The Essence of the Left

[luiz]

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.

Lack of intellectual honesty is failing to acknowledge that:

-Our modern liberal capitalist states are remarkably peaceful form a historic POV;
-Radical egalitarianism has produced rivers of blood and can't be in anyway compared to mere defense of private property.

 

[Snorrius]

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.

The problem with Leftist states is they do not work incredibly well. They are able to provide a common meal for masses but they tend to weed out all extraordinary, all elite and so they slowly (or fast - depending on the level of leftiness) degrade. And while having a guaranteed meal is certainly wonderful, the life in equalized society can be extremely boring. Extraordinary people can not realize their talents in such society - and such society can not benefit as a whole from their talents.

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.

When we talk about Right and Left in political sense we should remember that this terms are defined against some Center. The problem is that this center is not fixed. If you read and study books of previous eras it can be a mind-opening experience. It slowly drifts -- to the Left.

Aware of this slow drift of the Center (Neo)reactionaries fix it to the point where the terms of Right and Left have appeared which are roughly the time before French Revolution and find the main point of divergence between Right and Left which is the ideas of egalitarianism and equality. Right denies egalitarianism and equality because Right is right and follows sanity and embraces civilization (which have a more complex hierarchies the more complex it is). Left accepts delusions of different kinds, equality being the first and to maintain a semblance of which in real world it has to apply constant force.

So from Reactionary point of view Italian Fascism and later National-Socialism (socialism!) are typical left movements oriented to "masses", "people" and so on, pushing for changes typical for leftism. Surely they are a bit more to the Right on political spectrum comparing, say, to socialism or social-democracy but from (Neo)reactionary point of view the difference is close to non-existant because all of them are based on the egalitarian ideals, just of different level.

 

[Tahuti]

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

The Nazis were decidedly Left-Wing in how they hated Jews. They praised the ordinary of mankind as well. This does however not make them Left-Wing, unlike Commies, as they make no pretense of egalitarianism they despite resenting certain groups for their perceived dominance (which is indeed very left-wing).

 

[Oruc]

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.

Because there has never been a peaceful succession ever, the only thing we've found out is that you wouldn't wait and that you believe everyone are violent murderers.

 

[Pangur Bán]

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.

Your second statement is how we know states actually originated, not the Enlightenment fantasy of the first statement.

That's the point I was making, however. You need other humans to provide any significant amount of wealth. No-one can build up inequality with others without some system to control and extract resources from them. That system is the state.

 

[Evie]

Lack of intellectual honesty is failing to acknowledge that:

-Our modern liberal capitalist states are remarkably peaceful form a historic POV;
-Radical egalitarianism has produced rivers of blood and can't be in anyway compared to mere defense of private property.

No; it's putting these two as opposites to be contrasted.

Modern liberal capitalism is not the opposite of radical egalitarianism. Modern liberal capitalism is a moderate right ideology; it's opposite number is social-democracy. Both are remarkably peaceful from a historical point of view. One is leftist, the other is rightist.

Radical anythings, again, produces rivers of blood (and yes, radical egalitarianism is such a thing, and it has murdered millions). So has Radical Religion (which trend toward conservatism and thus the right), so has Radical nationalism, etc. The lesson here isn't "left is bad" or "right is bad" or "nationalism is bad", it's radicalism is bad.

Arguing over which radicalism has the most rivers of blood to account for is rather pointless. Whether you have the blood of 10 000 innocents or 100 000 innocent or a million innocents on your hands, they're still the blood-soaked hands of a monster any which way; and they still mark you and all other radical ideology as unfit to ever be trusted with anything.

------------

Because there has never been a peaceful succession ever, the only thing we've found out is that you wouldn't wait and that you believe everyone are violent murderers.

Succession throughout history most often relied on notion of family ties and filial affection. And even then it didn't always prevent the new leader from being in a hurry.

Here the question is how do you prevent a third party who isn't your relative and doesn't have any particular feeling of affection for you from deciding that HE should be the leader, not you.

Historical successions happened because those historical dynasties had sufficient force to prevent those third-party challengers from taking away what they had.

 

[Oruc]

Here the question is how do you prevent a third party who isn't your relative and doesn't have any particular feeling of affection for you from deciding that HE should be the leader, not you.

