Comment by dragonwriter
6 years ago
> Left-wing social movements, while initially well intentioned, tend to eat their own in escalating purity spirals.
That's not particularly true of left-wing movements; to the extent it's true of them it's also true of right-wing movements. The relevant factors are orthogonal to the left-right axis.
Except it is, and not because "leftists" are bad or anything. I consider myself a leftist. It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses. None of those are wrong per se, they are even healthy, but when they are perverted and distorted they can easily led to circuses like the cultural revolution in China. Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
> Except it is,
No, it's not.
> It is because leftism promotes a resistance and challenging to authority and a prior belief in the goodness of the downtrodden masses
I could with as much, justification say it is particularly associated with right-wing movements because the right promotes a rigid adherence to rules and authority, which devolves under pressure into seeking out non-adherence with progressively finer and finer combs.
> Right-wing ideologies usually promote submission to authority and traditionalism. The problems that come with excesses in that front are of a different kind.
Maybe in some other aspects, but a cycle of eating their own under pressure is not a point on which there is a difference. The left perhaps has more contribution from “people that were on the factions side before it gained power become genuinely opposed once it started executing power” and the right perhaps more from genuine intolerance for even the slightest deviation, but they both definitely experience it.
The idea of 'right wing ideology' doesn't mean anything, it's actually just mostly pseudo-intellectual nonsense created by the academic left.
Consider that the right are supposedly in favour of free markets and small government but also supposedly in favour of strong submission to authority? These positions are incompatible.
In reality most historical movements labelled as "right wing" were left wing, yes, that means fascism and Nazi-ism too. The latter of course even had "socialist" in the title yet decades of the academic left insisting that against all common sense and obvious observations, Nazis were actually right wing, has left the world hopelessly confused about this so-called spectrum. You can't be both supportive of a dictatorship and state-controlled industry, and a believer in small government, free speech and free markets.
> The latter of course even had "socialist" in the title
Ah yes and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is also democratic, please...
1 reply →
The difference between left right and right wing movements is that the right has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far. It looks something like political/national racial purity. Once people start spouting that, they tend to be removed from polite conversation. There is no similar outer bound on the left. There is nothing you can support that's so far left you will be expunged from polite society.
> The difference between left right and right wing movements is that the right has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far.
Heh. Is that a joke?
> It looks something like political/national racial purity. Once people start spouting that, they tend to be removed from polite conversation.
Yeah, the American Right has really marginalized Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, et al.
> There is no similar outer bound on the left
Really? Which of the following statements will get you excluded from public political dialogue in the US)
“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
Or
“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
(One of these has been prominently made by prominent voices on one side of the spectrum without repercussion, while people are routinely excluded for statements for more moderate than the other. At least in the US, to the extent anything vaguely resembling your point is true, it's exactly the reverse of the split you've proposed.)
The African-American slave statement was recently made on one of the open discussion threads of SSC blog in question. I was fairly shocked by it (I didn’t know it was a common topic), first trying to see if it was meant ironically (no, it seemed to be meant seriously), then expecting the regular “rationalists” to tear the arguments apart. But none did, and the statement stood unchallenged—to be fair, the recent open threads had thousands of comments and so it may have gone unnoticed. I was actually going to see if that thread had any replies when I found the blog was deleted, and I honestly wondered if that wasn’t the reason.
The discussions on SSC were often intellectual and rationality-based, but a lot of the super-commenters were right-leaning. Left-leaning commenters were more scarce, and even benefitted from some affirmative-action less-strict moderation to encourage them to sick around. In fact, after the recent BLM protests, a new user showed up to argue and explain the social justice position, and did so respectfully and was well-received.
But I think a lot of the regulars had their blind spots. So many arguments were essentially: since A is true, B and C are the logical conclusions, but often nobody questioned A, let alone tested it—the rationality was often superficial. A popular format on the open threads (thus I’m characterizing the blog readers and commentariat, not the blog author) was impossible hypotheticals leading to un-provable speculation. Questions like what would’ve happened if Germany in WW2 had such-or-such a weapon. The format was even codified in the format of friendly aliens offering some weird bargain (take a pill to sleep 12hrs a day—or never need sleep but always be tired), then asking people what they would do or how that would change things. Fun thought problems, but so disconnected from reality or practical thought—essentially nerd-sniping (to use an admittedly uncharitable term).
Tl;DR: SSC was a mixed bag, but mostly civil and well-intentioned.
2 replies →
> Yeah, the American Right has really marginalized Donald Trump, Stephen Miller, et al.
The fact that Trump is what you think passes for an ethno-nationalist these days is all the evidence needed to demonstrate my point.
>“Europeans did Africans a favor by bringing them to America as slaves”
This is a pretty gross thing to say, but it's not ethno-nationalism. Words have meaning for a reason.
>“Capitalist ownership of the means of production is a root of injustice and fundamentally incompatible with democracy”
The most popular politician in our country a couple years ago, and perhaps still today, is the open socialist Bernie Sanders.
> has sort of agreed on an outer bound for how far right is too far
You think Stephen Miller wants to stop with border camps? This is an absolute absurd claim to make.
> There is nothing you can support that's so far left you will be expunged from polite society.
Where is the comparable person to Stephen Miller being anywhere close to public policy on the left? We have one barely socdem congressperson. Where are the NYT opeds about third worldism?
Can you give an example?I think this is probably country dependent (I'm from Europe) but in my experience calling yourself "communist" or even just agitating for democratic control over means of production is enough to be "canceled" in the sense that most large employers will be wary to higher you and our mainstream media will lump you in with Stalin. And that is in Europe, on the US I have less experience but I think until Bernie I wasn't aware of any visible socialist in the US.
Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
>Can you give an example?
Sure, one easy way of gauging this phenomenon is the social response to the swastika compared to the hammer and sickle.
Another is that the biggest ethno-nationalist gathering in decades in the US was a few years ago, tragically someone was run over by a vehicle. There were only hundreds of people there. The next year they tried to hold another rally and only dozens showed up.
>Meanwhile, from my perspective, we Europeans lookt at North America and see a lot of racists, transphobes and anti-poor agitators complaining about being cancelled on national Media and while giving speeches at universities (e.g. fox news, Jordan Peterson). Which feels...off.
The business model of the corporate press is to fill your heart with fear, so that you will watch/click/share/etc. A great example of this phenomenon is the "Fine People Hoax." You might recall there was a major news story claiming that Trump called white nationalists "fine people." Except if you read the transcript he clearly states, in the same breath as the words "fine people," and without prompting, that white nationalists should be condemned totally. These types of things happen over and over again.
4 replies →
> calling yourself "communist" or even just agitating for democratic control over means of production is enough to be "canceled" in the sense that most large employers will be wary to higher you and our mainstream media will lump you in with Stalin.
calling yourself 'nazi' will have the same consequences, so I don't see what is the problem here, communism is every step as bad as nazism (source: born in USSR)
22 replies →