Jump to content

The ideal of (political) right


Knight Of Winter

Recommended Posts

Almost any party/faction in power will try to preserve the status quo, with the exception of revolutionaries for a very brief period after their gain of power. Even reformist parties will usually keep most of the status quo, I think. Or at least this is usually how it works in practice because modern administrations are so inert that even on paper "radical" reforms will most of the time be very slow. I mean, in which of the areas where Trump made steep promises for a part of his base (Wall, illegal immigration, draining the swamp etc.) has he done anything worth calling a drastic change?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

Almost any party/faction in power will try to preserve the status quo

This isn't true.  Upon seizing power, the objective is to shift the status quo closer to your preferences in order to make it more difficult for your adversaries to shift it the other way.  Almost anyone seeking power has an agenda that entails "reforming" the status quo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as secretary stalin says, everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. if parliamentary procedure is merely warfare carried out by other means, we should expect the imposition to occur in both ordinary and extraordinary circumstances.

 

have embarked on lukacs' destruction of reason, a history of german irrationalism from schelling and nietzsche through the NSDAP.  am expecting it to give some additional contours to the generic form and essential content of rightwing politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sologdin said:

 

have embarked on lukacs' destruction of reason, a history of german irrationalism from schelling and nietzsche through the NSDAP.  am expecting it to give some additional contours to the generic form and essential content of rightwing politics.

Will be interesting to hear your thoughts since I doubt that either Schelling or Nietzsche would have welcomed the NSDAP; it is also the question if you even can define them as right wing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

if parliamentary procedure is merely warfare carried out by other means

A lot of textbooks you get when teaching an undergrad legislative process course literally use the example of a war game to describe congressional behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Alarich II said:

Their existing political system, what else do you understand by status quo?

Their revolutionary moment is over 60 years in the past, the communist party has won the revolution decades ago, they now want to preserve the fruits of their labour, and thus their objective has changed from revolution (attacking the status quo) to conservation (defending the new status quo), of course at the expense of certain rights like freedom of press, freedom of association etc.

 

If you think Cuba hasn't changed in 60 years, you haven't been paying attention, you know little to nothing about Cuba and  you haven't spent any time in Cuba and with Cubans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be interesting to hear your thoughts since I doubt that either Schelling or Nietzsche would have welcomed the NSDAP; it is also the question if you even can define them as right wing.

jo--

yeah, am curious to see how it works out.  he ends the introductory section with this:

Quote

Mussolini's ideological connection with Bergson, James and Sorel was much more tenuous and formal than that between Hitler and German irrationalism. But even with all these reservations, this state of affairs in itself illustrates what we are seeking to prove now and in every succeeding chapter: a philosophical stance cannot be 'innocent'. Bergson's own philosophy of morality and history did not lead to fascist conclusions. But, with regard to his human responsibility, that is totally irrelevant beside the fact that without falsifying his  philosophy Mussolini was able to develop a fascist ideology out of it. It no more exculpates Bergson than it is an exoner­ation of Spengler or Stefan George as Hitler's ideological precursors that 'National Socialism' in practice was not altogether to their personal taste. The mere existence of the connecting links we are outlining must be a serious discite moniti ('learn from the warning') for every honest Western thinker. It shows that the possibility of a fascist, aggressively reactionary ideology is objectively contained in every philosophical stirring of irrationalism. When, where and how such a - seemingly innocent - possibility turns into a dreadful fascist reality is not decided philosophically, in the philosophical realm. But insight into this connection should  heighten the thinking man's sense of responsibility, not blunt it. It would be a dangerous self-deception and sheer hypocrisy to wash one's hands in innocence and - invoking the name of Croce or William Jarnes - to look down on the development of German irrationalism with aloof contempt.  And in conclusion we hope our studies have shown that, in spite of the intellectual link between Bergson, Sorel and Mussolini, the leading role played by German irrationalism remains undiminished. Germany in the nineteenth and  twentieth centuries is still the 'classic' land of irrationalism, the soil where it evolved in the most diverse and comprehen­sive ways and can hence be studied to greatest profit, just as  England is where Marx investigated capitalism.

lukacs, destruction of reason, at 32-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DMC said:

This isn't true.  Upon seizing power, the objective is to shift the status quo closer to your preferences in order to make it more difficult for your adversaries to shift it the other way.  Almost anyone seeking power has an agenda that entails "reforming" the status quo.

Sure, but this very much depends on the particular circumstances. Of course I didn't meant the old status quo but the state once a party is somewhat established in power. But in Western democracies how much can ruling parties/governement actually do? What would be examples of the last 60 years where a government enacted obviously power-preserving/shifting measures? Even if they do something that could be understood in this way there is very often a pretty good independent reason for the policy. E.g. in 1975 in West Germany the ruling social democrats reduced the age of majority (and voting age) from 21 to 18. Obviously, younger voters tended to reward this but there were very good independent reasons for it. Anyway, I don't think that there is a right/left difference in this respect, i.e. wanting to preserve power and rig the game for the next election (except that the right often tends to be better or more ruthless).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TsarGrey said:

Can I find what you refer to in The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt?

