Liberals, progressives and conservatives of note sign open letter to end cancel culture. (Noam Chomsky/J.K. Rowling/Gloria Steinem/David Brooks etc.)

[Agema]

First, I'm talking about political epistemology and metanarrative.

Sounds to me like you're using overblown terminology to explain simple points.

I think the right wing is about social order, social hierarchy and conservatism. For instance, in the 19th century UK, economic liberalism was on the left, and the right wing was the dusty old institutional privileges of aristocratic landowners that had to be forced aside. As it is true that in many other states at many times, left and right could not clearly be discerned by attitudes to economic freedom.

It just so happens that in our capitalist society as is, wealth is a particularly great determinant of status, and those with high status tend to benefit most from economic freedoms. Although when I say economic freedoms, in practice the capitalist class are of course more pro-business than they are pro-economic freedom: there may be considerable overlap, but it is far from total.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes...that would be my point. This is a function of the role and strength of authority (i.e. the authoritarian/libertarian axis) in political systems and ideologies, not the left-right axis. This isn't inherent to left or right, this is inherent to authoritarianism. The problem arises when one starts arguing authoritarianism or totalitarianism are inherently left or right, and start cherry picking authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, or policies of those regimes, to build straw men.

Of course authoritarianism is not inherently left or right. This doesn't somehow mean that totalitarian regimes also exist entirely outside the left-right spectrum, and can't be placed on it; that simply doesn't follow. They exist on multiple axes.

 

[Buyetyen]

Of course authoritarianism is not inherently left or right. This doesn't somehow mean that totalitarian regimes also exist entirely outside the left-right spectrum, and can't be placed on it; that simply doesn't follow. They exist on multiple axes.

Not sure why people still struggle with this one. You put it as simple as it can be. Authoritarianism is less about the substance of policy and more about the execution and enforcement thereof. Not to say it doesn't inform the substance of policy, but to a lesser degree than liberalism or conservatism inherently do. At the risk of an overly reductionist take, I would argue that authoritarianism can be summed up as the idea that the survival of the state take precedent over individual rights, and libertarianism is the argument that a state is only as healthy as the rights enjoyed by even the least of its citizens.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Sounds to me like you're using overblown terminology to explain simple points.

I think the right wing is about social order, social hierarchy and conservatism. For instance, in the 19th century UK, economic liberalism was on the left, and the right wing was the dusty old institutional privileges of aristocratic landowners that had to be forced aside. As it is true that in many other states at many times, left and right could not clearly be discerned by attitudes to economic freedom.

It just so happens that in our capitalist society as is, wealth is a particularly great determinant of status, and those with high status tend to benefit most from economic freedoms. Although when I say economic freedoms, in practice the capitalist class are of course more pro-business than they are pro-economic freedom: there may be considerable overlap, but it is far from total.

Laissez-faire perhaps should not be conflated with "economic freedom", as what it is really about is a particular vision of property rights in which owners have all the power. That these owners are private does not make their authority as enforced by the law significantly less absolute or the people subject to that authority significantly less oppressed.

 

[Trunkage]

Laissez-faire perhaps should not be conflated with "economic freedom", as what it is really about is a particular vision of property rights in which owners have all the power. That these owners are private does not make their authority as enforced by the law significantly less absolute or the people subject to that authority significantly less oppressed.

A good example of Laisse-Faire was on the 3rd of August 1981. Reagan was very helpful

 

[Agema]

Laissez-faire perhaps should not be conflated with "economic freedom", as what it is really about is a particular vision of property rights in which owners have all the power. That these owners are private does not make their authority as enforced by the law significantly less absolute or the people subject to that authority significantly less oppressed.

I take your point, but there's an almighty tussle required to strip the semantic concept of "economic freedom" out of the hands of the capitalist right.

 

[Trunkage]

I take your point, but there's an almighty tussle required to strip the semantic concept of "economic freedom" out of the hands of the capitalist right.

Pointing out that their 'economic freedom' doesn't actually mean freedom for 90% of the world. And pointing this out automatically makes you communist. Therefore evil

 

[Silvanus]

At the risk of an overly reductionist take, I would argue that authoritarianism can be summed up as the idea that the survival of the state take precedent over individual rights, and libertarianism is the argument that a state is only as healthy as the rights enjoyed by even the least of its citizens.

I wouldn't run with that definition of Libertarianism, personally; the part about "even the least of its citizens" implies a protection of the standard of living for the poorest in society, which (in my experience) libertarians are not terribly interested in.

 

[Buyetyen]

I wouldn't run with that definition of Libertarianism, personally; the part about "even the least of its citizens" implies a protection of the standard of living for the poorest in society, which (in my experience) libertarians are not terribly interested in.

True. That's more progessivism. In practice libertarianism, at least in the US is the ideology of, "Fuck you, I got mine."

 

[Aegix Drakan]

True. That's more progessivism. In practice libertarianism, at least in the US is the ideology of, "Fuck you, I got mine."

