Or does it not use the state as a means to pursue social and economic equality? — Tzeentch

Some political movements considered left-leaning have. Some political movements considered right-leaning have used the state toward their ends as well.

There are intersections of both the left and right with statism, but neither is subsumed entirely within it.

So has the left moved to the right, or the right moved to the left? — Tzeentch

Neither. The original left-right axis, which recognized that you can't get rid of authority without getting rid of hierarchy, that you can't attain liberty without equality, fractured into a two-dimensional spectrum: first when capitalists appropriated liberty as an excuse for hierarchy, and then when some socialists turned to state authority as a weapon against them.

The world was polarized between the US and USSR along those lines for half a century, and seemingly forgot what the original axis was by the time that was through. But those of us who study history, politics, and philosophy remember.

Both the state-socialists and libertarian-capitalists later turned back to state capitalism, as is inevitable, because you can't have authority without creating hierarchy or vice versa. Meanwhile, the original opposition to that, the libertarian socialists, are lost to history or else dismissed as an impossible contradiction nowadays.

Some political movements considered left-leaning have. Some political movements considered right-leaning have used the state toward their ends as well. — Pfhorrest

Excluding perhaps a few fringes, I'd say they all have, and are.

The original left-right axis, which recognized [...] that you can't attain liberty without equality — Pfhorrest

Then you cannot attain liberty at all, and we should stop with all the false advertising!

To clarify, the question was tongue-in-cheek, and like I said I am unconvinced of the left-right division in general.

You are very incorrect in your political philosophy. The range from left to right of the political spectrum goes like this: [Left] Communism, Socialism, Market Economy, Fascist Economy [Right]. Communism involves the whole populace being part of the government. No money is available. Socialism is Communist-lite, with government doing most things and allowing private businesses to operate with money. Those two are the left side of the political/economic spectrum. What we call the political spectrum has to do with economy rather than political governing or rulership. There's no left/right to do with monarchy, republic, empire, shogunate, or what have you.

On the right, there is market economy, with very little interference from government in private economic affairs. Libertarians are on the right (Conservative), meaning rulership doing little on their own besides the private sector. Quality and value is very high in a market economy.

Fascist economy is further right, needing only a head of economy to provide order. The benefit of fascist economy is equal to that of market economy, the difference being market economies can trade with each other [while fascist economies can provide for themselves internally everything they would need to import otherwise]. Nazi Germany was fascist (called National Socialism by Germans in those days), the United States were fascist under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Holy Roman Empire was fascist under High King Charlemagne, and the Incan Empire in South America was fascist under their emperors.

Political equality is different from economic equality. Political equality is never refuted besides not being equal to certain rulers (a governor of a state in the United States being an example of a ruler who is politically equal), The left, Communism and Socialism, is the side seeking equality of action. Most countries on the planet are individually oriented (oriented to freedom and the individual). The right of the economic spectrum (Market economy and Fascist economy) allows you the freedom to support yourself being self-sufficient and self-contained, and having fun while doing so.

You are very incorrect in your political philosophy. The range from left to right of the political spectrum goes like this: [Left] Communism, Socialism, Market Economy, Fascist Economy [Right]. — eduardo

Says who?

Communism involves the whole populace being part of the government. No money is available. — eduardo

Not true either in theory or in practice.

There's no left/right to do with monarchy, republic, empire, shogunate, or what have you. — eduardo

The original left-right distinction was precisely between republicans and monarchists.

Nazi Germany was fascist (called National Socialism by Germans in those days), — eduardo

Not according to the definition you provided. The market wasn't somehow completely independent of the state, nor was it self-sufficient.

The right of the economic spectrum (Market economy and Fascist economy) allows you the freedom to support yourself being self-sufficient and self-contained, and having fun while doing so. — eduardo

Except to those that don't have the means to support themselves. They don't get any of that "freedom".

There is no oppressed and marginalized people anywhere on the planet. There is news and articles about fictional realities, incentivized by a previously unclear (in objectivity) but powerful group. There is also no and never have been on the planet racism or movements of civil rights. Inner city poverty had been caused by the speaking and using of improper language, but today differences in earnings are being reconciled. — eduardo

My sarcasm detector is screwed. Genuinely took this as sarcasm. Read on, apparently not.

Can you reconcile the proposed historical absence of racism with apparently fundamentally racist historical events like the Holocaust?

I guess we have either a full-on lunatic or a troll on our hands here.

The Frankfurt School messed up with the idea of the proletarian revolution and passed the leadership of the revolutionary process to big capital. Those who do not realize this are blind or functionally illiterate. — Rafaella Leon

Do you have any examples of people or businesses which exemplify this leadership role "big capital" plays? Who is big capital?

