>Liberalism, republicanism, Luddism, utopian socialism, Marxian communism, anarcho-syndicalism, labor unionism, democratic socialism, Third World national liberationism, feminism (radical, cultural, liberal, etc.), racial universalism, racial identitarianism, radical environmentalism, gay liberation, transgenderism: these are all somehow manifestations of a consistent world view?
In fact, yes.
First of all, the left's revolutionaries have quite a bit in common. A common blood tie that unites them across centuries and even millennia.
Second of all, the goal is destruction of the enemy. All of these ideologies are inflicted on their preferred victims. That there are true believers who think that these ideologies will make the world a better place is incidental. Their original intent was to do harm.
I'm not sure you followed my point. But to be clear, you're claiming that everyone who belonged to one of those categories above fit your description? If so, i don't think that's a sustainable claim. And for the record, many who'd be included under some of those categories would be right wing, as worked out in this series. And, on the other hand, if you intend your description to refer not to the categories above, but to my definition of left worked out in this series, I don't see how that description would apply to all those free marketer types. So, either way, I don't really see it.
But as always, thanks for contributing to the comments participation. It's always appreciated.
> But to be clear, you're claiming that everyone who belonged to one of those categories above fit your description?
Yes. Pretty much. But it's politically incorrect to notice it.
>And for the record, many who'd be included under some of those categories would be right wing, as worked out in this series.
I thought that you eschewed right and left categorizations?
I think we might broadly agree on what the left is, but what is your categorization of the right? Maybe you cover it later in the series. I'm still reading.
I'd categorize the left as nominalism or materialism, essentially. From the time of the Old Testament onwards.
The right, in contrast, is interested in transcendental values.
Much to respond to here. Yes, I have eschewed left-right distinctions, until I read Michéa, as I believe I observed in the post to which we're commenting, because he gave me an analysis that not only made sense of these distinctions but allowed them to be used in ways which rather than confusing core issues actually clarified them. That discovery was the inspiration for the series.
Now, as for the claim that everyone who belonged to the aforementioned categories is subject to your description as fundamentally malevolent, well, I suppose you'd need to be capable of mind reading to know that, but at least on face value I'd have a difficult time accepting that as the prime motivator of someone like Bastiat or Nehru. And of course, as I also mentioned, many of these positions are hostile to each other: e.g., liberalism and Luddism were at odds with each other; as was Marxian communism with utopian socialism and Gomperist labour unionism. Today, we're already seeing serious cracks in the intersectional alliance (brilliant initial strategy though it was). So, my main point was that these things did not naturally fit together and trying to include them all under the same label was not theoretically coherent.
Now (using the terms as I've distinguished them in this series), from a right wing perspective, certainly the left (by definition) has in common a hostility to the values of the right. To that extent I'll agree with you. But this idea that they're all driven by malevolence (I can see how some on the right might perceive it that way, but), I doubt that's true and am more than a little skeptical about the availability of a methodology to assess such a claim. I think both sides are inclined to project such nefariousness upon their rivals and enemies.
And I don't see why one can't be a right wing materialist. I am, at least contingently, one. But maybe it's the contingently part that you'd emphasize. I'm sure there's value in distinguishing between those who are essential and contingent rightists. As the last instalment in the series emphasizes, I am most definitely the latter.
But I appreciate your reading the series and will be interested to hear your thoughts as you continue through the instalments. Thanks.
You mean mainly the Vendee War, don't you? It's always mentioned as one of the main counter-revolutionary threats, but I never read anything studying it in any depth. Looking forward.
> WHAT'S LEFT OF WHAT'S RIGHT
I am interested in comparing what you have to say with the 3 approaches to the left/right dichotomy I am familiar with: those of Haidt, Peterson, and NRx.
On one foot:
Jonathan Haidt, based on his research, posited five independent moral foundations, to which he later added the sixth:
- Care/Harm
- Fairness/Cheating
- Loyalty/Betrayal
- Authority/Subversion
- Sanctity/Degradation
- Liberty/Oppression
According to him, the Left is characterized by stressing the first two (with the addmixture of the last one), while the Right takes a more holistic approach.
Peterson in some of his lectures characterizes the Rightward impulse as favoring hierarchy at the expense of egalitarianism, while the Leftward impulse is the opposite. The hierarchy is needed to build and maintain order. Egalitarianism ensures that the people in power don't get away with too much. [The way I understand it is that both impulses are integral parts of human nature, and always co-exist in society in some kind of dynamic equilibrium.]
NRx takes that to the extreme: the Right is pro-order, while the Left is eventually pro-chaos - trying to upset any existing order ("increase social entropy") while collecting the power and resources that get loosened in the process ("harness the energy released".)
I really think your work is hugely important. A lot of the dissident community within the military seem to see the threat as emanating from Marxism, the CCP etc. They need to find your stack to develop a higher fidelity understanding of the true nature of the current regime.
If you haven't, you might want to look back at the two posts on Socialism's Corruption by the Left. There I provide, I hope, a fair summary of at least my understanding of Michéa's arguments. But I also explain there that as far as I can see (and your efforts seem to mostly support my conclusion) that none of his books are available in English. I had to translate them. I didn't see the book on liberalism, though. But the one's that seemed more focused on the topic that interested me were definitely not in English. The first of the two posts mentioned above lay out a method for fast translation, if you're interested. ;-)
>Liberalism, republicanism, Luddism, utopian socialism, Marxian communism, anarcho-syndicalism, labor unionism, democratic socialism, Third World national liberationism, feminism (radical, cultural, liberal, etc.), racial universalism, racial identitarianism, radical environmentalism, gay liberation, transgenderism: these are all somehow manifestations of a consistent world view?
