WHAT'S LEFT OF WHAT'S RIGHT, PART 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES

Table of Series Content

Part 2: French Peasants as the Original Right

Part 3: Politics, Values, and Getting the Left Right

Part 4: State vs Markets, the Ultimate Kabuki Theater

Part 5: Left vs Right Socialism Explained

Part 6: Lessons of Innis’ Grand Pendulation

It all makes sense now, he said.

Back at the very beginning of November I posted my first substack instalment post-Michéa: i.e., first post under the influence of having read the work of Jean-Claude Michéa. I won’t rehearse his argument right here – though it will be addressed throughout this series. Suffice it to say, what initially struck me as an intriguingly novel way of looking at the world has increasingly become an essential key for unlocking the nature of political life over the course of the last several centuries, right up to today.

Long time readers will know that I’ve avoided using the distinction between left and right. This was partially because I considered the class distinction more important (there are left and right within all classes), and partially because I thought the terms were such shifting signifiers that they only contributed to muddled thinking. Effectively, the distinction has largely been driven by a nebulous, shifting tribalism. And if one tries to accord substance to the historical series of positions, say, attributed to the left, one winds up with strange associations and inconsistent attitudes. 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?

On the contrary, many of them are directly at odds with each other. Calling them left simply points to the tribalist boundaries of a particular historical moment. Used in such a haphazard and makeshift way the terms left and right are meaningless and useless.

Yet, they could be quite useful terms, helping us to understand more deeply the forces in the world. Since most of the world (English-speaking particularly) has never read (or likely even heard of) Michéa, such muddle remains the norm. The objective of this series is to provide a corrective to such muddled thinking with an appeal to consistent, conceptual axioms. Since reading Michéa – and having worked through the implications of his framing of political theory – I’m increasingly convinced that the left-right distinction is more important than I’d previously appreciated. Even if, still, most people’s use of the terms is confused and so prone to promote muddle.

Further, with this deeper understanding, not only does an astute reading of left-right politics not obscure an analysis of the managerial class v. populism conflict, but rather it can help clarify some issues related to that conflict. So, while I’ve long discouraged left-right talk, here I’m going to revise that position, suggesting that the left-right distinction, if properly understood and leveraged, can provide some real analytic value.

Again, as with the Solidarność series, this set of posts began as a longer article: for many people I expect, too long for a single sitting as a substack post. So, it will be broken up into a set of instalments. In this case, probably six instalments. This will be largely an exercise in defining terms. Along the way, the substantive relevance of those definitions for a coherent and trenchant political theory will become increasingly clear. This might be, from a foundational perspective, certainly, my most ambitious contribution, yet. (Though I’m sure a lot of people will find it crazy and preposterous. What can you do?) Furthermore, as I’ve started pondering whether it’s time to begin work on a new book, I’m thinking that the ideas explored over the instalments in this series may well constitute – if not exactly the focus – at least the conceptual spine of such a book. So, what will it entail?

I’ll start with a few brief words about the history of what I’ll call “the original right.” This will be an extended consideration of the place of the peasant revolts during the French Revolution. Those who have read the earlier posts on Michéa (see here and here) will appreciate the importance of the French Revolution as the explicit political weaponization of the French Enlightenment. The observations in this second post in the series began as part of what is now instalment number three, but it quickly became obvious that there was more to be said on the topic than could be justified as a digression within the latter post. So, the discussion of the French peasants, as the original right, and why they should be thought of that way, will receive a post of its own.

In the third instalment I’ll flesh out what I mean by politics or political. As will be seen, this bears immensely upon the question of values. And while I’ll only use the latter term occasionally thereafter, it should become clear that a precise and specific understanding of “values” will be important as shorthand to make sense of any discussion of political theory, philosophy, or action. That instalment also will review and extend some of the key insights from Michéa’s analysis of the left-right divide. All this then will set the stage for the concluding instalments to the series, which will examine the broader implications for political theory, action, and commitment.   

In the fourth instalment, leaning upon Michéa’s analysis, I’ll flesh out a little further the distinction between left and right. In the process, we’ll discover that the usual battle lines drawn between these things don’t take the path that so many reflexively consider them to take. And in fact, one of the oldest, more prevalent assumptions about the left-right division in contemporary discourse is in fact a complete misdirection. This misdirection, as will be seen, is the ultimate Kabuki theater. Reviving the much-neglected work of Karl Polanyi will be helpful in this discussion.

We’ll then have, for the penultimate instalment, the necessary conceptual tools to tease out the meaning of Michéa’s distinction between left and right socialism, as well as left and right populism.¹ While the designation does indeed refer to a common objective, which might be characterized as creating countervailing force against an expanded Gini Coefficient, the distinction between left and right versions of such countervailing force indicates much about how that is legitimately done. And, how it is done, unsurprisingly, leads to very different social consequences.

Finally, in the concluding instalment, drawing upon the insights of another much-neglected scholar, Canadian economic historian Harold Innis, I’ll tease out what I take to be the normative lessons to draw from all of this. I’m well-aware that many (probably most) of my readers here won’t feel sympathetic to that normative conclusion. That’s fine; we can disagree about ultimate motives while still sharing a productive discussion about analysis and methods, as long as we agree upon contingent political realities and goals – whatever leads us to embrace those goals. But I did want to put on the record my own perspective on the question of foundations and commitment.   

As mentioned, WHAT’S LEFT OF WHAT’S RIGHT is going to be my longest series yet. And, as also mentioned, in some ways, it might well be the most ambitious, yet. At least for those interested in foundational questions. Again, I’ll follow the practice of trying to post an instalment every few days, calibrated to the length of the preceding post, so the arguments remain fresh in the mind of readers, hopefully without overwhelming people wanting to keep up on the argument while still dealing with life’s continual demands upon your time and attention. Whether you love it or hate it, it’s going to be an intriguing ride.

So, stay tuned. And, if you haven’t yet, please…

And if you know anyone else who’d be interested in sharing in the discussion, please…

1. As will be seen in this series, while I’m unsure how much of a distinction there is between right populism and right socialism, as well as left populism and left socialism, I’m inclined to say that right libertarianism simply does not exist. But you’ll have to wait until part 4 to see why that is.