Is there also another form of capital? What's the relationship between these two forms, if so?

[Mod note: @Eduardo is no longer with us, and anyone replying to him can save your effort. Reason? Anti-Semitism, holocaust... approval. Posting here rather than the bannings thread as he is basically a new, pretty much unknown poster].

this is so Orwellian we need to engage with ideas from the right

Sorry, official Thought Police™ orders.

That guy was a full on Fascist.

we need to engage with ideas from the right — Maw

Why?

Why? — Isaac

Right wing ideas are very intellectual and serious

Right wing ideas are very intellectual and serious — Maw

I see.

I presume you have in mind people like von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter, Ropke and the like, right?

Otherwise who is left? Ayn Rand? Ben Shapiro? These people aren't serious.

The thing is these right wing economists are left-wing on many aspects of social life, so they're not "right" all the way through. At the moment, I don't see who could be considered an intellectual of much note in the right.

I was wondering who else you might have in mind.

to be clear, I am joking

:lol: I was enjoying the responses haha

Ah. Sorry mixed the context. :p

Still, I'd like to know just who in the heck do people have in mind when they speak of "right wing intellectuals", I'm actually curious. I can only come up with the "classic liberal economists". I'm guessing there might be someone else.

who in the heck do people have in mind when they speak of "right wing intellectuals", — Manuel

Jordan Petersen, for example.

Damn. I got a pang in my head as I read your answer. Psychobabble, hierarchy chaos and the dragons. And lobsters too.

Makes even Ron Paul look far more sophisticated.

You have my condolences.

I was enjoying the responses haha — StreetlightX

Really?

Why? — Isaac

I see. — Isaac

You have quite a low threshold for entertainment.

Still...just for you...

I believe Freud's ideas are still relevant to psychology today.

(should be hilarious)

the United States were fascist under Franklin Delano Roosevelt — eduardo

Yet a wartime economy isn't the basis of the economic structure of a country, especially when at peacetime those limitations and government control is eased. Yes, once the industry was geared to fighting the war, not one single car was built for the consumer market. After the war such regulation was obviously lifted.

A profile:

https://jacobinmag.com/2021/01/benjamin-teitelbaum-war-for-eternity-steve-bannon

"They hold widely divergent views on a variety of issues — Bannon is staunchly pro-America and anti-China, while Dugin favors a new anti-Western Russo-Chinese alliance. The hypernationalists of Hungary’s Jobbik party are often rabidly Islamophobic and see themselves as waging a war in defense of Christendom, while many right-wing mystics find much to admire in the ultraconservative Islam of René Guénon, who rejects liberalism and embraces a totalizing vision of faith. Others on the far right, like Richard Spencer, have tried to rejuvenate concepts of race by emphasizing narratives of white deprivation and “ethnic replacement.” Still others see emphasizing race as too scientistic and insufficiently spiritual, a vulgar concession to modernity that — not coincidentally — helped bring down the Nazis.

What makes the clowns all part of the same circus is less their shared commitments than their mutual bêtes noires — namely, modernity. All believe that with the advent of modern liberalism — and its permissiveness, pluralism, and materialism — something fundamental was lost. More secular variants of traditionalism tend to emphasize a sense of community, belonging, and national purpose. More New Agey and mystical brands insist on abandoning materialism and returning to a more spiritually disciplined existence. ... More mainstream conservatives like the “Intellectual Dark Web” also push many regressive views, but concede enough to the power of modernity that they often try to give overtly mystical language about “order and chaos” a scientistic gloss. But as one mainlines deeper and deeper into the far right, such concessions to reason and modernity become less viable. Consequently, the appeals to affect seem to become ever shriller to compensate for their dissociation with anything tangible."

All believe that with the advent of modern liberalism — and its permissiveness, pluralism, and materialism — something fundamental was lost — StreetlightX

Hey, I believe that, and I think Steve Bannon’s a douche. (Terrible when you find you have something in common with douches.) I’ve read quite a few of the ‘perennialists’ - Rene Guenon included - and whilst I can see their faults, I don’t for one minute believe they’re all to be dismissed. (I went to Uni with a prominent perennialist scholar - well, insofar as anyone in that field can be ‘prominent’ - super nice person and extremely learned.)

