The 360 degree view
or how it helps to see both left and right
When I stick my neck out of the stable, I contemplate the entirety of the land around me. I even see the stable wall itself, which gives me a comforting feeling. I am both inside and outside, while I know what is going on. Humans were never able to look both left and right at the same time. As time progresses, they do not seem to be getting better at that. On the contrary, the impression I have is that they have a harder time than ever to distinguish left from right. This becomes most clear when you hear them discuss politics.
(When you stick your neck out too, I trust you will want to subscribe!)
Well, where does the distinction between left and right come from? Most historians will agree that the concepts of left and right wing politics came into existence right after the French revolution. Europe, and for that matter most of the world, had been governed for centuries in totalitarian systems, where a single person ruled the entire nation or tribe. Any form of debate went on in the shadows, in the salons and corridors of the royal palaces, and new concepts or ideas that challenged the status quo would only hesitantly and after lengthy phases of alignment be presented to the ruler. All of that changed when the French revolution shattered the old structures. The discord and chaos ensuing the revolution itself necessitated a venue for debate that took shape as the Parliament. Birds of a feather stick together, and so it happened that most proponents of a return to monarchy gathered in the right hand half of the Parliament, whereas revolutionaries convened in the left. As most humans tend to stick to habits, not just the autistic ones, these groups continued to occupy the same set of seats in the Parliament and therefore, it became convenient to summarize one’s ideas by simply describing oneself as right-wing or left-wing. Because right-wing politicians hunkered for a return to monarchy, they also stood for having a big government. Few palaces were bigger than Versailles at the time… They favored censorship, such that the values of monarchy and the church stayed aloof from any challenges and were supportive of limits to ordinary people’s wealth, movement and ways to improve social status. The Left, on the contrary, praised Liberty in each of its shades and colours: free elections, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, and economic freedom that would proffer the broader public the opportunity to make a better life. For standing for all of these values, left wingers of the first hour were considered to be liberal.
However, the concepts of left and right soon began to morph. Without jumping into too much detail on what went on in France, monarchies were gradually replaced by parliamentary democracies in much of the Western hemisphere. Each of these democracies had left, right and even centrist factions. Yet one concept that most seemed to agree upon is that a democracy can only work if there is willingness to debate and to make compromises. In order to have an effective debate, there must be willingness to listen to opposing views. And to be able to hear opposing views, the opposing party must have a complete and unabridged freedom to express itself. Therefore, most parliamentary democracies have been having very strong protections for freedom of expression in their respective Constitutions, most notably so in the United States’ First Amendment.
I find it both interesting and very frightening to observe that these days, many countries seem to have plans to abandon their principles of free speech and that these plans are brought forward mostly by self-proclaimed ‘left-wing’ politicians, who want to ‘protect democracy’ by expanding the government’s power and by limiting their citizens’ freedom. As we established, freedom of speech is a more fundamental principle than democracy: there cannot be democracy when certain parties are not allowed to share their ideas. Also, aligning these ideas with the original left and right wing concepts, we can only conclude that today’s self-proclaimed liberals are making very right-wing proposals.
(Wherever left and right are, it is a good idea to subscribe!)
The concepts of left and right wing have morphed before. When in the late nineteenth century the then new ideologies of socialism and communism gained ground, a strong association between the term ‘left-wing’ and these ideologies developed. Socialists and communists agreed with the original left wing ideas in the sense that they advocated for betterment for the poor, yet all of a sudden the ‘left’ also stood for a big government that could control many aspects of life. Economic despair in the early twentieth century fueled support for socialist parties, who soon took control of large parts of Europe. In many ways, the national socialist parties in Germany and Italy on the one hand, and the communist party in the Soviet Union on the other, are two flavours of the same. Each of these parties resorted to a socialist system, which each of them openly stated. Each of them had a highly centralized form of government that controlled aspects of their citizens’ lives into minute detail. In each of these countries, there was a very strong fusion between the government and economic activity, with the distinction that the Soviet Union planned their economy top down, whereas in Germany and Italy the economy was largely managed by corporations associated with the government, whence the widely accepted definition of fascism as a system of government based on private-public partnership. Moreover, each of these regimes developed into regimes of terror that absolutely banned dissenting opinions and had forced labour and even extermination camps for undesired denizens. I can even see similarities in the architecture and arts produced by these regimes, even though that may be just a reflection of the Zeitgeist. Yet if we were to run a poll today and ask random passers-by which of these is left and which is right, we would invariably get the answer that Nazi Germany was ‘extreme right-wing’ and that the Soviet Union was ‘extreme left-wing’. Pretty odd, right? Maybe the political spectrum is not finite, and both extremes meet at infinity?
The above observation takes me to the present. We live in a world that is influenced by non-profits with global focus and reach, such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), so we better understand which direction they want to go. The WEF’s president, Klaus Schwab, has frequent meetings with the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party and has on more than one occasion praised the Chinese structure of government. Self-proclaimed left-wing politicians should be excited, because this will be a move to the left, right? Well, let’s have a look at present day China. It is well understood that present day China has an economy that is almost completely based upon government controlled corporations. Let’s recall that that fits the definition of a fascist society, whereas it does not fit a communist one. While the definition of fascism does not entail suppressing opposition or limiting speech, it is well known that China stifles any internal opposition. To force normative behaviour and to run detainment camps for deviating groups need not be features of any fascist state, yet China does them. China will even go as far as to make life impossible for dissenters through social credit scores and to subject them to medical experimentation. Here too, most unwitting observers would call China a left wing country. Yet when I consider all of the above, I would argue that the Chinese ‘Communist’ Party is in fact the most fascist regime that has ever existed and its actions should be classified ‘far right’. As to Klaus Schwab being a German who supports the most fascist regime on the planet, I’ll let you draw the inevitable conclusion. But unfortunately, he does not stand alone. Canadian and American ‘liberals’ often express admiration for China as a better form of government and they propose legislation to turn Western countries into the nightmare China has become. They use in se impossible mental constructs to further their agenda such as making opinions illegal to ‘save democracy’ or the so-called necessity to suppress ‘hate speech’, which then gets a definition flexible enough to encompass anything that is inconvenient to their agenda. Some of them even invite actual Nazis into their parliament and give them a standing ovation.
(If you want to give me a standing ovation, subscribe!
And please make sure Jaroslav Hunka isn’t standing right next to you when you do so).
I would argue that Canadian Liberals, US Democrats, UK Labour, Brazilian PT and the likes are extreme right wing factions. I would also like to add to this that this observation does not preclude some or even all of their seeming opponents to be extreme right wing factions too. The respective massages may just be packaged slightly differently. However, let’s not be blinded by the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, which are nothing more than labels that are easy to associate with for those who are not willing to dig into their deeper meaning. Therefore, it should not be surprising that the content of left and right has changed quite drastically over time. We should, however, very much be concerned with not becoming China. While China had been moving in the right direction throughout the early 2000s, lifting millions of citizens out of poverty and providing economic prosperity, China has since missed its opportunity to truly become an example state. Instead, it has devolved into a despicable techno-dystopian dictature that needs to change course, not be copied as is. And for a final time, I will call China and its supporters right-wing extremists.
Well, some heavy stuff here to unpack, but I am still happy when I see grass at the same time to the right and to the left! Which you can’t (sorry, need to point that out …).
(While I was concretizing these ideas, true crime author John Leake posted an essay on these concepts too, which maybe worth checking out!
But as you’re checking that out, return to compare both opinions and subscribe!)