The Essence of the Left

[luiz]

Why do you think I am fond of the Soviet Union at the first place? I just find a lot of critique to be ridiculous just as Soviet newspapers which were writing in 80's how Americans are "lynching the Negroes". Especially this critique is ridiculous when it comes from people who are actually pushing their countries to destination where Soviet Union once was. USSR of 60s-70s was very similar to what modern Europe and USA are striving to. It had:

1) Heavily equalized society with main housing, education, medicine necessities and average income guaranteed almost for everyone, with little difference between an average man and higher-ups. Difference between Soviet "elites" and average Soviet citizen was miniscule comparing to difference between average modern Russian and oligarch.

2) Polite correctness

3) Multiculturalist policies

4) Severe degradation of culture and elites

But I am not particularly fond of Soviet Union. It was very leftist state. If I had to claim "fondness" of some period of Russian history, I would say I am fond of Imperial Russia.

The Soviet Union was all that, and you may dislike it. But when people criticize it they usually mean the stuff it did that did not happen in the West, at least to a comparable extent, like censorship, unelected government, brutal suppression of dissent, etc.

Simply by pretending that the USSR from the 60's - 70's was essentially the same as modern US or Europe shows a degree of apologism which I can only attribute to fondness.

The problem with all Leftist ideologies is that they are based on egalitarianism. And the idea of egalitarianism leads to necessity of violence because people are unequal and to maintain equality among unequals one needs to apply force - more equality needs more force. The problem is that all Leftist movement are based on views which have little in common with reality which they still try to push. Left is egalitarian and it means it is violent - not necessarily physically but ideologically. The force is not necessary is applied all at once. Look at the modern West. It is becoming progressively more Left but slow enough to increase its pressing by little. Still, it is already quite totalitarian.

Yes, radical egalitarianism always requires violence - no question there. From Rousseau to Lenin to Marcuse, the history of radical egalitarianism is a history of apology of murder (and actual murder, on a colossal scale).

But no, the West is not "quite totalitarian" in any way.

 

[JollyRoger]

Like fascism, the use of force is purely leftist, I assume.

 

[Viregel]

So what you're saying is that you don't like the Soviet Union because it was left-wing? If I was living in some fascist state (I mean, I don't mind a bit of fascism ), but it was working incredibly well for some reason, I'd be supporting it all the way.

Also, may I ask - what makes Fascism left-wing at all? I've always considered it the extreme far-right, but then again, my knowledge of politics is severely limited.

 

[Oruc]

To maintain inequality one also needs force.

Not true at all leaders will emerge through sheer force of character or charisma, to stop that from happening and maintain equality you will need force.

 

[JollyRoger]

Not true at all leaders will emerge through sheer force of character or charisma, to stop that from happening and maintain equality you will need force.

You may want to edit the bolded word to maintain your point.

 

[Evie]

Yes, radical egalitarianism always requires violence - no question there. From Rousseau to Lenin to Marcuse, the history of radical egalitarianism is a history of apology of murder (and actual murder, on a colossal scale).

One which is only matched by the right's own record, with their own apologies wrapped into the holy name of the right to ownership of property and the destructions of the enemies of the Nation.

Not true at all leaders will emerge through sheer force of character or charisma, to stop that from happening and maintain equality you will need force.

And yet to prevent new leaders from emerging and safeguard their own inequality old leaders will also need force.

If you wish to maintain the statu quo, you will need force against those who would upset it.
If you wish to upset the statu quo, you will need force against those who would maintain it.
Both sides will always need force and seek to excuse it's uses.

 

[Borachio]

I thought environmentalists were looking for a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

But I never noticed when they turned into a political movement. I thought it was limited to scientists and charities with slogans like "think of the pandas".

The Greens are a major political movement in Europe (for a given value of "major"). Hadn't you noticed? They've been around for as long as I can remember. Well, maybe not that long, but certainly since the 70s.

