[Political Interest]

Ideology has failed us. We need a new ideology which will allow us to combine the best of left wing and right wing ideals. In the past we used to view left and right as complete opposites. However what if left and right share something in that they are both against the centre? And what if we could take the best of left wing politics and combine it with the best of right wing politics? For example, from the left we could take the desire for social justice, economically progressive policies and communitarian development. We could discard the shallow materialism, the hatred for tradition and the negation of identity by adding right wing admixture. From this right wing admixture we could take the love of tradition, social values, communal unity, rootedness in identity. At the same time we would discard from the right the sordid scientific racism, bigotry and extremism of historic rightist politics.

In the end we could create an ideology that has something for everyone and unites people from different ethnic, religious and linguistic groups, an ideal that pursues a mix of tradition and rootedness but also social justice. The ideal should be to unite the white and the black, the Christian and the Muslim, middle class and working class, in a common struggle for a just world where everyone has their place and can pursue their identity to its fullest extent.

[kobe]

or nah

Sorry, I don't see any value to trying to create a third positionist value system. The problem is not with ideology, the problem is with the economic mode of production.

[Political Interest]

or nah

Sorry, I don't see any value to trying to create a third positionist value system. The problem is not with ideology, the problem is with the economic mode of production.

Then why have you not succeeded and why have the right wing extremists not succeeded?

Both the far left and the far right have failed and are ideologically bankrupt.

We need another ideal, one which can really appeal to the masses.

Far leftist is too dry and alienates the very people who it needs to support it. Far right ideology is too violent and racist to appeal to those who it needs to find support amongst.

That is why we need to pioneer a new theory.

[Ganeshas Rat]

[Princip]

What you described sounds exactly like the political centre, not something that is inherently antagonistic towards it.

Also, a question: why do you think tradition in general is a good thing? While the word tradition gives most of us a feeling of warmth and comfort, tradition sometimes means the darkest barbarism (female circumcision for example) and the denial of progression.

[Decky]

And PI completes the transition to fascism.

[TerryOfromCA]

. . . . . We need a new ideology which will allow us to combine the best of left wing and right wing ideals.. . . . .

I would agree, if there were a good leftwing ideal. I have yet to hear one.

[Political Interest]

What you described sounds exactly like the political centre, not something that is inherently antagonistic towards it.

Also, a question: why do you think tradition in general is a good thing? While the word tradition gives most of us a feeling of warmth and comfort, tradition sometimes means the darkest barbarism (female circumcision for example) and the denial of progression.

No, it is not the centre. It is the combination of both reactions against the centre, both of the left and the right, as well as the purification of both from their more odious elements.

Tradition is good because it roots man in his origins and provides him a sense of his place in the world. Tradition provides us with stability and a sense of direction. Without tradition we do not know which way is up.

And PI completes the transition to fascism.

In what sense? I am anti-fascist, anti-communist and anti-liberal. How can I be a fascist? I reject racism and believe the very notion of race to be a fallacy.

I would agree, if there were a good leftwing ideal. I have yet to hear one.

You don't believe the imperative to create full employment is a good ideal?

[warsmith17]

Maybe you should specify more of what you believe to be the best of each side. You should also read some Alain de Benoist or other thinkers who don't neatly fall into the right left spectrum.

I should also point out that many third positionists and fascists aren't racist, there are many other forms of nationalism. For example ethnic and/or racial nationalism would be a doomed proposition in the US. A type of cultural nationalism could be highly viable though.

[kobe]

See, that's the problem with eliminating the left/right divisions. It overwhelmingly favors the right wing, because their goals are geared towards preservation of the ruling class. Any tempering of the goal of eliminating the ruling class, ultimately the goal of left-wing ideology, leads that person to now advocate a position wherein they are preserving the ruling class. This is unacceptable to many of the left-wing. Thus the problem is that a capitulation of the left-wing betrays their goals, and a capitulation of the right-wing achieves their goals.