I think so, although I have not read the book, only articles, interviews etc. The core are the five moral foundations below. EDIT: NB that this is about people, not political parties. The typical "leftist" moral is, according to some research by Haidt and others, overwhelmingly dominated by the first two foundations (although with identity politics I think that in practice  ingroup loyalty one becomes also very important and maybe has been for a long time, cf. the Monty Python joke wit the Judaean liberation front etc.). Whereas the right wing morals recognize all foundations, i.e. if Haidt et al. are correct, the right is not dominated by Loyalty and Authority in the way the left is by Care and Fairness. And obviously, the actual understanding can also be rather different. A conservative might understand "care" as often implying "tough love" (e.g. no welfare but merely job offers for able bodied people etc.), a leftist will understand fairness as equality/equity, but the libertarian as keeping what one gained by "fair means" etc.

  • Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm
  • Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating
  • Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal
  • Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion
  • Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm

Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating

Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

lovely. does it make me an adherent of sanctity, or not, to find moral sanctity gross?

i wonder if anyone self-consciously thinks their position unprincipled to the extent that justice should not be rendered by shared rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, sologdin said:

yeah, am curious to see how it works out.  he ends the introductory section with this:

"a philosophical stance cannot be 'innocent'"

lukacs, destruction of reason, at 32-3.

After your lengthy quote of the book, I am quite sure that I wouldnt like it: I think you can think anything in total disregard (and innocence) of events which will happen one hundred years later (more so if you do not think political). Later generation should then think for themselves. The German Idealism (irrationalism is a derogatory term I dont know) of which Schelling is part (Nietzsche is hard to categorize?) is totally uninterested in political ideas like democracy or communism or fazism. To think that someone is guilty because his ideas cannot be used to hinder the rise of totalirism is hard to understand. An idea can be beautiful without any use. A Philosophy doesnt have to be useful. As with a work of art, the "usefulness"  , if any, definitly does not lie in application but in contemplation.

Quote : Thus Spake Zarathustra: Chapter 7: Reading and Writing:

"I should only believe in a God that would know how to dance.

And when I saw my devil, I found him serious, thorough, profound, solemn: he was the spirit of gravity—through him all things fall.

Not by wrath, but by laughter, do we slay. Come, let us slay the spirit of gravity!"

 

It will be interesting to see which kind of "links" the author will find in later chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

irrationalism is a derogatory term

in a marxist lexicon, it may be (lukacs is among the most well known leftists, so perhaps)--but generally, not so much, to the extent that it was a deliberately developed doctrine in vitalism, existentialism, pessimism, pragmatism, and others more mystical. lukacs seems to wanna argue that german irrationalism arose in dialectical contradiction to german idealism: maybe schopenhauer contra hegel, say.  nietzsche, maybe, will be considered irrational for his acceptance of the dionysian. (his slaying-through-laughter means that he's just a clown, though? we see a similar idea show up elsewhere; bakhtin's take on laughter is a bit more nuanced.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sologdin said:

n. (his slaying-through-laughter means that he's just a clown, though? we see a similar idea show up elsewhere; bakhtin's take on laughter is a bit more nuanced.)

not clown:   Fool

Thus spoke Zarathustra, "the Song of Melancholy"  :  its a lenghty poem here  just an exerp (and I am quite sure a lot of its beauty is lost in translation):

"Circumambling on fabricated word-bridges,

On motley rainbow-arches,

    ....
     MERE FOOL!  MERE POET!

     HE—of truth the wooer?
     Not still, stiff, smooth and cold,
     Become an image,
     A godlike statue,
     Set up in front of temples,
     As a God’s own door-guard:
     Nay! hostile to all such truthfulness-statues,
     In every desert homelier than at temples,
     With cattish wantonness,
     Through every window leaping
     ....
 Even thus,
     Eaglelike, pantherlike,
     Are the poet’s desires,
     Are THINE OWN desires ‘neath a thousand guises,
     Thou fool!  Thou poet!
     Thou who all mankind viewedst—
     So God, as sheep—:
     The God TO REND within mankind,
     As the sheep in mankind,
     And in rending LAUGHING—

     THAT, THAT is thine own blessedness!
     Of a panther and eagle—blessedness!
     Of a poet and fool—the blessedness!—
Link to comment
Share on other sites

nice! i recall enjoying AST when i was in college. the vignettes (is that the right word?) on the 'new idol,' 'war & warriors,' and 'self-overcoming' i recall debating fiercely with other cafe denizens. not sure how i'd assess them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sologdin said:

nice! i recall enjoying AST when i was in college. the vignettes (is that the right word?) on the 'new idol,' 'war & warriors,' and 'self-overcoming' i recall debating fiercely with other cafe denizens. not sure how i'd assess them now.