I wouldn't put myself anywhere near such a position of authority

 

[luiz]

Your second statement is how we know states actually originated, not the Enlightenment fantasy of the first statement.

That's the point I was making, however. You need other humans to provide any significant amount of wealth. No-one can build up inequality with others without some system to control and extract resources from them. That system is the state.

What fantasy? Was the modern state not born in opposition to the interests of the warrior class?
The fantasy is that the state is some sort of sinister plot to exploit the "working classes".

You don't need a state in order to have inequality. It arises out of the natural differences among men. There is no equality in stone age Yanomami tribes (in terms of gender they're much more unequal than we are). But you certainly need a state in order to enforce equality.

 

[Evie]

I wouldn't put myself anywhere near such a position of authority

Okay. Let's rephrase to avoid cute little wordsy tricks like that:

Let us assume an individual named Joe. Joe occupies a position of authority, and in fact desires to occupy it, like to occupy it, and would very much like to continue occupying it.

Let us also assume a second individual named Jack, who has no particular relation or feeling of affection toward Joe.

How does Joe prevent Jack from deciding that Jack should be the leader, not Joe?

 

[Pangur Bán]

What fantasy? Was the modern state not born in opposition to the interests of the warrior class?

What state was born 'in opposition to the interests of the warrior class'?

You don't need a state in order to have inequality. It arises out of the natural differences among men. There is no equality in stone age Yanomami tribes (in terms of gender they're much more unequal than we are). But you certainly need a state in order to enforce equality.

I'm glad you brought that kind of thing up. Show me the shabono with significance inequality in living space? Point me to a Yanomamo palace?

The Yanomamo, and people like them, can't have institutional inequality. The only way they can do that is by moving into or becoming part of a state.

Significant permanent inequality is impossible without the state (& state-like institutions).

 

[Snorrius]

How does Joe prevent Jack from deciding that Jack should be the leader, not Joe?

There always will be clashes between people of roughly the same ambitions for limited set of available seats of power. The problem with equalized society is that almost no one can satisfy their ambitions and the state have to apply more and violence - physical and ideological to keep everyone at their places.

 

[Evie]

Whereas with an inequal society only a few get to satisfy their ambitions while the rest don't even get to satisfy their basic needs.

Egalitarianism seek to lower the roof and raise the floor. Inegalitarian societies yank both from under people's feet, allowing the ambitious and strong to determine the living conditions of the weak to whatever they deem acceptable.

 

[JollyRoger]

There always will be clashes between people of roughly the same ambitions for limited set of available seats of power. The problem with equalized society is that almost no one can satisfy their ambitions and the state have to apply more and violence - physical and ideological to keep everyone at their places.

What physical and ideological violence have you seen from environmentalists to keep everyone in their place?

 

[Oruc]

Okay. Let's rephrase to avoid cute little wordsy tricks like that:

Let us assume an individual named Joe. Joe occupies a position of authority, and in fact desires to occupy it, like to occupy it, and would very much like to continue occupying it.

Let us also assume a second individual named Jack, who has no particular relation or feeling of affection toward Joe.

How does Joe prevent Jack from deciding that Jack should be the leader, not Joe?

I'm unsure why my first answer wasn't sufficient, If you are looking for a specific answer you don't need to direct the question to me you just could answer it yourself.

 

[luiz]

What state was born 'in opposition to the interests of the warrior class'?

France? All modern nation-states?

I'm glad you brought that kind of thing up. Show me the shabono with significance inequality in living space? Point me to a Yanomamo palace?

The Yanomamo, and people like them, can't have institutional inequality. The only way they can do that is by moving into or becoming part of a state.

Significant permanent inequality is impossible without the state (& state-like institutions).

Well a couple of points:

-There can be no institutional inequality among Yanomamis because they don't have institutions. So this is a platitude.
-Total material inequality among the Yanomamis can never be near our levels because they just don't have that much, materially speaking.

BUT they are unequal in all sorts of ways, much more extreme in some regards. Gender roles are strict and inescapable. The strong are free to loot, rape and kill. There's a bigger inequality between raping and being raped than between owning a car and not owning a car.

Of course the "rich" Yanomami don't live in huge mansions and drive sports cars. But that doesn't make them egalitarian. They aren't.

