The Essence of the Left

[Domen]

The Soviet Union also had its achievements. But for example claiming that Russia repulsed the Nazi invasion thanks to Stalin, is strange.

If anything, I would say that they repulsed the Nazi invasion despite Stalin, not thanks to him.

Or maybe you want to say that Stalin's purges increased the Red Army's fighting capability? Or selling resources to the future enemy?

 

[Snorrius]

That sounds like some sort of ominous threat.

This was an ominous mistypo. Well, provided that Europe is quite close to "USSR 70s", it means that next will 80s (a decay of Leftist paradise), and this is really unpleasant. Neoreactionaries should help to make this process less painful.

 

[Algeroth]

I do not think we are discussing existence of the said stele but rather why this "programme" (whoever the real author is) fits Leftism so well, and whether author whom I quoted is correct enough or something lacks.

Strange, I would say that we are talking about your paranoid insistence of existence of such programme, which is a task more suited for your shrink than for OTers.

 

[Snorrius]

Strange, I would say that we are talking about your paranoid insistence of existence of such programme, which is a task more suited for your shrink than for OTers.

You was mistaken.

 

[jackelgull]

Strange, I would say that we are talking about your paranoid insistence of existence of such programme, which is a task more suited for your shrink than for OTers.

On the other hand, this provides valuable material of any OTer wanting to become a shrink or in the process of joining the said profession.

 

[Cutlass]

Right have their mythos, that's true. But the righter you go, the less this mythos are treated as dogma. Neoreactionaries take as the stariting point where ideals of egalitarianism was accepted and terms "Right" and "Left" appeared - those who did accept became "Left", those who not - are "Right".

Neoreactionaries are Right in this coordinate system, and from their viewpoints almost every living political discourse is on the Left side (with different degree of Leftiness, Fascism is also quite far left). It should be also noted that Neoreactionaries are not traditional Conservatives (who are drifiting to the Left as everyone else just with a generation or two lag). The biggest difference is probably that Left is too dogmatic: you have seen yourself - democracy does not work in Africa but instead of treating government system as a tool and changing it to work, Left apologists just call for another Revolution. Sweden evolved (or devolved) to totalitarian state etc. Neoreactionaries do not treat political theses as religious. The main point of divergence is that Neoreactionaries do not believe in equality and do not accept egalitarianism.

It is not something that this is something new, though. Ochlocracy - and modern "democracy" is step short from the "Maidan" - apotheosis of mob rule - was always considered a receipt for disaster. You can consider appearance of antiegalitarian discourse in Western thought as a reaction against horrors which mob rule inevitably brings. This is natural and you should not be afraid.


Indeed. EU is just a part of Europe, and only a period in time.

Well, you know, fascism is the far right. So right there you have chosen to discredit everything else you are saying.

 

[Tahuti]

Well, you know, fascism is the far right. So right there you have chosen to discredit everything else you are saying.

That's debatable. Fascism has some strong French-Revolutionary elements that make the claims that it is a Left-Wing movement not completely unreasonable. When Fascism was gaining steam, Eugenics was considered a progressive movement as well - and Fascism supported this too - while it was being opposed by the conservatives of that day.

Fascism ultimately rejected egalitarianism between ethnic groups - which makes it a bit more right-leaning - though overall, Fascism can be characterised as a movement of the Radical centre, roughly how Fascists picture themselves.

 

[jackelgull]

You know, I have a theory as to why this forum attracts le Tsarist defeners and other quixotic types (or reactionaries, as they call themselves). That's how progress works in the game of Civ right? Tolstoy was a Great Artist. Czarist Russia would've been going for a domination victory, no doubt. Such a large empire! So many great artists and great wonders! Besides, the serfdom civic allows workers to build improvements really fast. See?! Russia was building IMPROVEMENTS! It must have been improving! State property is a mediocre civic on the other hand, unless you have foreign colonies, which Russia doesn't. Leaders are immortal monarchs. Plus, the in-game UN shows democracy doesn't work- it never gets anything done!

It all makes sense now.

SP is perfect for a large empire though, that doesn't make sense. I am guessing this is more a strategy for a culture victory.

 

[Hygro]

Well, you know, fascism is the far right. So right there you have chosen to discredit everything else you are saying.

He's saying everything from 10 on down is too leftwing to him on the PC.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's debatable. Fascism has some strong French-Revolutionary elements that make the claims that it is a Left-Wing movement not completely unreasonable.

The distinction of the French revolution hardly endured to the 1920s. Certainly the nationalist orientation of the revolutionaries was by the 20th century a near-universal common sense in mainstream political discourse, espoused even by such upstandingly reactionary regimes as Tsarist Russia. (The last serious holdouts were the Qing in China, and they only barely lasted into the twentieth century.) Fascist ideology and practice betray a certain Jacobin influence, that's true, but it doesn't follow that this influence represent a leftist dimension to their politics, because "left" and "right" are a matter of contemporary orientation, not of philosophical lineage, and the fascists were always unambiguously anti-socialist and pro-state in orientation.

When Fascism was gaining steam, Eugenics was considered a progressive movement as well - and Fascism supported this too - while it was being opposed by the conservatives of that day

Nah, the fascists were strongly sceptical towards eugenics. They regarded it as a materialist program, and argued that national regeneration was a moral, cultural and spiritual rather than biological project. Only the Nazis seriously pursued a program of eugenics, and they were in this regard as in others very atypical of interwar fascism.