Yes, I also read this as a late teenager, and revisited it today . It was a nice rendezvous with nostalgia. Still I did love it and will defend it against leftist authors wo thinks this is nazism - since it is not even right wing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/23/2020 at 5:39 PM, Zorral said:

If you think Cuba hasn't changed in 60 years, you haven't been paying attention, you know little to nothing about Cuba and  you haven't spent any time in Cuba and with Cubans. 

Change is always invevitable, this argument of yours goes nowhere and doesn't adress my point. The question is has the communist party ceded their claim of exclusive occupation of the political sphere, of being the only possible outlet for political thought and action? The answer is no, it hasn't. And the justification is from the standard authoritarian playbook: If you are not for us, you are against us. Against us are the counter-revolutionaries who wand to go back to pre-revolutionary times and destroy all the good we have done. They are the enemies of the state, therefore if you are not for us, you are an enemy of the state and will be treated as such.

I could have picked out China as well, and in many ways the changes in China are even more profound than in Cuba, especially in the last 30 years, but point is - the claim of a single party to exclusively represent the entirety of the political sphere has not changed, in fact the more change we see, the firmer they hold on to their power.

And this kind of black/white, for us / against us line of thinking is also very common in right-wing authoritarian regimes like Russia or Hungary and it reveals that there isn't only a left/right axis in politics but also an authoritarism (at the expense of civil rights) vs. pluralism (at the expense of unity and decisive action) axis and what we're seeing today in the US (for example) is not only a left/right issue, but also a republican party that under Trump moves significantly further towards authoritarianism at the expense of human rights. Altough I would have to concede that in this line argument, Trump is probably not the best example, achieving neither unity nor decisive action, while sill abusing civil rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/24/2020 at 3:12 AM, Jo498 said:

Of course I didn't meant the old status quo but the state once a party is somewhat established in power.

Well, sure.  I feel like that's another way of saying what I said.  And while I don't think there's a left/right difference in the overall effort to preserve their power once it's attained, there is certainly a marked difference in the US right now - and historically - between how leftists "rig" elections (encouraging maximized turnout) and how the right does so (targeted discouragement of certain groups, and outright attacks on their voting rights).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alarich II said:

I could have picked out China as well, and in many ways the changes in China are even more profound than in Cuba, especially in the last 30 years, but point is - the claim of a single party to exclusively represent the entirety of the political sphere has not changed.

China is a more interesting example in some ways because while the government is theoretically leftist, in practice it's very hard to define. Most people here are pretty apolitcal since they can't be even if they wanted as all decisions are made by an inscrutable managerial class. But by and large politics is largely absent from daily life which coming from the US where politics seeps into everything these days is some what jarring. I do sometimes have fun trying to "map' where people would vote if multiparty politics was a thing here.

 

I do think the two party system of the US causes a lot of the problems being talked about. the Republican party is ill, and conservatives might be more open to seeing that and jump ship to a "sane" conservative party. And, regardless, everyone is to the right of someone I spent the end of 2019 being called a right wing hack on reddit for supporting Pete Buttigieg. I am I right winger? I don't think so but if we had a bit more choice in parties, we'd have of the ideological trench warfare we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nietzsche was an anti-German-idealist. But mainly because he was against most of the course of Western civilization since classical Greece, and especially after the rise of Christianity. So he was not reactionary (like de Maistre) because he rejected Catholic Middle ages every bit as much as the then recent idealist grand theories, whig histories or scientific positivist systems. Because he realized that they were all not only heirs but basically secularized surrogates of the old Western (Classical - Christian) tradition they often claimed to have transcended through enlightenment and science (although he was influenced and uses bits of Darwinian evolution). This was the goal of his polemics (and while he was more brilliant than true, it was still true enough, I'd say). While it seems clear what he rejects, it is much harder to get what Nietzsche's positive vision was. I am very far from an expert, but the archaic pre-socratic sage, poet and warrior are probably closest. Before philosophy, slave morals and science tamed the wild, proud strong Life and the Dionysian Dance or whatever.

So Nietzsche was clearly against moderate Burkean conservatism and also against reactionary traditionalists but of course also against the liberal or left forces of his day. I know far less of the ideas of a nutcase? like Evola but as the latter seems to go even further than Nietzsche and locates the "fall" when human tribes started following priests instead of warriors, i.e. long before any recorded history and Evola had clear fascist sympathies, so there is a little bit of common ground in the predilection for archaism and rejection of more than two millenia. This may explain some of the sympathies some fascists had but it was clearly cherry-picking, I'd say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...