The Essence of the Left

[luiz]

I am not saying that they were in charge. What I am saying is that the fascists supported big businesses and cultivated them as a base of support in opposition to the traditional socialist base of support- the industrial workers. Their policies were ultimately ruinous for business, but the thought was that ultimately businesses were important for a nation as a whole and should be supported at the expense of workers. No one could have predicted how horribly disastrous Hitler's foreign policy would end up being for German business; indeed there was a time that it seemed as if Germany would rule all of Europe.

And what I'm saying is that Fascists usually came from the ranks of workers (and also from the middle class), much more than from big business. They were not aliens enlisted by Big Business to subdue the working class. They were not astro-turfed figureheads. They were the people in charge.

The thought that Mussolini or Hitler were pawns of Big Business is completely ridiculous. They valued Big Business as long as it was useful for their project. They used Big Business, not the other way around.

And a lot of people did predict exactly just how ruinous Hitler and Mussolini would be. Including a lot of businessmen and bankers. If anything, the shock was that it took so long for disaster to arrive. Simultaneously fighting Britain, the USA and the USSR, how could this possibly be good for business?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That's true. But they are a fringe group now. This is exactly what I am talking about: there was a time when the idea of all male should have right to vote was fringe, then there was a time when feminists was a fringe group, and so on.

Since people who want to change things to something new usually organize themselves on the political left, it is only natural that change originates within the left spectrum.
However, your conclusion that hence a given left fringe group will have to rise to prominence and eventually domination seems absurd. Since far from every left fringe group ever reached prominence. Anarchists come to mind as an obvious example. Communists never gained hold in most nations and in deed declined.

The world is going more and more to the Left

That is not true.
China for starters.

But here a more substantial quick illustration:

Around 1900 socialism was a serious force within the European left political spectrum, not just a fringe group, but something that had weight.

Switch forward toward around 2000. Neo-Liberalism of all things has become a dominant force within the left political spectrum (think of Tony Blair or Gerhard Schröder). Socialism is not seriously considered except in fringe groups.

, trying to reach the Equality ideal.
I, as my fellow comrades from the Reaction, do not like this direction because we consider it to be incompatible with our values: civilization, culture and liberty. They can co-exist for some time, of course, in some proportion, but the more left you go, less of this three you get.

Big words. But, just words. I prefer more substantial criteria like the good life that really is the only goal I am willing to accept. Abstract ideas, values etcetera can be useful, but i don't like it when they seem to develop a life of their own and distract from what actually IMO matters. Quality of life.

Well, my disbelief in existence of equality and non-allegiance to the religion of egalitarianism is honest. But this is a gaming internet-forum, there are certain bounds to how one should be serious in place like this. I serve my views with certain dose of humour and irony and try to make the whole experience for those who participate to be enjoyable and memorable. I do appreciate the discussion - it helps me to refine my own thoughts on this issues.c

Well I appreciate your honest answer.
I personally don't believe in equality or ealitarianism either. But I do see ways they can and are put to good use. If a reactionary has a more useful approach, I am all ears, but to be honest myself, I don't think reactionaries do have such a approach. All I have heard so far seemed rather outlandish.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Then again, for some people, neo-liberalism (again, whatever that would be) might be left enough to be considered "socialist".

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Neo-Liberalism is about greater privatization and individual responsibility within free-market capitalism.

So no I don't think that it can be understood as socialist as long as words still are more than the noises I make when I feel a fart coming.

 

[gay_Aleks]

I think we passed that point somewhere after the anarchist came?

 

[Tahuti]

Neo-Liberalism is about greater privatization and individual responsibility within free-market capitalism.

The problem is that doesn't describe any intellectual current. We might be on to something if the term was used to describe liberals that emphasise deregulation and privatisation while supporting the welfare state, though the term 'neoliberal' is employed as something in contrast to the welfare state as well, though it wouldn't render it exactly new. The problem with the term is when it became 'neo'. Otherwise, it hasn't change much from the Liberalism compared to the 19th century.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Yes I think neo-liberalism is also not meant to simply stand for a body of ideas, but rather for a specific historic political development, starting... I am not sure. 80s? Ending in the 2000s? Still on-going?

