Lately I have been listening to and reading different takes on the question of how we define what we mean when we say “left-wing” or “right-wing”. Tom Woods has concluded that while he once thought of these definitions as referring to a spectrum, he now believes that there is simply the left and the non-left. Sheldon Richman distinguishes between fascism and state socialism.
I have been thinking about this question lately, as well, in the context of understanding the nature of the modern day “crazy left”. For example, recently a chocolate “ugly duckling” was criticized because the dark chocolate one received the ugly label (which is consistent with the old kids’ story, unrelated to race, by the way). For the most part, when it comes to the extreme right, I see an intense revanchist obsession with the left as the driving factor. Like Tom Woods, I perceive that the political spectrum seems to be driven by novel behavior occurring on the extreme left.
When right wing or centrist commentators examine the nature of the so-called left, there tends to be a consensus about a lack of humor or irony, a moralizing nature of sorts, on the left. While I don’t necessary ascribe to this point of view, I think of it as a sort of clue to understanding what social forces and behavioral types are creating our idea of the political context.
In the end, I have developed what I think is a novel definition for both left and right. This definition, therefore, shouldn’t be thought of as a more accurate definition for the political left or right, because I openly acknowledge that I’m describing altogether new categories. However, I believe that these categories more fundamentally capture the strong focal points that influence the political spectrum. Beyond these categories, you have a mix of other factors which end up creating a historical context. I think this historical context, with idiosyncratic elements, is probably what divides up most real world examples of the political spectrum. However, the general features commonly associated with left and right can be correlated to the more essential definitions I will provide. Thus, I think it would be useful to start thinking about left and right in this new way I’m proposing.
Before I define right and left, let me review some concepts needed to properly contextualize my meaning.
Power: I subscribe to Hannah Arendt’s focus on power as a positive force derived from consent. Violence, a negative form of power, comprises a much smaller element of the exercise of power. How people choose to behave, consistently, what they believe, what they build and maintain as large groups, is more relevant to outcomes in society than who is best at winning brawls.
Institutional power: Per Carroll Quiqley, power seems to be exercised by institutions primarily through control of resources, particularly food. The nuance of this position is that you could have a group that is taking no violent action to loot or interfere with the food production activities of others, but by virtue of having the largest food store and offering the food for free, has the greatest influence over a group of people.
Human social instincts: Though I probably should refer to more solid evidence for this position, if only because I believe it could be demonstrated scientifically with relative ease, I still hold certain beliefs about that infamous thing we call “human nature”. I believe that human beings evolved to survive in a social/tribal context. That this context predates our currently high levels of intelligence. That certain consistent behavioral patterns guaranteed the effectiveness of a tribe in its effort to survive, despite changing conditions, and despite the presence of ideas and thought. Among these instincts is a natural pattern of determining social authority. This includes competition for leadership, and also the instinct of being a follower and submitting to leadership.
Now the definitions –
THE LEFT:
Those who lack institutional power, don’t control arms, and don’t have access to resources, but otherwise seek power. The reasons for seeking power are largely related to discontent with current institutional practices, or otherwise relate to the power instinct or will to power itself. Because those in this position lack the ability to hold power through material means, they can only obtain it psychologically. Thus, the left seeks power through control of social behavior, speech, and ultimately thought. They can’t control you through your access to what you eat, so they have to control you at a deeper level.
In general, the left is connected to youth movements in that the youthful exercise of the power instinct follows a natural pattern which emphasizes brashness and disruption, by which the young (male and female) come into power. In a sense, many left wing revolutionary movements are merely a pantomime fulfillment of tribal instincts. The psycho-sexual energy of the youth to disrupt the existing tribal power norms and assume leadership themselves (which is inherently sexual because who gets to reproduce, and which babies get cared for and fed is intrinsically linked to the future and progress of the tribe) is the primary “intangible” energy of youth-led revolutionary left-wing movements.
In this context, one interpretation of the bizarre “slut walks” – a contemporary left-wing political phenomenon in which almost nude young women parade around in an ostensible “fight” against “oppression” – is that this is merely an attempt to experiment with asserting sexual power relevant only to a long-passed tribal context. These women are declaring their right to pursue their sexual proclivities without socially imposed consequences (such as having to come up with a source of income to provide for a child should they happen to become pregnant and choose to give birth, although the particular and proximate mechanism of social power they are resisting is shame – consistent with the idea of leftism as social/psychological power, if you can bully people into declining to shame “sluttiness” then you’re closer to a point where people can’t defend the idea of women being responsible for their actions, which means it’s easier to bully you to pay for the irresponsible actions of young women). In the context of tribal power, the idea is that less powerful females (but especially males) would not be able to get away with a slut walk – they lack the social power. Of course, modern day slut walks don’t include an identifiable target class of reproductively unsuccessful women. This would be because tribal instincts are instinctual, not intellectual. Instincts arising in a context, but not in conscious awareness of that context. The brash assertion of youthful, female sexual power occurs because it feels right to those who engage in it. Just like fighting can be thrilling and fun to men, for no reason at all. Instinct.
