Leftism is oppositional in its fundamental nature, and over the centuries it has accumulated many oppositions.
And, once an opposition has become a part of the loose-leaf binder that comprises Leftist "theory" it is never discarded.
Even when in practice Leftism actively persecutes that which it once had championed.
Thus; some of the main oppositional themes of Leftism, going back to the late 1700s and up into the 1970s include Abolition of Slavery, Pacifism, Socialism/ Communism, Anti-marriage, Antiracism, Feminism, Environmentalism.
We can see that in the early phases of each "ism" there was sometimes a genuine net effort to reduce or abolish that to which Leftism was opposed.
So that the campaign for abolition of slavery began in Britain, and actually abolished slavery (formally defined) starting in Britain and its Empire, and then in more and more places of the world.
But here and now, Leftism has presided over the re-introduction of slavery to Britain (officially estimated to be in the tens of thousands of slaves, presumably more); as a consequence of Antiracism and the strategy of mass immigration having become more powerful than Abolition within Leftism.
Yet Leftism has never abandoned theoretical Abolition; even as it actively imports and subsidizes slavers, and protects them from scrutiny and prosecution.
Or, when Leftism was dominated by Socialism/ Communism, it valorized native working-class men; and probably did something to improve the conditions of this group - or, at least, the mass-unionized sector of this group.
Nowadays, with the waxing of Antiracism and mass immigration, this group has become perhaps the most demonized in society.
Yet Leftism still takes a pro-working class stance and advocates Socialist/ Communist policies... in a purely theoretical and rhetorical way.
A similar plotline could be detected for feminism, environmentalism, and the other oppositional policies.
Leftism always accumulates in its portfolio, and does not discard.
Ultimately, everybody has found a place within the always-expanding Big Tent of Leftism, because everybody is opposed to something or another.
And if individuals or groups can be induced to make that opposition (or a handful of such) central to their motivation, they are brought within Leftism.
Until now Leftism embraces the entirety of official politics (including all conservative, reactionary, republican groupings).
Including that Leftism contains the would-be anti-Leftist movements (fascism, national-socialism, libertarianism etc); all of which are actually, by their fundamentally oppositional nature, thereby forms-of-Leftism.
Therefore; Leftism, through time, develops a "rainbow" of incompatible and mutually hostile "concerns" without ever resolving the contradictions - but instead promoting all of them, all of the time.
Thus Leftism depends absolutely upon permanent dishonesty, total-hypocrisy, and a continual "Orwellian" rhetoric inversion - by which destruction is called creation.
And all this was made possible, and eventually inevitable, because in a world that denies and excludes the reality of God the creator; then there can be no positive Good. Instead morality itself becomes oppositional; and morality is discussed and measured in utilitarian and psychological terms of gratification versus suffering.
By ignoring divine purpose and meaning; all discourse and policy will trend to become oppositional to divine creation; all discourse in such a world will therefore be Leftist; and every body (including self-described anti-Leftists) will be a species of Leftist.
So - Here We Are!
8 comments:
A penetrating insight, Bruce: the Left is fundamentally about *opposition,* as such. So it accumulates oppositions. And because it is about nothing concrete, but rather only opposition, it can never rest: as what it has been for a while opposing vanishes (whether or not on account of what the Left has done; sometimes things just go away, or people get tired of thinking about them) - e.g., what seems to be happening now with fears of climate change suddenly losing steam - the Left must find something new to oppose (opposing AI data centers is a new thing, apparently). But it can't stop opposing what it formerly opposed. The Left cannot therefore abandon its opposition to climate change, ever. Thus now the Left opposes both female genital mutilation and it opposes resistance to the cultures that practice it (including, now, our own Leftist culture).
The contradictions of Leftist policy then are bound inexorably to compound. And this forces the Left to ever greater degrees of unreasonable outrage in their rhetoric; to ever morre insane policies. But the Left can't help it. They can't ever admit that they won the debate on slavery, e.g. They have to keep beating that dead horse.
They are stuck in the same sort of positive feedback loop as the homelessness grift. If the resources devoted to solving the problem of homelessness ever succeeded, the stream of money devoted to that problem would dry up, and so would the grift.
If the Left were to get *everything it has ever wanted,* it would be forced to generate new oppositions, so as to stay alive.
A further thought: if we engage in mere reaction to the Left - in mere opposition to their inveterate opposition to ... well, ultimately to reality - we'll be engaging in *Leftism.* Sort of.
So, rather, we should be *for* something; for the good, the true, the beautiful, the real, the holy.
@Kristor. Thanks! And some very good examples and extrapolations.
