What was?
Time To Abandon The Terms "Left" And "Right"
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
What was?
gorski
customised free radical
Capitalism in XIX/XX century showed its inner contradictions quite clearly. As they were getting more and more apparent and drastic, to the point of dramatic crisis after a crisis and even a World War, the world needed answers to those dilemmas. So, we had radical answers from both Left and Right.
Having said that, the Left was winning the local elections and was seen as a huge potential and very, very real threat, by many. However, some electoral successes notwithstanding, Nazi party was never elected to power. Rather, seen by some industrialists and other rich and powerful figures, as a saviour from "communist threat", they propped the party up, from financing it to pushing them through the political structures, eventually getting them into position from which they showed their true colours unambiguously.
The fact Nazis clashed with anyone who stood in their way, regardless of the fact they may have supported them before, is no surprise, of course. It comes with the monster they helped create. Totalitarian movements/parties/order can not stay put and "nice" to all who used to support them in the beginning, by any stretch of imagination... They have a "destiny"...
Which is one of the reasons why I can't stomach anyone with "the only answer is xyz" mantra [and "thou shalt have no other mantras but mine" attitude]...
Btw, some on this very forum have the very same attitude....
Having said that, the Left was winning the local elections and was seen as a huge potential and very, very real threat, by many. However, some electoral successes notwithstanding, Nazi party was never elected to power. Rather, seen by some industrialists and other rich and powerful figures, as a saviour from "communist threat", they propped the party up, from financing it to pushing them through the political structures, eventually getting them into position from which they showed their true colours unambiguously.
The fact Nazis clashed with anyone who stood in their way, regardless of the fact they may have supported them before, is no surprise, of course. It comes with the monster they helped create. Totalitarian movements/parties/order can not stay put and "nice" to all who used to support them in the beginning, by any stretch of imagination... They have a "destiny"...
Which is one of the reasons why I can't stomach anyone with "the only answer is xyz" mantra [and "thou shalt have no other mantras but mine" attitude]...
Btw, some on this very forum have the very same attitude....
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Yes, they retain emotional weight, but they've become devoid of substantive meaning or content.
deke t lefel
Active Member
deke t lefel
Active Member
yes, in Italy, the birth place of Fascism, it was a split from and a movement away from the anti-war left wing socialists by the pro-war left wing revolutionary syndicalists
an attack on a left wing party by another faction does not automatically make the attacking movement right wing
gorski
customised free radical
If we are going to be meaningful, rather than PoMo, maybe we should try a little bit of thinking and at least attempt some serious analyses, as opposed to this shooting from the hip, political style...
We should, firstly, distinguish between the following moments, which effort should take us to a social substratum of various ideas, I think:
Ideas/Ideology/"Science" behind a
Movement trying to establish an
Order ruled by a
Political Party.
Then, I would suggest careful consideration of their relations, including the context in which its dynamic was developing [like the Capitalist encirclement of the initial Soviet era and an active military, economic and political attack on it].
While doing the above analysis I would use the following Modern Password, at the very core of our Epoch, in order to try to "measure" the dynamics mentioned:
1) Liberty, which was meant sincerely and fully, i.e. inclusively by the Left and in a reductionist [exclusive] manner by the Right, right from the start. I think it is obvious that the "natural order of things", however it is justified, still dominates and permeates the "Right's" thinking, as well as practice! It started quite nastily, in terms of the far Right, as their right to dominate/conquer, as the Master Race, all the "lower forms of life", externally. Internally it was Men v. Women, then everybody who thought differently [than "us", i.e. Nazis] about any serious issue etc. etc. I would suggest that it only expressed clearly what the Right as such always had in its very foundations.
In other words, the divisions, ethnically, sexually, politically etc., were immediately proscribed and prescribed by the Right's "pure expression", the Nazis, in a specific manner, clearly indicating their will to Power [not meant in a Nietzschean manner!!!], rather then being based in Reason and Humanity's emancipatory potential and legitimate needs, represented by the Left!!!
2) Equality, as seen above, was never meant or felt by the Right as any kind of serious Human need. In fact, the furthest they would go was a more-or-less empty "equality before the Law", which in itself was not problematised but taken as the true expression of their needs over everybody else, i.e. their yesterday's allies, the Proletariat, never mind the enemies, like the "aristocracy", whom they could easily "absorb" into their own echelons.
