out in a clear manner. Please proceed to do so, and I will assist when and how ever I can.
Axiom One: Individual humans are individual. True or False?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:01AM (2 children)
Your message seems best parsed in reverse.
"Axiom One: Individual humans are individual. True or False? "
Obviously true, to the point of trivially true. It's so true that by making an issue of it you make me wonder if we're using words the same way.
"There are very basic disagreements about very basic belief about the nature of the universe, of society, and of the individual that separate right and left, but as you point out so well, these are rarely laid out in a clear manner. Please proceed to do so, and I will assist when and how ever I can."
I'm not so sure there really are differences on the deepest levels you touch, epistemological, fundamentally existential issues. There might be, I haven't really thought about it recently, but I don't actually think so. However as to the place of the individual in relation to society? I don't think that's really a right and left issue either, that's more of an authoritarian vs liberal issue, and I'm not sure even that is really quite what it is either. There's a sort of a deep organic divide there, again, where ultimately one has to acknowledge that both are true and both are compelling, and try to find ways to harmonize rather than choose.
"which of the nine tribes are you the lion of, in particular?"
Oh, that wasn't intended to be taken so seriously, frankly. I'm not a tribal, I'm the mixed descendant of many tribes (as we all are, should our stories be known.) If you want a serious answer I'd have to say the human tribe. But, again, it was a joking jibe, not a serious claim.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:39AM (1 child)
I would recommend some Hegel here. With the caveat that this will lead you into leftist thought (Marxism). Hegel used dialectic, a logical progression where something goes from what it is, to being what it is not, and returning to itself with the benefit of perspective. Hegel believed in the motive force of contradictions.
For humans, Hegel says they start in the condition of Sittlichkeit, or naive morality where of course you belong to a tribe. But then there arises, in contradiction to that communal morality, the idea of individuality, the notion of rights, self-interest, Rationalitat, or the realm of "civil society" as the British theorists conceive of it. But this two is superseded when the individual chooses freely to be a part of a whole, and renounced the naked self-interest of capitalist civil society. So to be a real individual, you have to first not be one, then be an extreme one, and finally, break on through to the other side where you are both.
Hope this helps.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:51AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @10:32AM
There's nothing liberal [lawteacher.net] about the modern left, they are Marxist authoritarians.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @01:07PM (9 children)
Bolsheviks and fascists are socialists, the individual is a slave to the state. This keeps anarchists and right leaning independent people in check. Politics are slave to finance, and finance is rule by money and those ruling by money want any other alternative system of value to be destroyed or submitted.
There is no political way out of this. Possibly, an energy breakthrough with the creator smart enough not to try to make money out of it within the system (ending up like Tesla) would change things, but people would also need to wake up to the conditioning they are under.
The conditioning affects the capitalists, but also the communists. Thanks to the careful construction of Marx, communists are more materialistic than the rest. They are not against the capital. They are against one distribution of it. They want a fairer distribution of it, which is commendable in some situations, and unjust in others. But definitely they are slaves to the system all the same.
Society is for man, money is for man, not the other way round.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 20 2018, @02:19PM (8 children)
This is a common misconception among Americans, confusion socialism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism. There was a good website called www.politicalcompass.org which had a two dimensional graph as Arik suggested.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 4, Informative) by turgid on Monday August 20 2018, @02:24PM
And the correct link: https://www.politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org]. Beware there's a highly dodgy one with a slight misspelling of the URL.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @07:06PM (2 children)
No, it's a common misconception to people who've drank the Marxist Kool-Aid. Every socialist regime begins or becomes totalitarian - every single one!
