Log in
2012 May 21 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/02/28/convergence-of-ideological-opposites/
0
0
  |   5 comments

My father’s definition of the range of ideology is this:

I believe personality definitions are spherical in nature and can be defined by spherical equations (and a sinusoid).  The far fringes meet and touch on the other side of reality.  Once you get past + (conservative) & – (liberal) 90 degrees (reality) you slowly progress into non-reality until at 180 degrees the right and left non-realities meet and in essence are the same in actions and deeds.

As far as I can recall we’ve never discussed this subject but I’ve held the same belief for several years.  It’s easy to see that as radical groups get farther and farther from the center they begin to embrace the tactics and values of their arch-enemies.

Nowhere is this more easily seen and understood than with ultra-liberal progressives whose highest values ought to be logic, freedom for the individual, and above all free speech and inquiry. 

Yet on what American conservatives casually call the far left progressives have embraced the thinking of both the fascists and the communists in their strident, unrelenting efforts to confine individuals personal, speech, and inquiry rights to their own narrow range of beliefs.

Conversely this phenomenon can also be seen in ultra-conservative religious groups in which individual is expected to have both an intimate personal relationship with God and give his/her all to the group in order to create a perfectly selfless society.  All too often these groups end up taking on the characteristics of godless anarchists, as in the case of Jim Jones and today’s radical Muslims.

The ring theory of ideology isn’t a perfect analogy; groups all over the continuum plagiarize and bastardize both their own and others’ belief systems as they age more or less well.  But it is more useful to think of politicized groups as aligning around a circle rather than on a linear spectrum.  While the far ends of left and right disagree on the specifics of their grievances, the means they use to advance their agendas are remarkably similar.

  1. Michael Merritt I agree with you mostly. However, on the far right, I'm not sure how you go from ultra-fundamentalist religious groups to godless anarchists. I take it you know what the political definition of anarchy is? It's not the popular culture definition of people going around killing everybody in sight. Anarchy in the political sense is where there is no government. It may or may not lead to the first definition. It could be very civil or perhaps not. This can't be known since political anarchy have never existed. Even the earliest hunter-gatherer societies had some overarching structure to them. I believe the very fringe can hold people with a vast array of religious views, from none at all to the most fundamentalist. But I do agree with the ring theory of ideology. Consider that the purest of the Libertarian Party style libertarians and Karl Marx-style communists (not the bastardized versions by Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky) both want the same thing: the dismantling of the state.
  2. Posted by C Stanley
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #86401 ›
    C Stanley The one thing that all the extremists share is that they end up perverting their own ideology. Religious people believe in free will but then when they gravitate to political extremes they want more and more government control over people's behaviors. Marxists, as Michael Merritt points out, want the proletariat to rise up and overthrow their rulers but in practice that means they then become the ruling class (or someone does on their behalf.) The only way to be extreme and internally consistent, I think, would be to assert support for total authoritarianism.
  3. Posted by Rutger
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #86406 ›
    Rutger It is interesting to see the similarities between 19th century anarchism and modern day Islamic terrorism. Both seek to overthrow the current social and political order and strive for a utopia. Not surprisingly, the founding father of radical Islam, Sayyid Qutb, was strongly influenced by the Marxist critique on European culture and capitalism. This echoes in Bin Laden's messages, in which he particularly criticizes the Western capitalist system.
  4. Posted by RAGGEDSTEP
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #86407 ›
    RAGGEDSTEP Marc, I very much agree with your father's illustration but have a slightly different, perhaps more pessimistic, view. Political movements, left and right, can be seen as a "V." The origination for either side may arise from a ligitimate need. However, the desire for power will supplant ideology and structures devolve and eventually meet at the bottom.
  5. Michael Merritt
    (or someone does on their behalf.)
    That was Lenin's view, that the proletariat would have to be taught about socialism and communism, so the socialist state needed a full time group of revolutionaries. Hence, the Communist Party. His idea was once everyone was taught about communism, only then could the transition occur. He actually was a revisionist since Marx believed that the transition would occur naturally, once the workers held control of the state. Lenin thought otherwise. I also believed that Lenin (or was it Stalin?) believed that the authoritarianism would be needed, at least for a while. Unfortunately, we never know what Lenin would have done, because he died before fully implementing his plans. Then Marxism was further perverted by Stalin, in which it no longer became Marxism, but an autocracy. Anyway, I think that if the state were to wither away, at least in the U.S., it would more likely do so under the method preferred by Libertarian Party-style libertarians. Because while they and Karl Marx communists may want the state to wither away, both their methods and the specifics of the aftermath are quite different.
1