 

[Tahuti]

The distinction of the French revolution hardly endured to the 1920s. Certainly the nationalist orientation of the revolutionaries was by the 20th century a near-universal common sense in mainstream political discourse, espoused even by such upstandingly reactionary regimes as Tsarist Russia. (The last serious holdouts were the Qing in China, and they only barely lasted into the twentieth century.) Fascist ideology and practice betray a certain Jacobin influence, that's true, but it doesn't follow that this influence represent a leftist dimension to their politics, because "left" and "right" are a matter of contemporary orientation, not of philosophical lineage, and the fascists were always unambiguously anti-socialist and pro-state in orientation.

Being pro-state and anti-socialist didn't really preclude you from being left-wing. Furthermore, Fascism's anti-socialism was highly subtle, comparable to the anti-socialism of embedded liberalism.

Nah, the fascists were strongly sceptical towards eugenics. They regarded it as a materialist program, and argued that national regeneration was a moral, cultural and spiritual rather than biological project. Only the Nazis seriously pursued a program of eugenics, and they were in this regard as in others very atypical of interwar fascism.

You forget Showa Japan, though Fascist Italy had a eugenics program as well. I think you are confusing the views of Die-Hard Shintos and Julius Evola (who wasn't really a Fascist but actually more a reactionary who maintained ties with Fascists) about eugenics as representative for Fascism as a whole. They indeed uttered criticisms highly similar to the ones you mentioned.

 

[Traitorfish]

Being pro-state and anti-socialist didn't really preclude you from being left-wing.

In this period, it does. In the interwar period the European left was united by a critical attitude towards the bourgeois state as an authority (although that does not mean anti-statism) and a non-hostility towards socialism. The militant anti-socialism of the fascists alone marks them out as creatures of the right.

Furthermore, Fascism's anti-socialism was highly subtle, comparable to the anti-socialism of embedded liberalism.

What's "subtle" about paramilitaries and secret police?

You forget Showa Japan

I don't; I simply don't regard it as fascist. The fascists were always marginal in Japan, even more so than in Spain, and a fascist influence in the regime's thought only became pronounced for a brief time during the Second World War, seemingly because things were beginning to come unstuck and they were casting around for some sort of unifying narrative.

though Fascist Italy had a eugenics program as well. I think you are confusing the views of Die-Hard Shintos and Julius Evola (who wasn't really a Fascist but actually more a reactionary who maintained ties with Fascists) about eugenics as representative for Fascism as a whole. They indeed uttered criticisms highly similar to the ones you mentioned.

Fascist Italy had a eugenics program, but it wasn't strongly supported by fascists and as far as I know pursued only a "negative" rather than "positive" program. "Fascist Italy", remember, was a coalition of various right-wing groups, and not every policy of the "Fascist" state was an expression of or even coherent with fascist ideology. By the 1930s, many Italian fascists were quite critical of Mussolini's regime, which they saw as compromised and conservative. (It was the very relative porousness of the regime that prevented this conflict from spilling into bloodshed as the Hitlerite/Strasserite conflict did in Nazi Germany, because the regime was capable of at least appearing to engage with its fascist critics.)

 

[Cutlass]

Being pro-state and anti-socialist didn't really preclude you from being left-wing. Furthermore, Fascism's anti-socialism was highly subtle, comparable to the anti-socialism of embedded liberalism.

Mass murder is a subtle response to socialism? I hate to hear what you 'real conservatives' plan to do.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Conservatives planning a world revolution against the liberals, like a reverse-French Revolution?

 

[Tahuti]

What's "subtle" about paramilitaries and secret police?

Like embedded liberalism, Fascism would occasionally incorporate Socialist ideas into its ideology, without necessarily supporting. Fascist suppression of individual Socialists more reflected direct political concerns than deep ideological hostility, apart from the Anti-Nationalism of International Socialists.

 

[Traitorfish]

You don't believe that fascists were ideologically hostile to socialists?

 

[Cutlass]

Conservatives planning a world revolution against the liberals, like a reverse-French Revolution?

Conservatives are waging war on liberals. They are doing it through election fraud, voter suppression, packing the courts with activist judges, the funding of 'free market', 'libertarian', and conservative think tanks and university departments. Control of the news media. The corruption of politicians, and the agencies that they oversee.

Conservatism is winning. And that is despite demographic trends which suggest it should be losing. The Great Financial Crisis and the Great Recession are just 2 of the most obvious signs of conservative victory.

This is what conservative victory looks like.

 

[Tahuti]

You don't believe that fascists were ideologically hostile to socialists?

Only to those explicitly identifying as Internationalist and/or Marxist. Note that Mussolini was himself a Socialist and his transformation towards Fascism was relatively fluid.

 

[jackelgull]

The attitudes of the individual leaders hardly matter. Fascism was a mass political movement that campaigned to its members as anti-communist and anti-socialist, it made a deliberate and concentrated effort to appeal to those who did have a hatred of communism/socialist and thus the movement as a whole was ideologically pitted against "the left".

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Only to those explicitly identifying as Internationalist and/or Marxist. Note that Mussolini was himself a Socialist and his transformation towards Fascism was relatively fluid.

M fit in with the socialists of the Second International "so easily" because the nationalist issue had never been properly addressed before, so people like M were really indistinguishable before the war from the explicitly internationalist crowd who wound up forming the Zimmerwald Left in 1915.

There is in practice no parallel between Mussolini and Lenin, between fascist and communist, outside of a hostility - for different reasons - toward liberalism.