The Essence of the Left

[Domen]

If Russia had stayed Tsarist, how would it compare to other countries today?

Why should Russia stay Tsarist if all other European monarchies became modernized without becoming Communist ???

Imperial Germany had a Kaiser, Austria-Hungary had an Emperor, Britain had monarchs and still has them.

 

[Snorrius]

So it would have moved leftward and gotten better?

Going slow to Left is relatively better than going to the Left fast as example of Sweden shows. Of course, you still get a totalitarian state at the end but at least you do not suffer so much bleeding.

In ideal case, of course, Russia would not move to the Left too far, but we are doing an extrapolation: all European monarchies moved Left quite far, no reason to suggest Russia would not if it were staying in main European discourse. At the other side, it would be a powerful intellectual center itself, so it could slow the process of slowly going to the Left until we, Neoreactionaries, would start our business.

 

[Domen]

Exactly. In fact, everything is going slowly to Left. All the time.

Right is also gadually going to Left (and meanwhile Left is going even more leftwards).

The meaning of what is right-wing and what is left-wing is changing all the time.

Going slowly to Left is not bad. But slowly is the key word here.

Of course, you still get totalitarian state at the end

Unless you stop going Left at some reasonable point.

 

[JollyRoger]

Going slow to Left is relatively better than going to the Left fast as example of Sweden shows. Of course, you still get a totalitarian state at the end but at least you do not suffer so much bleeding.

So are you saying Tsarist Russia would have been better off moving to the right than slowly moving to the left?

 

[Domen]

Again, I'm sure the average Russian peasant or Serf, subject to famine, the harsh climate and forced conscription by the Russian army, had brilliant lives.

Average "comrade" was subject to famine (mass starvation in Ukraine is the well-known one, but there were also several other similar huge famines in Russia - not just in Ukraine), the harsh climate*, and forced conscription by the Red Army, which suffered enormous losses both in the Civil War and in WW2.

*I have no idea why do you even think that Communism made Russian climate milder !!!

So are you saying Tsarist Russia would have been better off moving to the right than slowly moving to the left?

This is very probable. Western Europe moved from absolute monarchies to the right, and only after achieving capitalism moved leftwards.

And they ended up being well-off. First they achieved wealth through "wild" capitalism, and only then they "domesticated" that capitalism.

 

[Snorrius]

Unless you stop going Left at some reasonable point.

Sure. But I wonder is this possible? It does seem that West invented a way to avoid mass murders by introduction changes very gradually. But it does not seem that this process is going to stop. And experience of Communist regimes shows that countries that made through "left singularity" and got a "Sweden paradise" (i.e. quiet life with guaranteed income and equalized society) are got eaten by their less equal neighbours.

 

[JollyRoger]

Sure. But I wonder is this possible?

Yes - as we have seen, a country that swings too far right or left eventually swings towards the other way.

 

[Domen]

And by the way, useless - serfdom in Russia was abolished in the 19th century. By Russian Tsars, not by Lenin...

You remind me of these people who say that the Partitions of Poland were good because otherwise we would still have Liberum Veto in 2014.

Progress was something natural. Electrification and industrialization happened not only in Communist countries, you know.

 

[Snorrius]

So are you saying Tsarist Russia would have been better off moving to the right than slowly moving to the left?

Ideally Russia (and Europe in general) should not go (politically) past the point when Right and Left appeared at all. Meaning - Europe should not buy the idea of egalitarianism.

 

[JollyRoger]

And by the way, useless - serfdom in Russia was abolished in the 19th century. By Russian Tsars, not by Lenin.

Just proving that the Tsars were violent egalitarians, right?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Subscription post. RichardCribb piqued my interest in this thread.

 

[jackelgull]

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but its abolition was achieved on terms not always favorable to the peasants and served to increase revolutionary pressures. Between 1864 to 1871 serfdom was abolished in Georgia. In Kalmykia serfdom was only abolished in 1892.[23]

The serfs had to work for the landlord as usual for two years. The nobles kept nearly all the meadows and forests, had their debts paid by the state while the ex serfs paid 34% over the market price for the shrunken plots they kept. This figure was 90% in the northern regions, 20% in the black earth region but zero in the Polish provinces. In 1857, 6.79% of serfs were domestic, landless servants who stayed landless after 1861.[citation needed] Only Polish and Romanian domestic serfs got land. 90% of the serfs who got larger plots were in Congress Poland where the Tsar wanted to weaken the szlachta. The rest were in the barren north and in Astrakhan. In the whole Empire, peasant land declined 4.1%, 13.3% outside the ex Polish zone and 23.3% in the 16 black earth provinces.[citation needed] These redemption payments were not abolished till January 1, 1907.


Is is what you were referring to? So it seems that Russia was way behind its more leftward leaning neighbors in regards to quality of life. Why am I not surprised.

 

[Snorrius]

Just proving that the Tsars were violent egalitarians, right?

Monarchs did help to dig the hole by joining the forces with third estate against the second, that's true.

 

[Cutlass]

Nicely put. Leftists, for some reason, are incapable for grasping this simple point -- they always measure everything against some ideal which does not even exists. This approach may have its place in religion and spirituality but have little place in secular context. Probably, it proves that Leftist ideologies are substitute religions for spiritually challenged.

How is that in any sense different from the right? The right makes up an ideal, and then makes up a justification for that ideal, and then claims that it is tradition.

 

[Domen]

Serfdom was abolished in 1861, but its abolition was achieved on terms not always favorable to the peasants

In Prussia (Germany) serfdom was also abolished in the 1800s - a few dozen years earlier than in Russia - and was also achieved on terms not always fovorable to the peasants. So what ??? Later those terms gradually changed. Why do you assume that a Non-Communist Russia would be utterly incapable of normal development which happened both in other countries and in Russia prior to Communism. These are your irrational fears, or do you believe that Russia was inherently different?

 

[jackelgull]

Yes but that was because of a leftward shift in thinking that labor conditions become better, not a rightward one.

 

[Domen]

because of a leftward shift in thinking that labor conditions become better

Some leftist ideas are good, I already wrote above that "domestication" of wild capitalism was good.

 

[Domen]

I am not apologist. But luiz indirectly asked me what Russian period of history I swear my fondness to, and I answered that if I have to, this will be Imperial Russia. The reason is that it was the highest point of Russia, and if we need to get inspiration from the past it is natural to get inspiration from the best period, not from Soviet period which was not the highest point of Russia.

Russia was doing reasonably well throughout most of its history, regardless of what Westerners, jealous that some country dares to contest their world domination, will tell you. And the contribution of Russia to European culture is also huge, even though some people today would like to put Russia in Asia instead of Europe.

Especially laughable is the frequent use of term "Europe" as synonym of "European Union", you can hear it nowadays in our "free media", but it is pathetic.

"When we joined Europe back in 2004..." - you will hear this in Polish leftist media. Jeez, we joined Europe in 966 (or even before that), not in 2004...

 

[Snorrius]

How is that in any sense different from the right? The right makes up an ideal, and then makes up a justification for that ideal, and then claims that it is tradition.

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.

"When we joined Europe back in 2004..." - you will hear this in Polish leftist media. Jeez, we joined Europe in 966 (or even before that), not in 2004...

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

 

[jackelgull]

you should be afraid.

That sounds like some sort of ominous threat.