The Essence of Leftist and Rightist Ideologies

[Zerubbabel]

Essence literally to be, is the one element about some thing that if it were changed the thing would cease to exist.  For example enlightenment ideals such as Laissez-faire economics were the position of the Left against the Right’s defense of monarchy (see Edmund Burke as the first apologist of the Right). Those positions have inverted and now the Left are the statists against the Right’s defense of individual liberties. While these political positions have changed, the Left and Right still remain. 

 

Ideology as I use it here, is a sort of axiomatic premise held with conviction that may even seem to be innate to the holder. It is an overarching view (the root of idea is to see) of the world through which all other ideas and events are filtered, colored or judged. It is the greater ideology through which lesser ideologies are subjective. There is the idea that is influenced, there is the idea that influences. This relationship can occur at many levels. To find it’s essence we seek to find that highest level of idea which no other idea influences … or a ‘first principle.’

 

The true essence will be able to explain this ideological hierarchy, not only of current political positions, but also the evolution of these ideologies’ expression through history. Here are the essences: 

 

>>>The Right seeks principled means.  The Left seeks perfect ends.<<<

 

The Rightist first principle can express itself in the chivalric code (family, nationalism) or in adherence to religious principles (Feuerbach states, rightly IMO, that we created God as the repository of our highest principles), or most recently in the principles of individual liberty.

 

The Leftist first principle has expressed itself first in the enlightenment, then romanticism (the  reaction against the enlightenment’s child - industrialization), then anarchism - communism - socialism (communism light) - all different paths to utopia, and all using principles only as ad hoc means to an end.

[shirgall]

Unfortunately this is tantamount to politics by bumper sticker.

 

It's easier if you think about the Latin.

 

Left -> Sinister

Right -> Dexter

 

You get either the devil or a serial killer.

 

The real answer is that giving in to the "left/right" dichotomy surrenders you to a narrow view of political thought that looks like a number line. There are an incredible number of political points of view. Instead, call things what they are.

[ParaSait]

How about: the left are proud slaves to the state, the right are proud slaves to religion.

[PGP]

Interesting. I've thought about the FDR line of thinking as the opposite of the "the ends justify the means" truism, namely that " the means justify the ends". I think it comes down to whether merit and free association and ones actions constitute a basis for how society can self-organise. I see this as dynamic and flexible in that whatever the challenges at any one particular time, the individual that adapts and can solve challenges creatively will thrive.

The leftist position IMO is a kind of religion with a concept of the equality akin to the soul. All are equal therefore all outcomes should be equal. Any deviation from this is due to inequality and this is discrimination. In the "economic-cycle" that has developed, governments are always fighting the previous downturn while trying to have equal outcomes via welfare. The static nature of this system ensures the next "downturn" and on and on.

In terms of systems I have come to view the former as steady state of equilibrium with winners and losers and creaion and destruction, the latter a system where the transition state swings on a pendulum from austerity to prosperity. The current situation with QE etc is using extreme methods to hold the transition state in prosperity, but the system will always correct. The communists take human nature out of the equation altogether and view everything as a plan to be made and carried out. This is just another way of holding the equilibrium in a fixed position that will eventually correct. 

A thought that came to yesterday was: If you are living your life to a recipe, what are you? Is not creativity the fundamental human higher aspiration? Is the problem with life that there are too few challenges that require creativity? Uncertainty begets creativity. In the absence of uncertainty, we create it in order to necessitate creativity.

I think this links in with the previous stuff: there can never be a utopia, nor can people bear a utopia. Without uncertainty and the necessity for creativity, what's the fucking point?

[Zerubbabel]

 I've thought about the FDR line of thinking as the opposite of the "the ends justify the means" truism, namely that " the means justify the ends". 

From the limited reading I have done here at FDR that is also my impression. I say as a compliment of the highest regard that Stephan is a passionate preacher of principles. Stephan's Disappointment with the World is explicit about this. That the means justifies the ends can be said as Fiat justitia ruat caelum (Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.)

 

You make a lot of sense in your writing concerning uncertainty. In fact it might be the ultimate definition of utopia - the place without any uncertainty. (According to Hannah Arendt the classic Greek understanding of Hedonism was not the desire for pleasure but the avoidance of displeasure and the Leftist utilitarian seeks not the greatest happiness of the greatest number but the least unhappiness of the greatest number. This seems like merely stating the same thing in the negative verses the positive but I think we understand that one must know unhappiness before he can experience true happiness.)