On the Left, this was and still is a serious spiritus movens of the unending kind!!! It can be stemmed by some political parties - but only for a while. For as long as we are Human, and with it goes Humanity's dignity, this can not be somehow "extinguished". Maybe slowed down but it is always here, moving things along, one way or another, even if it isn't as fast as many would like, in a manner many would like to see. I refer to Social Democratic achievements in Scandinavia in particular. For instance.
3) Brotherhood was meant and felt fully on the left, including the Sisterhood. As seen above, nothing of the sort was ever on the Right's agenda! In fact, all the development in terms of spreading this idea was and still is squarely on the Left, regardless of the "Third Way" setbacks, "considering" the worst kind of Neo-Liberal shite, under pressure from the worst effects of the processes, structures and institutions representing the "Globalisation" phenomenon...
Now, if we are putting things in their proper context, as any semi-decent analysis would do, historically and so on - we have to analyse the post-WWII developments, in terms of "political governance", especially in Europe. There, the political parties deployed a new strategy to keep the voters away from the far Right or Left, whereby before the elections the main political parties would "spread out" to their far Left/Right reaches, as it were, reaching out to all disaffected voters, trying to gain their trust and vote. As soon as they were elected, regardless which party was in power, they would move to the "central ground", politically speaking. That way, they managed to keep the far Right and Left away from the electorate and power.
I suppose this is what Phil had in mind, as nowadays it is getting more and more difficult to see any real difference between the parties, once they are in power.
However, to my mind, the worst kind of New Labiae v. the Spring Conservatives is no context in my mind. With all the post-WWII governance techniques we still have the above to contend with. Let's not forget that our wants and expectations are one thing and actual/real possibilities of/for change all too frequently another. One Human can learn fast. The whole of Humanity or even a single state - is another matter altogether! That dynamics is moving on a much larger and therefore much slower scale.
But!!! As things can revert to earlier, now seen as reactionary stages of development, I would suggest not to forget who the lesser of Evils is and to continue to push those political Parties, via the corresponding Movement and its intellectuals in particular, i.e. its critically minded ideologists, its "conscience", as it were, in order to achieve an Order closer to the above mentioned Modern Password.
The Right nowadays is clearly turned back, in terms of their interests, trying to petrify them. Once a revolutionary bourgeois agent of History, those Movements/Parties/Ideologies are in pursuit of an Order which has very little in common with the Password!
In fact, I would suggest that the Right is actively working against it, whereas the Left is still broadly trying to push that agenda, however slowly in some people's minds/hearts, especially when we see a helluvalot of spitting in the direction of "Social Democrats", on a forum like this one, from people who would dearly love to see Scandinavian quality of living for its own fellow-citizens in their country...
It reminds me of the internal Left conflicts and all manner of shite they were up to, not seeing the obvious to be done just before WWII, which allowed the Nazis to step closer to power... And why?!?
We should, firstly, distinguish between the following moments, which effort should take us to a social substratum of various ideas, I think:
Ideas/Ideology/"Science" behind a
Movement trying to establish an
Order ruled by a
Political Party.
Then, I would suggest careful consideration of their relations, including the context in which its dynamic was developing [like the Capitalist encirclement of the initial Soviet era and an active military, economic and political attack on it].
While doing the above analysis I would use the following Modern Password, at the very core of our Epoch, in order to try to "measure" the dynamics mentioned:
1) Liberty, which was meant sincerely and fully, i.e. inclusively by the Left and in a reductionist [exclusive] manner by the Right, right from the start. I think it is obvious that the "natural order of things", however it is justified, still dominates and permeates the "Right's" thinking, as well as practice! It started quite nastily, in terms of the far Right, as their right to dominate/conquer, as the Master Race, all the "lower forms of life", externally. Internally it was Men v. Women, then everybody who thought differently [than "us", i.e. Nazis] about any serious issue etc. etc. I would suggest that it only expressed clearly what the Right as such always had in its very foundations.
In other words, the divisions, ethnically, sexually, politically etc., were immediately proscribed and prescribed by the Right's "pure expression", the Nazis, in a specific manner, clearly indicating their will to Power [not meant in a Nietzschean manner!!!], rather then being based in Reason and Humanity's emancipatory potential and legitimate needs, represented by the Left!!!