On the other hand, upthread I mentioned Adorno and Horkheimer’s ‘Dialectics of the Enlightenment’. I see a great deal I agree with in that, too - somehow missed out on it when it was bleeding-edge in the 1960’s and 70’s. But they, along with Herbert Marcuse (One Dimensional Man) were founding members of cultural Marxism. (My brother in law is a staunch conservative, though not a conspiracy theorist, and he often fulminates about cultural Marxism in the Universities.)

So both leftist and conservative intellectuals both see a great deal to criticize in modern liberal consumerism. That ought not to be surprising.

I can recall how hard the media pushed figures like Bannon, Sohrab Ahmari, Michael Anton, recently Josh Hawley, and of course Jordan Peterson (or the "Intellectually Dark Web generally"), as right-wing intellectuals who require serious intellectual engagement until it becomes universally evident, even by liberal standards, that they are just batshit lunatics at best and subsequently dropped from discourse.

Incidentally for light relief, and because it's in keeping with the OP, for the benefit of those who've never seen it:

You have 2 cows (Wired Magazine's version, 2008)

SOCIALISM

The State takes one and gives it to your neighbour who doesn't have a field to put it in.

COMMUNISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and gives you some milk. Then the cows die due to neglect.

FASCISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and sells you some milk. Then the cows die in the war.

NAZISM

You have 2 cows.

The State takes both and shoots you. Then the cows are killed in the war.

SURREALISM

You have two giraffes.

The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell one and buy a bull.

Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows.

You sell them and retire on the income.

EUROPEAN UNION BUREAUCRATISM

You have 2 cows.

The EU takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then throws the milk away because the quota has been exceeded.

(((We'll know that the EU has come into its own when a tiresome term like "European Union Bureaucratism" is collapsed into simple "Eurocratism.")))

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why the cow has dropped dead.

ENRON VENTURE CAPITALISM

You have two cows.

You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows.

The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.

The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more.

You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows.

No balance sheet provided with the release.

The public then buys your bull.

A FRENCH CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION

You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create a clever cow cartoon image called 'Cowkimon' and market it worldwide.

A GERMAN CORPORATION

You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat once a month, and milk themselves. (((I'd be guessing this is German humor because it's not not actually funny.)))

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You decide to have lunch. (((Fantastico! Posso prendere in prestito un cavatappi?)))

A RUSSIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 2 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.

A SWISS CORPORATION

You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you. You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You have 300 people milking them. You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity. You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows.

You worship them. (((Buck up, India; twenty years ago you wouldn't have even been on this list.)))

A BRITISH CORPORATION

You have two cows. Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION

Everyone thinks you have lots of cows. You tell them that you have none. No-one believes you, so they bomb the hell out of you and invade your country. You still have no cows, but at least now you are part of a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION

You have two cows. Business seems pretty good.

You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.


(I love the Enron model in particular, but it's pretty dated now.)

From further down:

"The difference between leftist and traditionalist appeals to the working class is that the Left’s is grounded in a rationalist examination of the ways that the world could be fairer for more people — a questioning of how our societal habits might be contributing to injustice, and how we could implement a more justifiable social order.

Traditionalists advance the opposite appeal: let’s not question the impact that our habits and traditions might have (to marginalize or persecute), because these habits and traditions are rooted in some deeper and more spiritual essence. As Teitelbaum observes, if anyone attempts to derive a logically coherent version of traditionalism, “all of the vagaries come to play a larger role. What exactly is this essence, and who gets to decide? If a people is defined by its history, what happens to citizens whose personal background diverges from the norm?”

Submitting traditionalism to any kind of rational scrutiny reveals it for what it is: an appeal to fantasy, the wrapping of oneself in the blanket of vaguely defined yet comforting categories. It presents a fundamentally hierarchical vision of the world, compensating followers for a lack of material improvement with a sense that they are superior to degenerate liberals and dangerous foreigners."

Fair point. However, I still feel that the prevailing narrative as ‘life as the outcome of a biochemical accident’ will never make for a coherent social philosophy. Humans need to feel as though they’re part of a story, not the result of an accident. Maybe we can spin an entirely new story, one that makes no reference to the cultural traditions of the past, but somehow I doubt it - the attempt will always result in the sense of being ‘stranded in the present’. It also implicitly dishonours all of the ancestors whose ways we now see as being antiquated and superstitious.

I think my preferred political philosophy would be a kind of de-centralised liberalism - not corporatism or Bureaucratism. Based on a sense of community, and small scale, while still being able to take advantage of economies of scale. There are actually many of the factors for such a culture present in the current world. But I agree that the overwhelming power of the big corporations has to be brought down. As someone pointed out after the 2008 crisis, ‘to big to fail’ ought to mean ‘to big to exist’.