Weird Internet Ideas: Yeah back to Nazis and left right spectrums again

 

I wrote this post https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2015/06/20/weird-interent-ideas-the-nazis-were-leftists-no-not-in-any-way-that-makes-sense/ in June 2015. At the time the rise of a quasi/neo/ohwhattheheckactual-fascists was mainly seen as a European thing and the US centre and right was still seeing US politics as naturally immune. In the meantime, the forces of the American right have decided to rally behind a demagogue who has surrounded himself with extreme nationalists with zero interest in quasi-libertarian window dressing.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, I was presented with a live example:

Libertarians have kind of liked this idea for a long time. I assume it germinated in to a truism sometime in the 1970s but as I pointed out in the earlier post, it probably dates back to Hayek in the 1940s.

Of course, you can align political movements and ideologies onto any axis which you can think of an ordinal variable to describe…but more government v less government simply doesn’t work as a way of describing how left-right spectrums work in 20th and 21st-century Western politics. You can use that spectrum if you like but it will fail as a predictive model in describing who aligns with who and it fails as a descriptive model of who aligned with who in history.

In the earlier post I concentrated specifically on the notion of the Hitler-era Nazis being leftists (this is also the context of the Tweet quoted above) but in the post I thought I’d spend a bit longer looking at this more/less government thing in general.

To do so, consider counter-examples. Which ideology would be at the furthest end of the more/less axis? Anarchists! Now anarchists aren’t one thing, there are many different flavours and most believe in some kind of social structure that provides cohesion independent of government e.g.

  • anarcho-syndicalists believe in a society where trade-union like organisations provide the organising principle of society.
  • anarcho-capitalists believe in a society where the free-market (and some protection of individual rights) provide the organising principle of society.

Anarcho-syndicalists have, historically, been part of left wing movements. Anarcho-capitalists have, historically, been part of movements associated with individualism – not necessarily right-wing but not obviously left-wing and often critical of the left’s anti-individualism.

Ah, yeah-but! The anarcho-capitalists are even MORE against the government than the anarcho-syndicalists! – says an imaginary person. Hmm, I’m not sure that is true and anarcho-capitalists never amounted to a significant movement whereas the anarcho-syndicalists do actually have a track record of literally fighting fascists but, whatever, let’s imagine that is the case:

leftright

Let’s throw in some other cases. Milton Friedman flavoured conservative-libertarians. Not as anti-government as your classic Libertarian but supposedly more anti-government than those nasty leftists.

leftright2

Now, how about Margaret Thatcher? A vocal enemy of socialism who famously said that she would “roll back the frontiers of the state”, privatised several government-owned industries, was a believer in monetarism (at least nominally) but also increased centralisation of the British state, increased police powers, was militaristic, increased surveillance of citizens and attempted to enforce new government powers such as the “poll tax” (aka community charge). OK, we can still fit her into the scheme, just further along that whole more v less government thing:

leftright3

And let’s add in Augusto Pinochet – a friend of Thatcher’s and an authoritarian military dictator. Not a totalitarian dictator so technically less government than say, Stalin or Mao but definitely way over on the ‘more government’ side of things.

leftright4

I haven’t defined a centre, and it is only an ordinal axis, so I can’t say where the left half begins and the right half starts but I have a bunch of political positions listed below the line that cover a gamut of more (Pinochet) to less (anarcho-capitalists) government.

Let’s go above the line. How about, hmmm, George Orwell. A man with strong views on personal liberty, outspoken about excessive government control and, oh, a man who described himself as a socialist…Here maybe?

leftright5

We are well into apples & oranges now. Arranging the people below the line was relatively easy because one principle was relatively fixed – each of the positions nominally accepted that a laissez-faire approach to the economy was correct. Given that it becomes easier to look at how each position differed in terms of other aspects of government.

However, there isn’t a simple way of comparing libertarian-conservatives with Orwell’s libertarian (in a different sense) socialism. Less of what kind of government are we talking about.

Let’s add some more confusion to the mix. The 1945 Labour government. The not-entirely-post WW2 government nationalised industries (or kept them nationalised as a consequence of the war effort) and famously introduced the National Health Service. It also pursued a policy of decolonisation essentially ending the British Empire. Now if we compare with Thatcher, she privatised industries but not the NHS (although I suspect she would have liked to). Is the 1945 Labour government further down the more government end that Thatch or the less government? No idea. This is a silly scheme which can only function by cherry picking. Still, I’ll throw in Hitler and Stalin for good measure and assume that AT THIS RESOLUTION we can’t spot the difference (Stalin probably more government than Hitler I guess for those playing at home).

leftright6

The scheme does not help us sort left aligned positions from right ones but instead could be used for discriminating between different strands of left or right ideologies. How come? because more/less government is orthogonal to left-v-right as traditionally used.

Truth is we can make up all sorts of axes on our preferred issues. Take the issue of free trade unions. How might that look?

leftright7

But left-v-right is never a single issue. Indeed if it was a single issue there would be no need for the notion of left-v-right. The whole point of the intuitive left-v-right model is to bundle multiple issues and alliances and trends together to work out rough correspondences on a wide range of issues that may even wander over time.

Oh, and Nazis? Still not socialists, and still not left wing.

 

Advertisements

9 comments

  1. KR

    When thinking about right v. left, one of the determinants I’ve thought might work was to look at the nature of what they blame for All Our Problems. The right seems to lean on emotive and cultural explanations including appeals to tradition and glory of the good ol’ days; the left hauls its argument out of a recourse to positivist, underlying economic issues and appeals to hope/change for a more rational future.

    I am sure this too falls apart on closer examination, but I’ve thought about it.

    Like

  2. thephantom182

    Cutting to the chase, Camestros, which candidate was more likely to lower taxes and reduce the size of government even slightly? Clinton or Trump?

    Out of the collection of non-entities pushed forward by the supposed Right in the nominations, which one was most likely to lower taxes and reduce the size of government? Trump, who actually talked about it, or the rest of them, who -didn’t-?

    Results so far: The Obamacare vampire took a major wound, literally before the ink was dry from Trump signing his name on the swearing-in paperwork. I think he signed the order on the platform. Churchill’s bust was back in the Oval Office before lunch on Friday.

    So far, zero pussy-hatted protesters have been loaded into cattle cars, bound for the Alaskan wilderness.

    However, one attendee had to shoot a guy in front of a Milo Yiannopoulous event at the university of Washington/Seattle. The shooter was interviewed and released by authorities. See if you can guess which guy was a Lefty “anti-Fascist”, the shooter or the shoot-ee.

    Bottom line, you can nit-pick the technicalities all day long, but the fact of the matter is that the Modern Left have pursued -all- of Adolph’s policy wish list, from ecology to health to gun control. ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’, to quote an old book.

    The new axis of measurement is the personal freedom line. Does a policy or a government allow more personal freedom for citizens, or less? Tax policy is a major mover on that. Its hard to be free when the government tracks every dollar you make, and takes half. Or more. In Canada, thanks to the carbon tax idiocy, we are well on our way to 60% taxation.

    How much freedom do you have when you can’t heat your house? Can’t drive your car?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s