2) Equality, as seen above, was never meant or felt by the Right as any kind of serious Human need. In fact, the furthest they would go was a more-or-less empty "equality before the Law", which in itself was not problematised but taken as the true expression of their needs over everybody else, i.e. their yesterday's allies, the Proletariat, never mind the enemies, like the "aristocracy", whom they could easily "absorb" into their own echelons.
On the Left, this was and still is a serious spiritus movens of the unending kind!!! It can be stemmed by some political parties - but only for a while. For as long as we are Human, and with it goes Humanity's dignity, this can not be somehow "extinguished". Maybe slowed down but it is always here, moving things along, one way or another, even if it isn't as fast as many would like, in a manner many would like to see. I refer to Social Democratic achievements in Scandinavia in particular. For instance.
3) Brotherhood was meant and felt fully on the left, including the Sisterhood. As seen above, nothing of the sort was ever on the Right's agenda! In fact, all the development in terms of spreading this idea was and still is squarely on the Left, regardless of the "Third Way" setbacks, "considering" the worst kind of Neo-Liberal shite, under pressure from the worst effects of the processes, structures and institutions representing the "Globalisation" phenomenon...
Now, if we are putting things in their proper context, as any semi-decent analysis would do, historically and so on - we have to analyse the post-WWII developments, in terms of "political governance", especially in Europe. There, the political parties deployed a new strategy to keep the voters away from the far Right or Left, whereby before the elections the main political parties would "spread out" to their far Left/Right reaches, as it were, reaching out to all disaffected voters, trying to gain their trust and vote. As soon as they were elected, regardless which party was in power, they would move to the "central ground", politically speaking. That way, they managed to keep the far Right and Left away from the electorate and power.
I suppose this is what Phil had in mind, as nowadays it is getting more and more difficult to see any real difference between the parties, once they are in power.
However, to my mind, the worst kind of New Labiae v. the Spring Conservatives is no context in my mind. With all the post-WWII governance techniques we still have the above to contend with. Let's not forget that our wants and expectations are one thing and actual/real possibilities of/for change all too frequently another. One Human can learn fast. The whole of Humanity or even a single state - is another matter altogether! That dynamics is moving on a much larger and therefore much slower scale.
But!!! As things can revert to earlier, now seen as reactionary stages of development, I would suggest not to forget who the lesser of Evils is and to continue to push those political Parties, via the corresponding Movement and its intellectuals in particular, i.e. its critically minded ideologists, its "conscience", as it were, in order to achieve an Order closer to the above mentioned Modern Password.
The Right nowadays is clearly turned back, in terms of their interests, trying to petrify them. Once a revolutionary bourgeois agent of History, those Movements/Parties/Ideologies are in pursuit of an Order which has very little in common with the Password!
In fact, I would suggest that the Right is actively working against it, whereas the Left is still broadly trying to push that agenda, however slowly in some people's minds/hearts, especially when we see a helluvalot of spitting in the direction of "Social Democrats", on a forum like this one, from people who would dearly love to see Scandinavian quality of living for its own fellow-citizens in their country...
It reminds me of the internal Left conflicts and all manner of shite they were up to, not seeing the obvious to be done just before WWII, which allowed the Nazis to step closer to power... And why?!?
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
You miss the essential point. When a faction moves away from class struggle and into nationalism it ceases to be left wing and becomes right wing.
gorski
customised free radical
deke t lefel
Active Member
that similarity is mainly due to the elitism of Fascism and the elitism of Stalin's communism, both relying heavily on a cult of personality
elitism allowed Fascism to easily move from a left wing bias to a right wing bias, although Fascism generally maintained an extreme centrist position using a corporatist top-down model of state control - "state socialism turned on its head"
Proper Tidy
Arsed
There is some outstanding bollocks on this thread
Not just Stalin's Communism. Pretty much all Communism. Even the pathetic tin-pot dictators of eastern Europe had their personality cults.
I suspect that future generations will find it hard to understand why Fascists and Communists fought each other.
All Communist governments.
Of course--mainly nationalism as opposed to class war, as Blagsta said. But even there, I'm not so sure. Stalin subordinated class war to nationalism, and many other Communist states have followed suit...
gorski
customised free radical
No, Phil. It seems to me you're now close to trolling, quite frankly. I have never seen you like this, it is quite unlike you to do his.
Hmmm...