In fact, yes.
First of all, the left's revolutionaries have quite a bit in common. A common blood tie that unites them across centuries and even millennia.
Second of all, the goal is destruction of the enemy. All of these ideologies are inflicted on their preferred victims. That there are true believers who think that these ideologies will make the world a better place is incidental. Their original intent was to do harm.
I'm not sure you followed my point. But to be clear, you're claiming that everyone who belonged to one of those categories above fit your description? If so, i don't think that's a sustainable claim. And for the record, many who'd be included under some of those categories would be right wing, as worked out in this series. And, on the other hand, if you intend your description to refer not to the categories above, but to my definition of left worked out in this series, I don't see how that description would apply to all those free marketer types. So, either way, I don't really see it.
But as always, thanks for contributing to the comments participation. It's always appreciated.
> But to be clear, you're claiming that everyone who belonged to one of those categories above fit your description?
Yes. Pretty much. But it's politically incorrect to notice it.
>And for the record, many who'd be included under some of those categories would be right wing, as worked out in this series.
I thought that you eschewed right and left categorizations?
I think we might broadly agree on what the left is, but what is your categorization of the right? Maybe you cover it later in the series. I'm still reading.
I'd categorize the left as nominalism or materialism, essentially. From the time of the Old Testament onwards.
The right, in contrast, is interested in transcendental values.
Much to respond to here. Yes, I have eschewed left-right distinctions, until I read Michéa, as I believe I observed in the post to which we're commenting, because he gave me an analysis that not only made sense of these distinctions but allowed them to be used in ways which rather than confusing core issues actually clarified them. That discovery was the inspiration for the series.
Now, as for the claim that everyone who belonged to the aforementioned categories is subject to your description as fundamentally malevolent, well, I suppose you'd need to be capable of mind reading to know that, but at least on face value I'd have a difficult time accepting that as the prime motivator of someone like Bastiat or Nehru. And of course, as I also mentioned, many of these positions are hostile to each other: e.g., liberalism and Luddism were at odds with each other; as was Marxian communism with utopian socialism and Gomperist labour unionism. Today, we're already seeing serious cracks in the intersectional alliance (brilliant initial strategy though it was). So, my main point was that these things did not naturally fit together and trying to include them all under the same label was not theoretically coherent.
Now (using the terms as I've distinguished them in this series), from a right wing perspective, certainly the left (by definition) has in common a hostility to the values of the right. To that extent I'll agree with you. But this idea that they're all driven by malevolence (I can see how some on the right might perceive it that way, but), I doubt that's true and am more than a little skeptical about the availability of a methodology to assess such a claim. I think both sides are inclined to project such nefariousness upon their rivals and enemies.
And I don't see why one can't be a right wing materialist. I am, at least contingently, one. But maybe it's the contingently part that you'd emphasize. I'm sure there's value in distinguishing between those who are essential and contingent rightists. As the last instalment in the series emphasizes, I am most definitely the latter.
But I appreciate your reading the series and will be interested to hear your thoughts as you continue through the instalments. Thanks.
> peasant revolts during the French Revolution
You mean mainly the Vendee War, don't you? It's always mentioned as one of the main counter-revolutionary threats, but I never read anything studying it in any depth. Looking forward.
> WHAT'S LEFT OF WHAT'S RIGHT
I am interested in comparing what you have to say with the 3 approaches to the left/right dichotomy I am familiar with: those of Haidt, Peterson, and NRx.
On one foot:
Jonathan Haidt, based on his research, posited five independent moral foundations, to which he later added the sixth:
- Care/Harm
- Fairness/Cheating
- Loyalty/Betrayal
- Authority/Subversion
- Sanctity/Degradation
- Liberty/Oppression
According to him, the Left is characterized by stressing the first two (with the addmixture of the last one), while the Right takes a more holistic approach.
Peterson in some of his lectures characterizes the Rightward impulse as favoring hierarchy at the expense of egalitarianism, while the Leftward impulse is the opposite. The hierarchy is needed to build and maintain order. Egalitarianism ensures that the people in power don't get away with too much. [The way I understand it is that both impulses are integral parts of human nature, and always co-exist in society in some kind of dynamic equilibrium.]
NRx takes that to the extreme: the Right is pro-order, while the Left is eventually pro-chaos - trying to upset any existing order ("increase social entropy") while collecting the power and resources that get loosened in the process ("harness the energy released".)
Very exciting! Looks like this Vivek guy is reading some McConkey: https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1611014681493209088?s=20&t=eWP9j4RUT39usGupqVd2rQ
I really think your work is hugely important. A lot of the dissident community within the military seem to see the threat as emanating from Marxism, the CCP etc. They need to find your stack to develop a higher fidelity understanding of the true nature of the current regime.
Thank you, Grant.
I'm intrigued by the outline and looking forward to the chapter drafts as they are published.
Do you have a source for any of Michéa’s books in English? (Mostly I’m seeing a few essays at Libcom and one book on liberalism.)
If you haven't, you might want to look back at the two posts on Socialism's Corruption by the Left. There I provide, I hope, a fair summary of at least my understanding of Michéa's arguments. But I also explain there that as far as I can see (and your efforts seem to mostly support my conclusion) that none of his books are available in English. I had to translate them. I didn't see the book on liberalism, though. But the one's that seemed more focused on the topic that interested me were definitely not in English. The first of the two posts mentioned above lay out a method for fast translation, if you're interested. ;-)