 

[Cutlass]

That's true, and I should specify, I don't imagine the Great War as a big machine that took in socialists at one end and spat out fascists at the other. It was a universally transformative experience, but the nature and depth of that transformation varied with countless circumstances, from ethnic and racial background to religion to class to individual psychology.(In another thread, Kaiserguard is arguing for returning the individual to history: this would be an example of just such an opportunity.) I certainly agree that, as you said, it was a certain kind of person who came out the war a fascist, just as another kind came out Bolshevik. But that doesn't mean that the war was not crucial to the development of these sympathies among veterans, only that it's not sufficient explain them.

I'm not so sure here. That is, I don't think that there was likely to be all that much difference in the people who became either fascists or Bolsheviks. But rather, what mattered was the crowd they fell in with. These are people were, I think, semi-radicalized, but with little to no direction, to begin with. And then they search for identity in joining with others. Possibly like the young Muslim terrorist recruits now. They don't know where they want to be, or how to get there. And their search leads them to be open to whoever is recruiting.

I'm actually well aware that many historical reactionaries were antisemites. However, it must be noted that it was a personal opinion - which often appeared to be a central point in their line of thinking when in fact it wasn't - and often much smaller in scale. And admittedly, it significantly hampered their cause, preventing them from gaining and cultivating support from tradition-oriented Jews. Likewise, whenever antisemitism seeped into mainstream political discourse, it would often lead to the decapitation of Jewish society of its tradition-respecting leaders, replacing them with intellectuals that would argue against old values.

And yet it's been the rightwingers who have put the Jews to death by the millions.......

«Right» and «Left» of political spectrum is defined against «Center». The problem with the latter is that it was slowly moving towards Left since the time of French Revolution when this political scale appeared for the first time.

In certain sense, this is a Leftist trap itself. One can become an orthodox national-socialist, buy t-shirt with swastika and think he is Right. Actually, he still is sitting in the Leftist den.

Neoreactionaries avoid this trap by going back to the roots and identifying themselves as Right against the Center as it was in the beginning, and comparing to the Center as it was in the end of 18th century Nazism was very Leftist ideology. For example:

1) Nazi acknowledged universal suffrage for males, and, actually, their ascension to power were not possible without ochlocratic election system. They would not able come to power nor in monarchy, nor in old republic where only a very limited set of residents could practice politics.

2) Their rhetoric was addressed to "the people", and their legitimacy was based on "the will of people".

3) While their were in power they, as other Leftist seeking to rapidly equalize society, used brutal methods to equalize society and weed out everything which was not fit to a selected ideal. A lot of people who belongs to elites of different kinds (aristocratic, intellectual, financial etc.) were killed, prisoned or driven out of the country.

4) As extension - using mass eugenics to equalize the race to the desired ideal. Very Leftist-minded. Was trendy Progressivist idea of the day.

5) Nationalization of corporations and industries - very Leftist thing.

6) Expansion of welfare

7) Expansion of governmental control over every sphere of the country's and citizens' lives.

8) Animal rights - very, very Leftist thing. Proto-environmentalism.

So what you're telling me is that anything other than the divine right of kings is radical leftism. Which is, of course, anything and everything worth having. You will accept nothing less that the mist incompetent rule from those most unqualified to rule who have the least right to rule.

I hope you understand that if you are opposed to the Bolsheviks and other 'leftist' revolutions, you are not. These things would never have existed, except for the evil and incompetence which is the natural and inevitable result of having kings. Of every person in any given country, no one will ever be less fit, or have less right, to be a leader than a king.

By choosing to support kings, you have in fact chosen to support whatever tries to overthrow those kings.