Also, often enough, people who preach libertarianism and/or corporatism are the first to jump on government handouts the second they're in any trouble and justify it to themselves with "But I work hard, so I deserve it, it's all the other people who don't".

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Eacaraxe]

It just so happens that in our capitalist society as is, wealth is a particularly great determinant of status, and those with high status tend to benefit most from economic freedoms. Although when I say economic freedoms, in practice the capitalist class are of course more pro-business than they are pro-economic freedom: there may be considerable overlap, but it is far from total.

Yes, that would be a case of right-wing ideology coming at odds with authority-versus-liberty and the presence and scope of state power -- the same argument libertarians and ancaps misapply to what they perceive as 'the left' because, again, they want to misrepresent their side as standing for "true liberty" while the other is "authoritarian". For corporatism to function, the state has to possess enough power to enact protectionist and exclusive business policy, whilst simultaneously guaranteeing economic freedom for the ruling class and restricting that of everyone else.

Spoiler

This is what right-wing hacks want to pretend the distribution is:

This is what left-wing hacks want to pretend the distribution is:

This is what the perception ought to be:

Wherein the red isn't actually possible, because approaching the extremes creates increasing conflicts between left-right and state power, to the point of unsustainability. Like it or not, both extreme left and extreme right necessitate mixed economies, just as totalitarians sacrifice right and/or left to pursue state/party power, and libertarians/anarchists make concessions to right and left to weaken or abolish state power.

This is the point: totalitarianism betrays "traditional" left-right classification because in the event of any policy choice or controversy, totalitarians will select that which yields the outcome of maximizing or preserving state/party unity and power. All else (and I do mean all) is window dressing.

 

[Agema]

Also, often enough, people who preach libertarianism and/or corporatism are the first to jump on government handouts the second they're in any trouble and justify it to themselves with "But I work hard, so I deserve it, it's all the other people who don't".

The libertarian argument I'm more used to is "the government took my taxes, so I'm entitled to take as much as I can of it back off the government".

The argument that they can take something from government even if it is not recovering what was theirs is simple self-interest: it was the government's job not to offer it.

This is what right-wing hacks want to pretend the distribution is:

Understanding of what right and left are don't derive from someone's graph.

Your argument can essentially be restated as "totalitarianism is incompatible with the extreme right or left according to the formulation of political positions by David Nolan". Fine. But it's no use against someone who doesn't believe Nolan's view is axiomatic.

 

[Buyetyen]

The libertarian argument I'm more used to is "the government took my taxes, so I'm entitled to take as much as I can of it back off the government".

The argument that they can take something from government even if it is not recovering what was theirs is simple self-interest: it was the government's job not to offer it.

Also known as the, "Ayn Rand wasn't really a hypocrite for taking Social Security and Medicare, you guyz!" argument.

 

[Agema]

Also known as the, "Ayn Rand wasn't really a hypocrite for taking Social Security and Medicare, you guyz!" argument.

I would suggest that one of the biggest problems with very clever people is that they are exceptionally good at making up convincing-seeming arguments to defend bad conclusions. And Ayn Rand was nothing if not a very clever person.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Understanding of what right and left are don't derive from someone's graph.

Your argument can essentially be restated as "totalitarianism is incompatible with the extreme right or left according to the formulation of political positions by David Nolan". Fine. But it's no use against someone who doesn't believe Nolan's view is axiomatic.

Like it or not, it's the predominant metric and paradigm for understanding and classifying ideology in the United States.

And my argument is (1) Nolan's work is deliberately misrepresented by political hacks to serve self-interest, and (2) that misrepresentation has become so deeply ingrained that it has fundamentally changed how Americans perceive politics. There is one common vein among partisans, regardless of individual policy positions: they're all relativist and want to advertise themselves as the "real" center, while outgrouping competing ideology as extremist. Comparing competing ideologies to mid-20th Century totalitarian regimes is simply the most rhetorically-powerful argument to make, because it's a thought-terminating cliche.

 

[CaitSeith]

I would sum it up as authoritarians placing the needs of the state above the individual and liberalism putting the needs of the individual above the state.

That sounds cool and dandy, until you realize that the individual and the state aren't the only entities involved. There are also the corporations, and liberalism has no issues in putting the needs of corporations above the individual.

 

[Agema]

That sounds cool and dandy, until you realize that the individual and the state aren't the only entities involved. There are also the corporations, and liberalism has no issues in putting the needs of corporations above the individual.

Corporations are really extensions of individuals (except I guess state owned companies, which are extensions of the state). The state puts corporations above individuals because they're more powerful than individuals and thus more able to persuade the state.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Corporations are really extensions of individuals (except I guess state owned companies, which are extensions of the state). The state puts corporations above individuals because they're more powerful than individuals and thus more able to persuade the state.

States can often be extensions of individuals as well, though that's generally frowned upon if too obvious nowadays.