 

[warpus]

Pretty much everything including Social-Nationalism and Fascism (which from reactionary point of view are typical left movements).

Great, so you're including me with the Nazis and Fascists.

Nice talking to you. Hope you wake up on the right side of the bed one of these days.

 

[luiz]

To maintain inequality one also needs force. Capitalist ownership would be entirely unworkable without state-sponsored violence and state-sponsored threats of violence (or without non-state violence; as in the people with the money hiring mercenaries and thugs to protect their property) ; that is to say criminal law punishing those who take the property of others without permission.

That, too, is force, and without it maintaining pre-existing inequalities is altogether impossible. People will simply take anything you can't bolt down and you will be helpless to stop them.

Inequality doesn't need to be maintained, it's the natural state.

It's a (silly) Marxist myth that our modern liberal state "enforces" class distinctions and uses violence and threats of violence to "maintain inequality". The opposite is true. Our state exists to protect the weak from the strong. To limit the power of the strong.

The "natural state" is not one where "egalitarian mobs" take everything for themselves. It's one where the strongest (and eventually the smartest) lord over everyone else.

 

[luiz]

One which is only matched by the right's own record, with their own apologies wrapped into the holy name of the right to ownership of property and the destructions of the enemies of the Nation.

Haha, good one. The defense of private property matches Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. I just drove by a "private property killing field" next to a Walmart. Thousands of skulls piled up.

Haha. Oh, Marxists. Don't ever change.

 

[Tahuti]

Not true at all leaders will emerge through sheer force of character or charisma, to stop that from happening and maintain equality you will need force.

If Marx is proven right, I predict that Communism will inevitably fall by the charisma of great individuals who overcome the life-denying stasis that would be inherent to Communism.

 

[Evie]

"and the destruction of the enemies of the nation". But please, be my guest, constructively ignore the parts you don't want to address.

I'm sure Pinochet and his ilk did nothing wrong ever. Not to mention the fact that, despite what you right-wing apologists like to falsely claim, certain people in the 1930-45 time frame were decidedly right-wing ideologies. And if you get to lump all leftists with Pol Pot and Stalin, then we have every right to dump all rightists with Mussolini and Hitler.

The "natural state" is not one where "egalitarian mobs" take everything for themselves. It's one where the strongest (and eventually the smartest) lord over everyone else.

The strongest gets to lord over because he uses force to impose his will and to prevent new challengers from rising.

It's a rightist delusion that the use of force is distinct from some "natural order". ANY social order will be imposed by whoever has access to the most force, either by his own personal strength or by his ability to rally strong people to work for him.

And thus, any social order will necessarily rest on violence or the threat of violence.

 

[Oruc]

And yet to prevent new leaders from emerging and safeguard their own inequality old leaders will also need force.

They can't prevent new leaders from emerging (I don't think people will live forever I'm not el mach) these supposed new leaders wouldn't need force they would take the place of the old.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Inequality doesn't need to be maintained, it's the natural state.

It's a (silly) Marxist myth that our modern liberal state "enforces" class distinctions and uses violence and threats of violence to "maintain inequality". The opposite is true. Our state exists to protect the weak from the strong. To limit the power of the strong.

States don't exist for purposes, they just exist because they've been able to come into existence. They serve their rulers, and need complex social divisions to operate. You can't have vast permanent inequality without states (or state-like institutions). It just isn't possible.

Sure, a man can kill and dominate his fellows and take all the local women. But then he'll just have more sons and they'll divide stuff in proportion and you'll be back to near equality.

The "natural state" is not one where "egalitarian mobs" take everything for themselves. It's one where the strongest (and eventually the smartest) lord over everyone else.

The smartest don't fight mobs, they join them.

 

[Evie]

They can't prevent new leaders from emerging (I don't think people will live forever I'm not el mach) these supposed new leaders wouldn't need force they would take the place of the old.

And the old leaders would just let this happen? Or the new ones would patiently wait in the wings until the old ones die before taking over? That's ridiculous.