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 20 2018, @08:13PM (1 child)
All regimes (left or right) tend towards totalitarianism in the absence of a healthy, open, free multi-party democracy.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @09:59PM
Socialist regimes are totalitarianism. [econlib.org] The is real danger in granting excessive power to the state, that's why Lassalle's Nachtwächterstaat (intended as smear against liberalism) is what many educated people aspire to.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @08:10PM (3 children)
Socialism isn't totalitarianism and authoritarianism, but socialism can't exist without totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
You can have totalitarianism and authoritarianism without socialism, which would be slightly weird. You can't do things the other way though, having socialism without totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
The reason is that socialism requires that people act in the interest of the state, rather than following their own self-interest. This will not happen except under threat of violence.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Monday August 20 2018, @08:12PM (1 child)
So, patriots are socialists?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @08:58PM
No but blind, unquestioning patriotism is just as dangerous.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:03AM
There are plenty of criticisms of it and it may not be particularly workable but claiming it doesn't exist is just ignorant.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday August 20 2018, @02:47PM (1 child)
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ [politicalcompass.org]
It really isn't just left or right. Click the link, take the test, and find out where you are on the spectrum.
FYI - I lean left on this scale, and I'm somewhat authoritarian. And, no, I'm not far from "center" on either axis.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:06AM
I've consistently scored as a left-libertarian on it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Monday August 20 2018, @07:02PM (1 child)
The enemy's gate is down.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:30PM
Send in the horse, or perhaps a large wooden badger, . . .
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Monday August 20 2018, @07:57PM (2 children)
When the strong dominate the weak, is that liberal and conservative? Because it's the "natural" order of things? Is it authoritarian because one group is imposing their will on another? Or is it radical because it goes against established ideas of human rights and equality under the law?
Or to be more specific, where is the ideological breakdown concerning activities such as these: corporations giving unlimited money to politicians, mass surveillance and data mining, "humanitarian" wars, fractional reserve banking
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 20 2018, @11:11PM
You think it's always the biggest, strongest or most aggressive chimp that leads the troop? [independent.co.uk]
Yes. The question should be if it's morally justifiable, locking up criminals for example.
Upending the social order is "radical" but does it end well?
These aren't ideas or necessarily indicative of authoritarianism. Fractional reserve banking is not like the others, it's fraud.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:11AM
That's one of the challenges of human existence. To bring those things together.
Might without right is tyranny and terror. Right without might is impotent.
https://youtu.be/unBdquVfnug?t=50s
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Tara Li on Tuesday August 21 2018, @02:22PM (4 children)
One presentation of the idea in this topic (presented in _Tom Paine Maru_, if I recall correctly) is that it is a triangle. Democracy is maternalistic. Autocracy (dictatorships, oligarchies, etc.) tend to be paternalistic. Libertarianism is individualistic, with self-discipline being the guiding principle. Of course, the educational system has been sabotaging that for quite some time. It'll take vast improvements in the educational system before we're ready for libertarianism, realistically.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday August 21 2018, @03:48PM (1 child)
Alas - Americans have no experience with working education systems. Can our current indoctrination system be converted over?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by Tara Li on Tuesday August 21 2018, @07:14PM
Perhaps. Probably not, though, I fear. The rise in home schooling gives me some hope, but even that is strongly affected by state and national standards, and companies selling pre-built curricula and components for that curricula.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 21 2018, @08:34PM
But to keep to the analogy, if Democracy is Maternalistic, and Authoritarianism is Paternalistic (Autocracy does not mean what you think it means), then obviously Libertarianism is childish?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:13AM
"Of course, it will take dramatic improvements in politics before we'll be able to make any improvements to the educational system."
Catch-22.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by quietus on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:59PM
Words, as labels, are not innocent.
They close your mind off, and you give a prime example of it, yourself, in one of the previous para's:
You might be interested in reading Heinz Rein's Berlin Finale [schoeffling.de].
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday August 28 2018, @04:52AM (1 child)
Because if left and right are engaged in a fierce battle, there's nobody to take care about the dick in between (or above/below) them.
Is this what you're saying?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday September 06 2018, @08:16AM
Left and right are a scam.
Like any good scam, they're not entirely false, not entirely invented.
But they're still a scam. Quit watching the Man's lips and catch his hand in your pocket.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by pinchy on Wednesday September 05 2018, @10:58AM
You should read thomas sowells book "A conflict of visions"