With this understanding of leftism, you can identify the more “pure” left wing political revolutions in a context of widely failing institutions, and a large youth demographic, particularly in eras with some amount of sexual liberation which drives up competitive pressures among the youth to attain, or appear to attain social power. Youth gang violence, in this sense can be described as a left-wing phenomenon. Urban male youth gangs are both resisting oppressive institutional power while simultaneously competing for social power in a context where such power is rewarded with female sexual attention.
Nevertheless, the core essence of leftism is its social and psychological basis for power. Bullying, lack of humor, control of speech and thought as the hallmarks of a left wing political movement. This is also why extreme levels of personal violence is sometimes present on the left.
THE RIGHT:
The right would be any political power which is expressed primarily through institutional power. No matter how poorly a country does, whatever surpluses it produces will be accrued to and distributed through its power institutions. Thus, those who control these institutions will prioritize defending them no matter how poorly they serve everyone else.
In a traditional sense, you would not define the right in terms of the fascist movements of the 20th century, neither through even libertarian or religious movements per se. Rather, the clearest examples of right-wing political orientation comes in the form of landed aristocrats. The 20th century right in Europe would have been the Prussian Junkers, not the Nazis.
These definitions rely on a notion of where and how power is accumulated. Largely, power institutions come to power explicitly through monopolizing it. Therefore, it would be common for right-wing power to have a united interest, and thus left-wing (social/psychological) power to represent the best available alternative. This is why they would represent antithetical extremes. I would not say that this implies the existence of a political spectrum.
Given these definitions, you can place fascism/Nazism by defining them as what they claim to be: third positions. Not between capitalism or communism, but between right-wing and left-wing power. What you have is the integration of social/psychological revolutionary power with institutional power. You have radicals who seek to claim the institutions, rather than overthrow them. You have institutions which hope that left-wing social/psychological control will protect their position.
Perhaps libertarianism is a polar opposite “third way” which represents the rejection of both social and institutional power, on the basis of a non-aggression principle. Unfortunately, the NAP itself doesn’t deal with institutional power that is positive in nature. Although, many would argue that natural monopoly have to be beneficent to survive. Also, NAP doesn’t deal with social/psychological power explicitly, although libertarians tend to be skeptical of the behavioral habits of left-wing activists (bullying, shunning, soft censorship).
In America today, I don’t think you really have a left and right situation. Rather, you have the Democrats – who, since the New Deal, then later the effects of Nixon’s Southern Strategy, have represented the institutional power of the federal government – and then the Republicans – who represent everyone unhappy or underrepresented by the federal system. Effectively, the parties themselves and the FBI et al have purged all the true anti-institutional factions out of both parties. So you can’t call the Republicans left-wing, even though they are relative losers to the Democrats in terms of who benefits most from American institutional power (the federal government is big enough to sweeten the deal for factions from both parties).
In terms of left and right, the Democrats who are essentially the more right-wing of two right-wing parties, has captured the zeitgeist of the left. This works because, as I said, true anti-institutional politics is effectively purged or contained. The early days of labor unions in their affiliation with international leftism, plus the alliance of the federal government with academia whose huge youth culture made it a breeding ground for leftist ideas (or, essentially, an easy target for Soviet troublemakers), plus the social alienation of cities which happened to allow room for deviation from social norms thus making cities a bit more left leaning culturally than rural areas, and more, are what has made the urban, institutional centers of American power “lean left”. As a result, any remaining left wing energy has accumulated to the Democratic party (and consequently right-wing to the other side). We must note that both parties are constantly trying to manage their bases, and hold the center.
So, you have the left-wing flavored Democrats who are the more right-wing of two right-wing parties, then the right-wing flavored Republicans who act as loyal opposition. I actually thing this makes the Republicans into a very effective loyal opposition, because when they are accused of corrupt behavior its much more outward, consistent with their basic philosophical themes, and also less consequential to true institutional power in America, and therefore a good target. That is to say, the Republican party exists so that petty millionaires can lobby to pay fewer taxes and keep more of their wealth. Openly so.