 

[jackelgull]

That depends on the king and the situation. But I agree, monarchy has too many failures and too many systematic traps to make a reliable form of government or method of choosing leaders.

 

[Snorrius]

What about all the multitude of fringe groups who are many more in number who withered away? What you are exactly talking about is cherry picking from fringe groups.

There a lot of fringe groups in the Left which all united by the common theme: they all want equalize something. Indeed, I can be wrong about this specific group (though I think this is a realistic extrapolation) but history shows us that some fringe group will become mainstream. Little by little egalitarian society accepts more and more egalitarian ideas -- meaning the general direction the same (and undesirable for the Neoreactionaries who hate the sameness with sincere passion).

So you believe that equality is a bad thing huh? I accept that cultures and people have the right to be different, but unequal? That strikes the wrong cord with me. So how would you decide who is inherently unequal? Who gets what? Do you believe there should be an aristocracy that receives everything regardless of birth, with better treatment from the law and more opportunity, regardless of skill? How inequal do want society to be?

Right is not the direct opposite of the Left. The scale begins at the time of French Revolution and goes to the Left ad infinitum (or to limits human race can bear equalizing) but it does not go to the Right because Right do not worship Inequality.

Neoreactionaries just (1) accept that equality do not exist in real world, (2) do not
think achieving it with artificial means is worthy goal, (3) the most important, equality make impossible to achieve values of the Right. Those are: civilization, culture and freedom.

1) Civilization required hierarchy, equality opposes hierarchy.
2) Culture requires the idea of elites (best of the best) and that it is good to strife to be best of the best. Equality opposes this ideas.
3) Freedom is impossible in totalitarian society where majority is politicized with the state ideology. "Swedish paradises" are very close to theocratic states.

There is no receipt of how many inequality should be in society, because Right does not strife to it specifically. Right accepts it if it necessary to advance agenda of civilization, culture and freedom.

I suspect no sane person would want to live under what you consider the ideal world.
I also suspect it would be impossible to construct a modern nation state around the social institutions you consider important.

Authocratic regimes Dubai, Singapore or China are all better for freedom-spirited Neoreactionaries than suffocating environment of Leftist states - and, indeed, as a means of the individual salvation a lot of Neoreactionary use relocation to Middle East, South-East Asia and the Far East. Not perfect, I know, but Right accepts imperfectness of the world.

 

[Tahuti]

And yet it's been the rightwingers who have put the Jews to death by the millions.......

I maintain Nazis are radical centrists.

 

[useless]

I maintain Nazis are radical centrists.

Are you for real? Nazis were clearly right-wing fascists.

 

[Borachio]

Authoritarian centrist seems to be the consensus. But of course I don't know.

 

[Tahuti]

Authoritarian centrist seems to be the consensus. But of course I don't know.

Socialism is a left-wing ideology. Nationalism is also a left-wing ideology. Yet the Nazi opposition to egalitarianism and support of the family - in both cases, only to the extent it suited their needs - made them more right-wing, to the centre. Fascism and Nazism are basically the white, first world equivalents of non-communist Third World ideologies like Mobutism and Pancasila.

 

[Tee Kay]

Fascism and Nazism are basically the white, first world equivalents of non-communist Third World ideologies like Mobutism and Pancasila.

Do you even know what Pancasila is

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not so sure here. That is, I don't think that there was likely to be all that much difference in the people who became either fascists or Bolsheviks. But rather, what mattered was the crowd they fell in with. These are people were, I think, semi-radicalized, but with little to no direction, to begin with. And then they search for identity in joining with others. Possibly like the young Muslim terrorist recruits now. They don't know where they want to be, or how to get there. And their search leads them to be open to whoever is recruiting.