So no, you're not asking both sides to compromise a little bit. You're asking the right-wing to give up their insane stated goals while they achieve their actual goal of the preservation of the ruling class and hierarchical structure, and you're asking the left-wing to betray every principle for which they stand. I'm sorry, I don't stand just for collectivism. If so, I would find redeeming qualities in the fascist movement because they too stand for collectivism. The fact is that to actually be a left-winger you have to advocate revolutionary ideas that will change the fabric of society. If capitulating to the right-wing for stability sounds acceptable to a left-winger, they fundamentally misunderstand what being a left-winger is.

[Potemkin]

An excellent post, kobe. And it is essentially another way of saying that PI adopts a technocratic (and, dare I say it, middle-class) attitude towards political ideology. He seeks stability and efficiency, and not revolution.

[annatar1914]

An excellent post, kobe. And it is essentially another way of saying that PI adopts a technocratic (and, dare I say it, middle-class) attitude towards political ideology. He seeks stability and efficiency, and not revolution.

I'm not sure Potemkin, and i'm not saying that just because PI is my friend. 'stability' and 'efficiency' is what Marxists had originally stated would be the result of adopting the more rational Socialism as the mode of production. And, I have seen various 'Leftists' promote what ordinarily would be seen as 'conservative' social values, when they are in fact, the rational social values. Is not the rational development also the organic development, that grows indeed out of the interplay of forces in life?

Perhaps I really am more of a 'National Bolshevik' or 'Strasserite', then, but nonetheless has not history born out that what they predicted has come to pass, if not their own solutions just yet? What i'm saying I think is that there is another 'Left' that has grown out of the contact of Revolution with Reality, and 'Marxists' have become divorced from reality following the Liberals into 'Identity Politics' and other vulgar Bourgeosie ideas. Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either; he expressed beliefs which would make his modern followers blush.

[quetzalcoatl]

An excellent post, kobe. And it is essentially another way of saying that PI adopts a technocratic (and, dare I say it, middle-class) attitude towards political ideology. He seeks stability and efficiency, and not revolution.

Revolution is not an end, it opens up a path to an end. Just as technological changes made modern capitalism possible, technology will in time eliminate its hold on the world. What follows on may be good or bad, but it won't be capitalism as we understand it. A political revolution cannot change the the underlying structure of political economy: scarcity=>capitalism. Capitalism will end if and only if it faces an unresolvable crisis. A political revolution can only arise in response to such a crisis, it cannot precipitate it. The only unresolvable crisis I perceive is the loss of the ability to control the means of production.

[kobe]

I'm not sure Potemkin, and i'm not saying that just because PI is my friend. 'stability' and 'efficiency' is what Marxists had originally stated would be the result of adopting the more rational Socialism as the mode of production. And, I have seen various 'Leftists' promote what ordinarily would be seen as 'conservative' social values, when they are in fact, the rational social values. Is not the rational development also the organic development, that grows indeed out of the interplay of forces in life?

Perhaps I really am more of a 'National Bolshevik' or 'Strasserite', then, but nonetheless has not history born out that what they predicted has come to pass, if not their own solutions just yet? What i'm saying I think is that there is another 'Left' that has grown out of the contact of Revolution with Reality, and 'Marxists' have become divorced from reality following the Liberals into 'Identity Politics' and other vulgar Bourgeosie ideas. Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either; he expressed beliefs which would make his modern followers blush.

Not to come off as rude, but to me this is a lot of gesticulating without making any actual point. No offense. Saying that "Marxists have become divorced from reality" and follow "vulgar Bourgeoisie ideas" is just a whole lot of ad hom and bluster without attaching it to someone.

As far as saying that "Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either"; I agree, but you're not exactly saying much without offering an example of what you mean by "beliefs which would make his modern followers blush".