This is what makes the Republican party the less right-wing of the two right-wing parties. Petty millionaires are like leeches on the power institutions, and these institutions can survive if rural Republican ranch owners have to pay a few more taxes. Which is to say, the Republican party is more a defender of idiosyncratic institutions, whereas the Democratic party moreso defends the essential institutions. Making, by my definition, the Democrats more right-wing.
Of course, again, both parties are right-wing and the Republicans do more than their fair share of defending essential institutions, like the military. Ironically, the left in America opposes the military for obvious reasons (outrageous, emotional student protests against the draft and being sent as slaves to die for an unjust empire a very pure example of left-wing politics). The Democratic party, as the “side of the aisle” where left wingers hang out, thus often seems to be affiliated with the anti-war position.
As we’ve learned, however, since Obama and Trump, the Democratic Party, and left liberal voters in America, seem like they couldn’t hardly care less about war issues. The Democrats are solid supporters of the military, and American hegemony and interventionism.
In the end, I think you can see how this definition of left and right are more helpful. It sounds crazy to say, “America has two right-wing parties, but the Democrats are the more right-wing of the two, although the cultural left affiliates with the Democrats over the Republicans”. However, given how I’ve defined everything, that description captures the true situation in America better than anything else I’ve ever read. It helps to understand that America is a powerful empire with police state functions which act very effectively to purge meaningful anti-institutionalism from American politics. It helps to understand that rich Republicans are not in fact the be all and end all of America’s power institutions. It helps to understand that labor, academia, the bureaucracy, are all part of America’s institutional power. It helps to understand that left-wing “ism” is not liberation from oppression, but merely a power alternative to institutional power (one that can sometimes cause unfathomable harm as it flexes its muscles). It helps to look at historical political movements and capture their nuance by identifying which share of “left” or “right” wing politics are expressed in those movements (and at which points in their rise to power!).
To conclude, I’ll offer my opinion that the harm caused in the world by the American empire is harm caused by “right wing” characteristics. When I oppose war, or central banking, I’m opposing right wing characteristics. So, I’m completely anti-right.
However, I would still characterize left-wing politics as the more toxic, and more potentially harmful of the two nodes. The right wing goes to war against institutional enemies. The left seeks to make total war (social, psychological, spiritual, sexual) against everyone. Both political expressions represent means to power. Power, exercised unjustly (which is most cases when it is exercised, implying someone being forced to do what they would otherwise not do), is essentially harmful.
Left wing power is more energetic, more comprehensive, more active, more intense. Right wing power is backed by incredible intertia, and in that sense can be more totally destructive. And as I said, the two power expressions can be merged for the most complete devastation of all.
I want to also address the defenders of both the left and the right, as we conventionally understand the terms.
Those who defend the right define it as the preservation of proven social institutions. They don’t resist change outright, but believe the order provided by institutions is valuable, and that rapid change can cause more harm than good no matter how unjust the present is. They see the left as hopeless extremists caught up in their own hype, unconcerned with the consequences of their actions.
Those who defend the left define it as an intellectual basis for human progress grounded in universal and common aspiration present among all human beings. They believe that change is always necessary, and requires a certain amount of aggressiveness in order to overcome self-interested institutional power. The zeitgeist of the left, in their eyes, is aspiration and intellectual vigor.
I would argue that both sides here are basically defining themselves against the ills of the other side. The defenders of the right are merely saying, “we are not radicals who seek total social/psychological power, by means of radical hysterical activism”. Great, good for them. The defenders of the left are saying, “Sometimes institutional power is corrupt and defends its own interests against that of the majority, and we know this because we’re so smart”. Good grief.
Still, here we have people who are “not left”. So Tom Woods’ idea is half correct. In his world, there is left and not left. This is intellectually appropriate, in a sense, in that it’s a complete point of view if you only consider the left node of power. It does leave out the other side.
Then, you have people who are “not right”. The American left liberal Democrats. Maybe the worst people of all. All they know is that there’s institutional power out there in the aether that brilliant special them have identified as often corrupt and self-interested. And, they are special, smart and moral, so they oppose it! Never mind their party is the most institutional piece of American politics of all!
The left does seem to drive politics, in that they define political change and its terms. However, looking at the bigger picture, there’s much more going on in politics then what dominates the petty debates that occur within each election cycle.
And yes, the Democrats are the institutional power in America. They control the cities, the bureaucracy, the media, labor, academia (even in Republican regions), hold surprising sway over the biggest corporations and big finance, and sometimes, it seems, even the Republican party leadership. Usually, when the Democratic Party base doesn’t get what it wants, it’s a situation where the Democratic leadership has a different point of view than the base, and futile votes are cast by representatives of radical districts as a bone thrown.