As I proposed earlier, the initial ideas were exclusion
Hmmm...
As I proposed earlier, the initial ideas were exclusion
v. inclusion
.
Petrification of the world, in accordance with the "natural order of things" [attempt at a-historicity] v. creativity and imagination, i.e. we make ourselves and our world
Petrification of the world, in accordance with the "natural order of things" [attempt at a-historicity] v. creativity and imagination, i.e. we make ourselves and our world
.
Domination and exploitation
Domination and exploitation
v. abolishing of those structures, institutions and processes towards putting everybody in the same position, to live off of their own labour, with meaningfully equal opportunities towards development, equal rights and duties towards each other
.
From then on we could investigate how the ideas were "translated" into an Order and a Political Party. And that must be done carefully!!! Indeed, Stalinism did precisely that: an unmediated transition from the world of "ideas" [not the ones Marx had in mind, that's for sure], to the world of [political, social and economic] action.
With the Right it was straight forward: what they proposed - they did. Nazis extremely, those less extreme "Conservatives" less overtly and less radically but equally "Conservatively", i.e. in the a-historic manner, trying to cement the Modern Epoch's inequalities and irrational relations, I wrote about earlier, as you well know the issues, from Critical Theory.
Their legitimation ended when Feudalism was brought down. They [bourgeoisie] rose up against a "natural order of things" of Feudalism, only to try to impose their "truly natural order of things", which was not to be questioned from then on. It was based in their "understanding" of no less than "Human Nature", which was, more-or-less, reduced to the lowest [or close to lowest] common denominator. Go figure...
But on the Left, things are much more complicated! To go from the quasi-communist Order and its Political State/Parties straight into ALL of the Left - is just NOT serious!!!
First of all, as I wrote earlier, we need to distinguish a few moments of the "phenomenon"!
To forget the emancipatory impetus of the Left, as a Movement and its Ideas, would be close to criminal. Surely you can see that. I am sure you will agree with me on that.
Second, I wrote about it before on this forum: I had some dealings with the "communists" directly, as I fought them, for a long time and exchanged a lot of info with many a great thinker, studied a bit of the phenomenon from the inside, even experienced it on my own skin, and I can tell you, indeed anyone from such a system could, that no political apparatchik or even a leader - bar [maybe] partially Lenin - had any serious education in Philosophy, knew anything about Hegel, never mind Marx, other than the empty rhetoric, necessary for "maintaining an Order", i.e. functioning "successfully" in it. In Stalin's time one had to know exactly what the Supreme Being thought on any subject or else... There was just one interpretation of anything! His! Lesser "leaders", you are right, tried emulating him. But they were not the same, also...
Social Democratic Parties were in no way like this! Indeed, not even the Communist Party was like this, until Bolsheviks took over completely, whose rule was an abomination, from the very idea of Emancipation, to idiotic wanton destruction of Human life, wasting so much talent and good will [of their strongest supporters, even!!!!!!!!!!] for purely power-driven purpose, not even ideology, FFS! And I mean it [ideology] in any conceivable way.
Maybe we could hear from somebody more competent about the Left Anarchists?
Socialist also had no such impetus and practices.
So, can we get serious, for a while, please? Because this starts to look like a political gun-sliging showdown, in an effort to bundle it all together in an unrecognisable "it's all the same thing" move, to try to get some false equilibrium between the "Left" and "Right".
Well, it's artificial! The historical push for Emancipation of Mankind is on the side which is exploited and dominated, trying to abolish domination and exploitation, not petrify it, that's for sure. Do not try to belittle it, please, by jumbling Stalin with Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Korsch, Hitler with Willy Brandt etc.
Just not serious!
From then on we could investigate how the ideas were "translated" into an Order and a Political Party. And that must be done carefully!!! Indeed, Stalinism did precisely that: an unmediated transition from the world of "ideas" [not the ones Marx had in mind, that's for sure], to the world of [political, social and economic] action.
With the Right it was straight forward: what they proposed - they did. Nazis extremely, those less extreme "Conservatives" less overtly and less radically but equally "Conservatively", i.e. in the a-historic manner, trying to cement the Modern Epoch's inequalities and irrational relations, I wrote about earlier, as you well know the issues, from Critical Theory.