Revolution is not an end, it opens up a path to an end. Just as technological changes made modern capitalism possible, technology will in time eliminate its hold on the world. What follows on may be good or bad, but it won't be capitalism as we understand it. A political revolution cannot change the the underlying structure of political economy: scarcity=>capitalism. Capitalism will end if and only if it faces an unresolvable crisis. A political revolution can only arise in response to such a crisis, it cannot precipitate it. The only unresolvable crisis I perceive is the loss of the ability to control the means of production.

Revolution is a means to an end, true. However some things I disagree with: the end of capitalism is inevitable. Just because the practical considerations that create scarcity have been eliminated does not mean that scarcity has to be eliminated. I mean we today have the means to produce enough food to feed the world, yet people still go hungry. We have the means to provide everyone with the medicine necessary, yet people still die of preventable diseases. We have the means to provide shelter for every person on the planet, yet people still live on the streets. The big lie sold to the world by capitalists is that we have a scarcity problem. Without scarcity there's no profit, and we live in a world where it is illegal not to maximize profits.

By the way, your theory creates a paradox. The loss of the ability to control the means of production can only be realized by the revolution. Else, the institutions in place at current, in every Western country at least, are in place to ensure that such a control will be established by any means necessary. You're protected now because the bourgeoisie is in control, but they have a failsafe protection: martial law. Don't think they won't hesitate to use it to protect themselves either. That's why those institutions themselves must be destroyed, so that we can realize collective ownership without the interference of a reactionary police state.

That's why it's so important to continue to advocate for privacy protection, continue to not allow the reactionary elements of government to close those security holes that they so desperately fear. Absolutely in the 21st century we could eliminate all terrorism using the surveillance state, a disarmed citizenship, and a technocratic police state. As socialists we need to continue to create negative associations with those ideas, because we need those loopholes in order for us to destroy capitalism. Otherwise no, I don't think the ownership of the means of production will be threatened. To me, that's a scary prospect, a post-singularity owned by capitalists. They will own the universe itself or destroy us all, and we simply cannot allow either of those outcomes to happen.

[taltom]

It's important to keep in mind that all classification schemes, such as left-versus-right, are merely conveniences for discussion. Zoom in and you'll find that there are few ideologues so far either way that they're dangling from the ends of the spectrum. A past governor of Indiana, where I live, was Mitch Daniels, a man considerably far to the right on fiscal issues, but staunchly uninterested in social ones, or even perhaps a little sympathetic to social justice. Another Indiana politician, Richard Lugar, was as dedicated to most right-wing values as any, but was more than willing to compromise to get things done. Today his seat is warmed by a Democrat who's as devoted to god 'n guns as any Republican.

The whole point of a democracy is that this stew of viewpoints has a centroid of sorts where all can meet with roughly equal amounts of discomfort and agree on a course of action that doesn't please anyone in particular. That's how we combine "left" and "right" in a practical sense.

But all political theorists recognize that mob rule can upset this balance. If an ideology becomes fanaticism, it can override its more populous rivals and dominate, perhaps even to the point of coup. That's why our Founding Fathers didn't allow the hoi polloi to directly elect anyone at the federal level except a House member. They knew that zealots can overpower larger numbers and become effectively a tyranny. Voter apathy contributes to this condition, of course. That's what happened to the US recently when the Tea Party took hold of the public imagination and a very small number of agitated voters managed to put fellow zealots into key positions where they can hold the rest of us hostage to their demands. Thanks to a confluence of events, such as the demise of earmarks, these politicians no longer bend the knee to their own leadership and can demagogue as much as they please. This will be corrected in future elections, but for the nonce, there is little incentive for them to help reach that nexus of viewpoints that the Founders envisioned.

[Princip]

Tradition is good because it roots man in his origins and provides him a sense of his place in the world. Tradition provides us with stability and a sense of direction. Without tradition we do not know which way is up.

Well I know which way is up, thanks. I'm fine without tradition. I prefer defining myself rather than being defined by tradition. I'm still not convinced.