 

[Snorrius]

Whereas with an inequal society only a few get to satisfy their ambitions while the rest don't even get to satisfy their basic needs.

Not necessarily. Middle East monarchies are quite unequal but provide more than basic necessities. Zimbabwian egalitarian and equality policies had left to disaster which were unimaginable under unequal regime of Ian Smith.

Egalitarianism seek to lower the roof and raise the floor. Inegalitarian societies yank both from under people's feet, allowing the ambitious and strong to determine the living conditions of the weak to whatever they deem acceptable.

This is exactly the problem. Egalitarism lower the roof - not only in economic aspect but in all to make everyone more or less the same. Hence degradation of elites - political, scientific, cultural. With raised floor and lowered roof one can not stand upright. The second problem is that "weak", i.e. masses have often views of what they deem acceptable which are incompatible with civilization and easily can be seduced to some horrendous stupidity.

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm unsure why my first answer wasn't sufficient, If you are looking for a specific answer you don't need to direct the question to me you just could answer it yourself.

Your first answer was an evasion of the actually question asked - personalizing it to yourself rather than answering it generally. Assuming good faith on your part, rephrasing was a courtesy to help you catch up with the rest of the readers.

 

[Pangur Bán]

France? All modern nation-states?

No, France originates as the patrimony of a segment of the Franks, itself imposed upon Roman provincial institutions. You are confusing internal reorganization of the state with its origins.

Well a couple of points:

-There can be no institutional inequality among Yanomamis because they don't have institutions. So this is a platitude.
-Total material inequality among the Yanomamis can never be near our levels because they just don't have that much, materially speaking.

BUT they are unequal in all sorts of ways, much more extreme in some regards. Gender roles are strict and inescapable. The strong are free to loot, rape and kill. There's a bigger inequality between raping and being raped than between owning a car and not owning a car.

Of course the "rich" Yanomami don't live in huge mansions and drive sports cars. But that doesn't make them egalitarian. They aren't.

Again, show me a Yanomamo palace. Again, show me a shabono with vast differences in living space or spread of material goods. Show me the Yanomamo plutocrat or aristocrat or king. That's how you measure inequality.

They have lots of institutions, but they don't have the state ones needed for inequality. No they are not any more free to loot, rape and kill any more than Brazilians are. They will have to live with the consequences. Sure sometimes the consequences aren't always what you would want as a Brazilian, sometimes they are worse, sometimes they are better for the perpetrator than in Latinland, but that's not inequality.

 

[luiz]

No, France originates as the patrimony of a segment of the Franks, itself imposed upon Roman provincial institutions. You are confusing internal reorganization of the state with its origins.

Well I wouldn't call a collection of barely united Frankish dominions a "French State". For me the French state is gradually born as the nobles lose their autonomy and power.

Again, show me a Yanomamo palace. Again, show me a shabono with vast differences in living space or spread of material goods. Show me the Yanomamo plutocrat or aristocrat or king. That's how you measure inequality.

They have lots of institutions, but they don't have the state ones needed for inequality. No they are not any more free to loot, rape and kill any more than Brazilians are. They will have to live with the consequences. Sure sometimes the consequences aren't always what you would want as a Brazilian, sometimes they are worse, sometimes they are better for the perpetrator than in Latinland, but that's not inequality.

If you restrict inequality just to palaces and fancy goods the Yanomami will by definition be perfectly equal, because they can't build palaces or fancy goods. But they are a society where the strong lord over the weak, where women and men have strict and pre-defined roles, and where killing, looting and raping is socially acceptable.

I really don't see how it's the same with other Brazilians. It's not socially acceptable for some guy from Rio to kill, rape and loot in São Paulo. But it is socially acceptable for a Yanomami warrior to do that to a cousin tribe which is much less distant than Rio is to SP.

 

[Flying Pig]

Okay. Let's rephrase to avoid cute little wordsy tricks like that:

Let us assume an individual named Joe. Joe occupies a position of authority, and in fact desires to occupy it, like to occupy it, and would very much like to continue occupying it.

Let us also assume a second individual named Jack, who has no particular relation or feeling of affection toward Joe.

How does Joe prevent Jack from deciding that Jack should be the leader, not Joe?

What you've just outlined happens on most sports teams, and most captains manage it well enough. It's also the order of the day for most young subalterns!