Hello. I am very new here and wanted to post something on the thread about the Left’s self-definition. However, being a dotty Aristasian blonde, I can’t work out how it works. Instead here is something I wrote to a friend on the question of what we might mean these days by the terms “right and “left”. You may find it of interest.
You say it should be obvious what you mean by Left and Right. Well, yes, I do think I know what you mean by them. If one uses “Left” to mean everything disruptive of order and harmony, of thame as an Aristasian would say, one is, of course using the term in a sense that long predates modern (I.e. - post French-revolutionary) politics. We are talking about the sinister in the profoundest sense.
However, while this sense clearly has an influence (largely subliminal, since moderns are unaware of metaphysics) on modern political terminology, the two senses are not directly transposable.
I would certainly say that most of the political orthodoxies now known as Political Correctness (Policed Consciousness) derive from the rantings of the extreme New Left in the 1960s.
At the time no sane socialist M.P. would have given these doctrines house-room. Many of them no conservative politician would now dare challenge.
But this in itself is an example of the redefinition of the political implications of the terms “left” and “right”.
“Yes,” you will reply “They are constantly re-defined leftward.”
That is true, but it also not quite so simple. Another shift is that the working-class left, which was once the backbone of the left movement (not its director to be sure, but that is another matter) has been wholly displaced by middle-class deracinationism.
In Britain, to complicate the matter further, one would have to call this middle-class-pseudo-proletarian (bourgeoik) deracinationism.
This is not just a move to the left on the old political spectrum, though it is certainly a move toward the sinister in the deeper meaning of the term.
What I am saying is that this march of the sinister does not wholly correspond to what is termed “left” politically. And indeed what is termed “left” politically is not always that easy to define.
In the 1960s, when the older model still generaly prevailed, if you asked an ordinary, educated person “what is Left and what is Right?” She would almost inevitably say “”Right is broadly capitalist and left broadly Socialist.”
Now that view did not prevail in the 19th century, and it does not really prevail today.
The whole political spectrum has shifted to the left in cultural “sinistrist” terms, but to the right in capitalist-socialist terms.
The British “New” Labour Party, while being more socially destructive and sinistrist than any previous socialist government is also more capitalistic than any previous socialist government (and, indeed, more capitalistic than ’60s Conservative gvernments).
In a Trentish [1930s] book the statement “Government should be run on business lines” was discussed. It was considered a statement that would be espoused by the Liberal Party and opposed by the Tory party (still, to some extent, seen as the party of the gentry as opposed to the industrial new rich).
By the 1960s the statement would have been considered the very epitome of Conservative ideology. This very statement would have marked, in most people’s minds, the fault-line between Left and Right.
By the 1990s the statement would be considered typical of the thinking of New Labour - the most left-wing (in the sinistrist sense) party ever to hold power in Britain.
So you see a very cardinal statement has held three quite different - and opposing - political significances in the course of less than a century.
I mention this merely to indicate that using the trems “Left” and “Right” as convenient labels with fixed meanings is not as simple as it seems. One could bring up many other instances.
What we oppose is “sinistrism”, deracination, the undermining and inversion of all civilised norms. The things you so beautifully argue against.
I do not think we should muddy the waters by confusing this profound and ultimate battle with the mich more trivial “conflicts” of the modern political “Left” and “Right”, which are in any case mostly a smokeskreen under cover of which, whoever wins, deracination and sinistrism constantly advance.