Again, I think you're seriously underestimating how important and transformative an experience the war was in the lives of many young men. Even fascism itself was dramatically changed, acquiring a militarist dimension which had been marginal before 1914 but now became absolutely central. For a lot of the early fascists, fascism was a way to keep the war going indefinitely, in that it allowed them to keep playing soldier without or without a war. These were people who invested their entire identity in military service, not just in the enthusiasm of youth, but amid trenches and shellfire, and that's not the sort of thing that people can just put on and take off as it suits them. Americans are very fond of the trope of the soldier who takes the war home with them: well, fascism is what happened when tens of thousands took it home with them and began inflicting it on everybody else.

Authoritarian centrist seems to be the consensus. But of course I don't know.

The Political Compass has slightly less authority in this regard than a used handkerchief.

 

[Tahuti]

Do you even know what Pancasila is

No. Nobody does. By definition, it doesn't have any meaning other than that it has vaguely something to do with Indonesia, but every Indonesian leader that assumed dictatorial power evoked Pancasila for the most wide range of reasons. When somebody ended up on the wrong side of say Suharto's temper, that person would be arrested for 'violating the principles of Pancasila'. It is the perfect ideology of corruption and usurpation.

 

[brennan]

But here a more substantial quick illustration:

Around 1900 socialism was a serious force within the European left political spectrum, not just a fringe group, but something that had weight.

Switch forward toward around 2000. Neo-Liberalism of all things has become a dominant force within the left political spectrum (think of Tony Blair or Gerhard Schröder). Socialism is not seriously considered except in fringe groups.

The notion that socialism is dead is based upon two things:

1) The pretense that 'socialism' was mainly represented by failed soviet states, which in fact only comprised a particular form of socialist thought.

2) Hopes that people will ignore the NHS, Medicare, Medicaid, social security systems, unions, minimum wage legislation, universal education and so on that shows anyone who looks that socialism is right here with us and isn't going anywhere.

 

[jackelgull]

1) Civilization required hierarchy, equality opposes hierarchy.
2) Culture requires the idea of elites (best of the best) and that it is good to strife to be best of the best. Equality opposes this ideas.
3) Freedom is impossible in totalitarian society where majority is politicized with the state ideology. "Swedish paradises" are very close to theocratic states.

I want to address these points.
1) According to the dictionary definition of civilization it doesn't so I don't get your point here. Unless you are going by a different definition of civilization than I am.
2) Culture doesn't have to be produced by the elites. In fact I maintain that culture can't be produced at all. Culture is the mindset of the people of a nation. What is popular in a nation gives us insight into the culture, so Twilight is as much culture as The Great Gatsby.
3) What? I have never been to Sweden so I can't deny these accusations but they sound so wrong.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The notion that socialism is dead is based upon two things:

1) The pretense that 'socialism' was mainly represented by failed soviet states, which in fact only comprised a particular form of socialist thought.

There were no soviet states in 1900, yet I said that socialism was a serious force back then.

2) Hopes that people will ignore the NHS, Medicare, Medicaid, social security systems, unions, minimum wage legislation, universal education and so on that shows anyone who looks that socialism is right here with us and isn't going anywhere.

Those things are not what I understand as socialism. Socialism to me means to fundamentally alter the economic system, it means an alternative to free-market capitalism as we know it. Not - as you apparently understand it - welfare schemes, public services and a bit of regulation and... some unions. Perhaps such things share fundamental values with socialism, values which are opposed to the values associated with free-market capitalism. Perhaps that makes them socialism-themed or something. But socialism itself already has a meaning. Should that original meaning be no longer necessary (other then so understand the past where it still was in use) it would only substantiate the notion that socialism was dead.

edit: Interestingly, if we look at how the meaning of socialism shifted so radically we arrive at the same basic reasoning Snorrious embraces.
In the USA certain measures have been branded as socialism out of the vague fear that such measures will lead the way to some kind of authoritarian socialist hell hole. The idea is that if you do certain things which are 'socialism-themed', which are opposed to the values of free-market capitalism, you will have to end up in said hell hole on the long run.
Snorrious argues pretty much the same thing, just with a focus on legal and social equality.