the right by definition aims to proect the current political order, which immigration will certainly overturn in large enough numbers.
That is a definition that is technically correct, but does not match the reality of the decades after the 1960s.
Basically, the "left" won in economics after WW2. And it won in social organization in the 60s. Thus the left became the political order. The right then became the opponents of that political order, seeking to roll back things. During the 80s and 80s they succeeded in economics, but failed in rolling back social changes.
What had once been the left, the parties and organizations of the left, gave up fighting on economic issues, and decided to focus on what had already been won: social issues. The easy path. But society is conditioned by economics: the distribution of wealth and income, inequality... if many of the social institutions are organized on a "market basis" then the inequality of wealth becomes as important as social inequality (inequality of status) once was.
What's your view of the new left in regards to the left in general, precisely?
The new left = Tony Blair and his imitators. I could blame Mitterrand and others, I know, but Tony Blair and
later Bil Clinton (who I think changed policies to imitate Blair, though I may be wrong about who inspired whom) were the ones who spread it.
The "home cause" of the new left, identity politics = divide and rule as a gift to the hoarders of wealth.
The "foreign cause" of the new left, interventionism = the new imperialism.
The (traditional) left was materialistic: progress requires resources, development should be carried out, under pragmatic political guidance, in order to improve people's lives. The goal should be to maximize individual freedom by providing for the needs of all: "after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" Positive liberty.
The "new left" is idealistic: resources are not an object of political decisions, the "market" will better take care of allocating them. This leads to increasing inequality of wealth that is to be
alleviated through subsidies, not by changing social organization or carrying out policies to empower a broader group of people, such as full employment. Development is no longer seen as an uplifting force, in some circles associated with the new left the opposite is defended: development is bad and must be subordinated to ideological considerations such as global warming (now "climate change"), environmentalism, and "free" trade. Individual freedom is to be maximized by
allegedly removing social restrictions upon individuals (thus identity politics). Negative liberty.
The (traditional) left defended an inherent collaborative bias in human beings, seeking to enable a "better humanity" through the offer of free education. People were expected to do better through education and political discussion that free from the distortions (propaganda) caused by special interests groups (religions, businesses, etc) and class opposition. Educations should be secular, scientific and free, artistic creation should be free and freely accessible (no patents, no copyright).
People would naturally, rationally create a better society once the restrictions on resources and education were lifted.
The "new left" defends an inherent oppositional bias if human beings: it is natural for individuals to be unequal and a free market is necessary to deal with that; material inequality is accepted as a given. Nor even education or the arts are to be spared from that logic of the market. You are worth what you can sell or beg. It is natural for different people to hold different and even opposing "identities" and those should be accepted and encouraged. Organized special interest groups are welcome in the interest of "diversity".
The "new left" makes me sick. there is no positive agenda, no hope for a better future, in it. It's all about
management of the status quo. No surprise that we are going through an age of despair and escapism: politics, the real world, offer no hope for improvement.
)