Their legitimation ended when Feudalism was brought down. They [bourgeoisie] rose up against a "natural order of things" of Feudalism, only to try to impose their "truly natural order of things", which was not to be questioned from then on. It was based in their "understanding" of no less than "Human Nature", which was, more-or-less, reduced to the lowest [or close to lowest] common denominator. Go figure...
But on the Left, things are much more complicated! To go from the quasi-communist Order and its Political State/Parties straight into ALL of the Left - is just NOT serious!!!
First of all, as I wrote earlier, we need to distinguish a few moments of the "phenomenon"!
To forget the emancipatory impetus of the Left, as a Movement and its Ideas, would be close to criminal. Surely you can see that. I am sure you will agree with me on that.
Second, I wrote about it before on this forum: I had some dealings with the "communists" directly, as I fought them, for a long time and exchanged a lot of info with many a great thinker, studied a bit of the phenomenon from the inside, even experienced it on my own skin, and I can tell you, indeed anyone from such a system could, that no political apparatchik or even a leader - bar [maybe] partially Lenin - had any serious education in Philosophy, knew anything about Hegel, never mind Marx, other than the empty rhetoric, necessary for "maintaining an Order", i.e. functioning "successfully" in it. In Stalin's time one had to know exactly what the Supreme Being thought on any subject or else... There was just one interpretation of anything! His! Lesser "leaders", you are right, tried emulating him. But they were not the same, also...
Social Democratic Parties were in no way like this! Indeed, not even the Communist Party was like this, until Bolsheviks took over completely, whose rule was an abomination, from the very idea of Emancipation, to idiotic wanton destruction of Human life, wasting so much talent and good will [of their strongest supporters, even!!!!!!!!!!] for purely power-driven purpose, not even ideology, FFS! And I mean it [ideology] in any conceivable way.
Maybe we could hear from somebody more competent about the Left Anarchists?
Socialist also had no such impetus and practices.
So, can we get serious, for a while, please? Because this starts to look like a political gun-sliging showdown, in an effort to bundle it all together in an unrecognisable "it's all the same thing" move, to try to get some false equilibrium between the "Left" and "Right".
Well, it's artificial! The historical push for Emancipation of Mankind is on the side which is exploited and dominated, trying to abolish domination and exploitation, not petrify it, that's for sure. Do not try to belittle it, please, by jumbling Stalin with Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Korsch, Hitler with Willy Brandt etc.
Just not serious!
Ibn Khaldoun
the present is dead, long live the future . . .
Hear hear.
deke t lefel
Active Member
nationalism can be left wing or right wing
in its early years, fascism opposed discrimination based on class
the fascist movement was started by an elite group of left wing political intelligentsia who were impatient and disillusioned with the progress of othodox socialism
the essential point is that there is no actual point where it immediately became right wing and from that point it became fascism, it evolved over a number of years to become right wing
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Tyranny is simply tyranny. It is neither left nor right – it is the imposition of the will of the leader.
deke t lefel
Active Member
yes, generally, in politics left does aim to be inclusive and right tends towards exclusion
however, the cold war has shown that the left-right division in politics has caused its own prejudices and exclusions
in a consideration of the spheres of inclusion and exclusion, maybe religion and class also need to be viewed from their own perspective
deke t lefel
Active Member
yeah, tyrants will use any system of government that benefits their ultimate goal of domination
tyranny usually stems from elitism and that elitism is rooted in the governing systems of politics, religion and class
gorski
customised free radical
Since the collapse of sur-real Communism, tell me, which relevant force on the Left excludes believers by its statute?
And which force excludes, for instance, the middle classes? I know for a fact that some heavy-duty millionaires are supporters of the Left. By comparison, I would consider working class people voting for the Right - in any shape - a déclassé position...
gorski
customised free radical
No, it can not, by definition!!!
What you are describing is just sheer confusion and ignorance...
Ibn Khaldoun
the present is dead, long live the future . . .
Why shouldn't anyone then say that neoliberalist policies are left-wing or progressive due to their suppression of nationalism/national development?
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
The Americans use terms like "Liberal", "Conservative" and "Progressive"... dunno why or for how long for though. Anyway I think Liberal and Progressive might mean the same thing, but in the UK the American Liberal would be considered Right of Center I think, so fuck knows what a Progressive is supposed to be. Something to do with two gay dot-com millionaires, one black one white, raising a child and supporting Isreal I suppose.
Similar threads