The smartest don't fight mobs, they join them.

The even smarter don't join the mob; they form them.

 

[luiz]

"and the destruction of the enemies of the nation".

But please, be my guest, constructively ignore the parts you don't want to address.

I'm sure Pinochet and his ilk did nothing wrong ever. Not to mention the fact that, despite what you right-wing apologists like to falsely claim, certain people in the 1930-45 time frame were, in fact, decidedly on the right).

Pinochet over decades killed less people than Stalin did in one day in Katyn. And what "enemies of the nation" are being killed in the defense of private property? What are you smoking? Where are the private property killing fields? The private property GULAG?

And unlike you leftists, I don't relativize the crimes of the Nazis or anyone else. They're all part of the radical revolutionaries whom I despise.

The strongest gets to lord over because he uses force to impose his will and to prevent new challengers from rising.

It's a rightist delusion that the use of force is distinct from some "natural order". ANY social order will be imposed by whoever has access to the most force, either by his own personal strength or by his ability to rally strong people to work for him.

No, that's a leftists delusion. Leftists alternate between viewing all humans as peaceful hippies who only misbehave when poisoned by private property or viewing all humans who as rabid dogs who would tear each one apart if not for the threat of being jailed or killed. And they change the views as convenience dictates.

Truth is some social arrangements require far less violence and threat of violence than others. Our modern liberal capitalist societies are incredibly peaceful from a historical POV. Radical egalitarianism always required rivers of blood.

 

[Tahuti]

I'm sure Pinochet and his ilk did nothing wrong ever. Not to mention the fact that, despite what you right-wing apologists like to falsely claim, certain people in the 1930-45 time frame were, in fact, decidedly on the right).

Fascism is not left or right. Fascism essentially constituted an appropriation of Right-Wing elements by the Left. While Fascism acknowledged a hierarchy in society - which gave its energy and lasting associations with the Right - it developed from Left-Wing ideas such as Nationalism and Socialism. Mussolini and Oswald Mosley were all Leftists, yet evolved into Fascists by accepting notions of natural order and hierarchy, without applying them consequently. And Fascism's Right-Wing elements were not what made it innately violent.

 

[Evie]

Radical anything requires rivers of blood. That's not an indictment of leftism, that's an indictment of radicalism. Why all leftists are beign dumped in with the radicals shows quite a lot about your utter lack of intellectual honesty.

Social-democracy require no more rivers of blood than liberal capitalism, and yet is a decidedly a leftist ideology.

KAiserguard - like I was saying, right-wing apologists like to make a load of ridiculous claims about fascism. (Pinning nationalism as a left-wing element, for one).

What you're doing is no more or less than Communist affictionado trying to dismiss the USSR as "Not real communism".

 

[Oruc]

If Marx is proven right, I predict that Communism will inevitably fall by the charisma of great individuals who overcome the life-denying stasis that would be inherent to Communism.

You're probably right, once you've leveled society and gotten rid of the systems and programs you'll be left with men and their are always those who can draw others to them.

Great, so you're including me with the Nazis and Fascists.

Nice talking to you. Hope you wake up on the right side of the bed one of these days.

Well nazis and communists share jealous natures, just nazis directed it towards the jews

 

[luiz]

States don't exist for purposes, they just exist because they've been able to come into existence. They serve their rulers, and need complex social divisions to operate. You can't have vast permanent inequality without states (or state-like institutions). It just isn't possible.

Sure, a man can kill and dominate his fellows and take all the local women. But then he'll just have more sons and they'll divide stuff in proportion and you'll be back to near equality.

Well states don't have a mind of their own. They don't spontaneously come into existence and they don't self-replicate. They were born when a large coalition of relatively weak people bound together to limit the power of stronger warlords.

And the strong man will probably have stronger kids who will continue looting and piling up riches.

The smartest don't fight mobs, they join them.

And lead and manipulate them, sure.