As for the other part of your reply... you described an ideology with a tendency towards social justice, communitarianism, but also traditional values and such. This is the centre. Christian democratic parties for example. It may seem like antagonistic towards the centre, but an ideology which incorporates both left and right-wing ideas and is not radical or revolutionary in nature (ergo fascist), will be the political centre because this is the exact definition of the centre.

Or am I missing something?

[quetzalcoatl]

Just because the practical considerations that create scarcity have been eliminated does not mean that scarcity has to be eliminated. I mean we today have the means to produce enough food to feed the world, yet people still go hungry. We have the means to provide everyone with the medicine necessary, yet people still die of preventable diseases. We have the means to provide shelter for every person on the planet, yet people still live on the streets. The big lie sold to the world by capitalists is that we have a scarcity problem...The loss of the ability to control the means of production can only be realized by the revolution.

There are two things that have to happen to end capitalism. The first is the elimination of scarcity as the driving force of economics; as you noted we are getting close to being able to implement it (at least technically). The second is that capitalists must lose control of the means of production, not in a political sense but in a technological sense. One scenario is the development of widely distributed automated production units. Another would be the development of molecular manufacturing as envisaged by Richard Feynman.

We are at the first stage, but not the second. Current automated production is capital intensive to an extraordinary degree and very centralized (although we see that slowly changing). No political development can permanently extract power from capital without this second stage development. The material conditions for socialism have to be in place for the political change to have a chance. We are simply not there yet.

An economy with millions of distributed points of production, all functioning with minimal human labor requirement, would create an essentially anarchic environment. Once production escapes from centralized control, FARTS (forced artificial scarcity) can no longer be utilized as a social control mechanism.

Until that occurs, the only humane alternative is so-called democratic socialism (i.e., a highly regulated capitalism with a strong safety net).

[annatar1914]

Der Kobe, you said;

Not to come off as rude, but to me this is a lot of gesticulating without making any actual point. No offense.

My point is that stability and efficiency as goals in the new revolutionary societies, enabled doctrinaire Marxists to test their theories upon contact with reality, and is the case with all revolution, practical facts if not theory modified the actual structure of post-revolutionary society.

Saying that "Marxists have become divorced from reality" and follow "vulgar Bourgeoisie ideas" is just a whole lot of ad hom and bluster without attaching it to someone.

I can state these things because I haven't seen a Marxist party yet that has come to grips with the 21st century. In a way, nobody has so it's not exactly an 'ad hominem', but an observation.

As far as saying that "Marx didn't shit marble on Olympus either"; I agree, but you're not exactly saying much without offering an example of what you mean by "beliefs which would make his modern followers blush".

I'd say his personal commentaries on race were fairly typical of the 19th century, for one.

Look, I read Marx and Lenin into my analysis of the world which is a huge leap for me, but I refuse to limit myself to what is in many respects a 'closed system'. The Atheism of many revolutionaries like them alone is a debilitating factor which I explain as a remnant of 19th century bourgeosie prejudice, along with most of what some call 'identity politics', 'Marxists' today trying to fight for what are in actuality the degenerate elements of what late capitalism produces as moral and spiritual by-products. Marx and Lenin didn't go far enough in some respects, and too far in others, being themselves products of the capitalist era.

[Atlantis]

Ideology has failed us. We need a new ideology which will allow us to combine the best of left wing and right wing ideals. In the past we used to view left and right as complete opposites. However what if left and right share something in that they are both against the centre? And what if we could take the best of left wing politics and combine it with the best of right wing politics?

No need to reinvent the wheel. What you describe is similar to the social market economy, as we have seen it in Germany. It will be ridiculed by the Marxist dinosaurs, but that need not concern us since they'll anyways go the way of the dinosaurs.

[KlassWar]

Both the so-called 'market socialism' and the so-called 'social market economy' died in the late Eighties and were buried somewhere in the mid Nineties. Titoism died alongside the SFRY and social-democracy was dismantled and cannibalized by Thatcherites and ordoliberals.

Ultimately it's socialism or barbarism, as it's always been.