Unfortunately, the well of human resentment is so deep, that there seems no limit to the Left's capacity to generate ever more and novel oppositions.
@ Kristor - "If we engage in mere reaction to the Left - in mere opposition to their inveterate opposition to ... well, ultimately to reality - we'll be engaging in *Leftism.* Sort of."
Odd. You were far more dismissive of this insight when I suggested something similar a while back. Beyond mere opposition, I noted that the overly external focus of most Christians also keeps them squarely engaged in leftism, regardless of whether they recognize it or not. And I think that's the a big part of the problem.
As long as Christians continue to regard reality as a predominantly out-there, external phenomenon that one can either piously submit to or foolishly rebel against, they will have no option but engage in leftism -- sort of or full on, take your pick.
On the matter of being "for" something, well, once again, it depends heavily on what we assume to be good, true, beautiful, real, and holy -- and, what the source of these things is. Do we lean toward the external or internal? Neither "either/or" option really works, yet I don't think I'm too far off-base to note that most Christians, particularly trad-oriented ones like you, heavily emphasize the external over the internal.
As Bruce noted the other day,
"This happens because such a person has made the choice and decision that ultimately external is better than internal.
Such a person has made it a baseline assumption that his understanding and knowledge of goodness, of value - of truth, beauty, and virtue - ought to come from outside of himself.
He has chosen to place himself in a position of ultimate and existential inferiority to some-thing which is external to himself. "
I posit that as long as Christians hold this position, they are susceptible to leftism, whether they acknowledge it or not.
@Frank - One reason for the success of oppositional Leftism is that there is a real problem in pursuing any positive and this worldly agenda - it seems that nobody really believes in such a thing.
Even the most trad religious people can see no further than building up and spreading and empowering their church - but that this is really a pig in a poke, or a black box - because we know of so many counter-examples when a large and powerful church has been corrupt or net-evil.
What this hoped-for powerful church would actually Do in any Positive sense is (I think) very difficult for modern people even to imagine. And I tend to thin that this may be because a truly positive strategy may actually be impossible in the reality of these times, and with Men as they actually now are.
This would mean abandoning "politics" as a way of pursuing Good - and this is something that seems very difficult for people to do.
In sum, most people seem to be stuck in the middle - where they can only concpetualize negative and oppositional "good" and in this-worldly terms and calibrated against human feelings - making Leftism inevitable so long as politics is being pursued.
That makes sense to me. And it's not that I'm utterly unsympathetic to pursuing a positive worldly agenda, at least to some degree, but as you note, the strategy may be impossible as men actually now are.
Discussions of this sort always remind me of Jesus's detachment from politics and this-worldly agendas. It was the sort of detachment that was subversive to many of the established authorities in his time and place, and I think that something Christians ought to contemplate when it comes to politics and this-worldly affairs. How can Christian detachment be subversive without being openly oppositional and, thus, vulnerable to leftism?
We, of course, are not Jesus. Nevertheless, it would probably serve well to remind ourselves of where we should set our limits when it comes to politics and this-worldly agendas, especially in this time and place.
@Frank. Yes to that.
But most people who say that are Neo-Platonists who regard this mortal life as either worthless or even as nothing but a trial/ torment/ test - and whose Christianity (if they do self-identify as Christians) is hardly distinguishable from Buddhism or Hinduism.
And to talk of a middle path between this world materialism and other world Platonism is incoherent. If one is true, the other is not.
This is why we need a different metaphysics, in order to make sense of the next-worlyl nature of Jesus's offer, while understanding what the confident future of resurrected eternal Heavenly life, means for this mortal life.
Francis, I submit that not just most Christians, but *almost all modern persons of any sort,* are subject to what is at bottom a false dichotomy between external reality and internal reality, that supervenes modernity’s essentially Cartesian metaphysical presuppositions. The older Tradition that Descartes and Roscelin superseded saw (and still in its remnant members and their dogmas (e.g., paragraphs 787 through 809 of the Catechism) sees) reality as a whole and in each of its members as an integration of mutually coinherent spirits; so that there was no sort of opposition or contradiction between inward and outward life, between individual and society, between Church and Christian, between lord and vassal, or for that matter between corporeal and spiritual, between One and Many, between mind and brain, between Heaven and Earth, and so on; but that there was, rather, shared organic participation in common lives and spirits.
So, yeah, if you idolize what is “external,” you are worshipping an illusion, a misdirection. But *also,* if you idolize what is “internal,” you are likewise worshipping an illusion, a misdirection. Either way, you are pretty likely to lead yourself astray by some misdirection.
Post a Comment