 

I would never trivialize the importance of man as creator. But creativity is not the only fundamentally human way to deal with uncertainty. Arendt suggests that: “The remedy for unpredictability, for the chaotic uncertainty of the future, is contained in the faculty to make and keep promises … binding oneself through promises, serves to set up in the ocean of uncertainty, which the future is by definition, islands of security without which not even continuity, let alone durability of any kind, would be possible in the relationships between men.”  I think that this capacity to make and keep promises is what underpins all libertarian thought. Isabel Patterson's society of contract vs society of status comes to mind is a good spokesman for this.  

 

 

 

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The left/right paradigm just measures a few kinds of delusion it people.

 

"Left" people suffer the delusion that by being beaten, they and others will be provided resources.

 

"Right" people suffer the delusion that by being beaten, they and others will be protected from being beaten.

[Kaki]

Stef talked in one of the earliest podcasts about that:

 

FDR61 The Fallacy of Left and Right

 

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/the_fallacy_of_left_and_right.mp3

 

The podcast is 37min long and gives a nice primer on the subject well worth listening to!

In it he mentions the Nolan Chart, historical reasons for the Left and Right and what the purpose is to have seemingly opposing parties.

[TheSchoolofAthens]

The left and right are just two branches of great evil - coercion, force, both violence and threats of violence, i.e. the state. The essence of the left and the right is aggression. Without aggression they would not exist. 

[Armitage]

 

 

>>>The Right seeks principled means.  The Left seeks perfect ends.<<<

That is very well put. I'd say leftism is a form of environmental determinism, both in the sense that we are determined by our environment and that it is us who have the power and duty to change our environment. 

The people who started the Neolithic agricultural revolution were probably the first leftists and they had to be lousy hunters. Couldn't bring the prey down, so they turned against the natural order and started breaking the soil and planting things to bring about an artificial order. 

 

If everyone were great hunters, there would be no progress. Rightists certainly give the old order and principles a try and they blame the individual for failure. 

[Daniel Unplugged]

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. On the far left is Stalin, on the far Right is Hitler (at least according to what I was taught in school). I hate when people call libertarians far right, we are far towards freedom, not far right.

[Zerubbabel]

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. On the far left is Stalin, on the far Right is Hitler (at least according to what I was taught in school). I hate when people call libertarians far right, we are far towards freedom, not far right.

 

Hitler and Stalin were sociopathic tyrants who rode to power by appealing to the common people's leftist or rightist desires. Hitler appealed to the rightist principle of chivalry (defense of home/tribe) misapplied to nationalism. Stalin appealed to the leftist desire for utopia ... just endure this one final conflict, and then utopia.

[PatrickC]

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. On the far left is Stalin, on the far Right is Hitler (at least according to what I was taught in school). I hate when people call libertarians far right, we are far towards freedom, not far right.

 

Actually Hitler was of the Left. He was a socialist, as in National Socialist. It's a common misconception, mostly put about by the Left (for obvious reasons). Mussolini would be a more correct historical comparison I think. I don't even know who is considered 'far right' these days. They are mainly minority positions that often share way to much with leftist collectivist ideologies to even consider them as being on the right. It was mostly a slur, ironically made by the far left, which has kind of stuck with mainstream thinking these days, at least in Europe.

 

I think it's important to better understand the Left/Right paradigm in a bit more detail. I grant you that for the most part they both traditionally promote statism and the rule of law. As a means to preserving the hegemony of power. However, the left have been busy cornering the moral position from both sides of the political fence and keep us very firmly entrenched in statist ideology. Politically speaking the right have mostly dispersed towards the Left (social conservatism), as its considered political suicide to do anything else. The rest have disappeared into political libertarianism. It's the left that ultimately holds sway in the political arena as govt dependency has increased and continues to increase.

 

Non of this means I am of the right of course, even if I might have sympathy with some of their traditional positions. But it's important to realise that the right has no power these days. It's very clear where we are all headed into the future and it's very much of the left persuasion. This is a nightmare for most men (and by token the ensuing economy), as they try to find work in an over regulated marketplace and with less productive corporate oligopolies that prefer yes men and mainly women, rather than fully productive and creative individuals.

[shirgall]

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. On the far left is Stalin, on the far Right is Hitler (at least according to what I was taught in school). I hate when people call libertarians far right, we are far towards freedom, not far right.

 

Yeah, it's funny that they put Hitler on the right, because at the time he was on the left. Jonah Goldberg wrote a book on this called Liberal Fascism.

[J. D. Stembal]

Even charts which show Fascism on the left show anarchy and liberty on the extreme right. Freedom is just too extreme for most people, I suppose. America is considered moderate. I would put it further left than Nazi Germany.

 

 

[Daniel Unplugged]

The political spectrum