Most people in the world, when asked, can provide a fair example of
the political spectrum -- they will do it on a "right to left" line, like this
....
the political spectrum -- they will do it on a "right to left" line, like this
....
| Radical Leftists Socialists Western THE MIDDLE Big Business Christian Radical Maoists Christian European United States Republicans Fundamentalists RightCommunists Democrats liberals Democrats Conservatives The Klan Nazis |
These "different" things supposedly demonstrate the positioning on a spectrum, so that
those on the left are diametrically opposed to the right -- that both are somehow in
opposite beliefs to each other. After all, most people, on the surface, will say that
communism is on the opposite side politically from nazism. With one on the failed extreme
left, and the other on the failed extreme right.
Politics and Economics seem both separate and together here. In this century it was
"democracy" against Empire, then Nazism, then Communism, which, word-wise in the
language became "Socialism v Capitalism." Supposedly these were all different, and in
competition with each other, with democracy vanquishing both empire and nazism, and
capitalism vanquishing communism.
Now we supposedly have to take care of the evils of capitalism.
This political spectrum is wrong. It leaves no place for libertarianism, or less government, or
no government, or even original agrarian Jeffersonian Democracy. And when that
argument is made, most people will then posit that it is really a circle -- that by going all the
way left one can approach the right....
those on the left are diametrically opposed to the right -- that both are somehow in
opposite beliefs to each other. After all, most people, on the surface, will say that
communism is on the opposite side politically from nazism. With one on the failed extreme
left, and the other on the failed extreme right.
Politics and Economics seem both separate and together here. In this century it was
"democracy" against Empire, then Nazism, then Communism, which, word-wise in the
language became "Socialism v Capitalism." Supposedly these were all different, and in
competition with each other, with democracy vanquishing both empire and nazism, and
capitalism vanquishing communism.
Now we supposedly have to take care of the evils of capitalism.
This political spectrum is wrong. It leaves no place for libertarianism, or less government, or
no government, or even original agrarian Jeffersonian Democracy. And when that
argument is made, most people will then posit that it is really a circle -- that by going all the
way left one can approach the right....
This is wrong in that it leaves the less government and no government people out of the
equation. It represents a socialist view of the world. It is the embodiment of the very
paradigm of which we speak.
It is correct in the sense, and to the degree, that a person sees that the "difference"
between left and right are not that much. First, that person is beginning to be forced by the
paradigm itself to question it as the sheer contradictions arise. And second, will make the
leap to the new paradigm if it either occurs to him or is presented to him. In what is
presented there will be a lot of competition -- the consensus on the new paradigm will
surface over time, perhaps two or three decades. In the short term there is enormous
tension and frustration in people about what they see to be true and what the paradigm
system holds to be true. It just does not mesh.
People in Eastern Europe finally saw that there is no difference between Communism and
Nazism. They are the same and they must get rid of it, they reasoned.
Some still believe in the old paradigm, and it is hard to shake off, and each country of the
old Soviet bloc is coming out of it in its own specific way.
Again, nothing new has been presented, there is still the attempt by the "best of both
worlds" analysis. But even that will fail.
If Communism is on the left and Nazism is on the right, yet they are both the same, then
everything in between must be the same, or similar enough. Remember that a paradigm
belief system is held by different people in different cultures at different times in different
ways. Even if the outer view seems different, the core is the same.
For instance, it is a socialist belief that Evil is in the economic system; a nasty insolent
greediness is the Product of Capitalism. That by putting the person in a socialist economic
system he will be nice and join the collective. When evil remained in socialism then it was
called "lingering capitalism" or false consciousness. That failed under scrutiny, so it was
decided that evil was also in socialism, because either it was not real socialism, or the social
setting prevented the true socialism -- which slipped to the idea that socialism had evil too.
Because there are certain similarities between organizing systems, i.e., someone must be in
control, and while economically capitalism was better, socialism had good points, But that
nasty thieving greed was part of both.
This circumstance, where supposedly both capitalism and socialism as practiced create evil,
at least we can be richer under capitalism as we look for ways to control evil. It leaves the
paradigm in effect, for it presupposes that the evil is in the economic system. That perhaps
a morality of socialism theory, with none of the economic theory can harness the greed in
economics. Really, the evil which socialism says is in capitalism only, is then found in itself,
can be stripped from socialism, leaving its belief that greed is not in it while knowing greed
is in it. That is having an ideal to eat, while looking at the reality and can then watch over
and mitigate or prevent the evil we will admit is in capitalism. First he is good, the other is
bad, then he recognizes, he is bad too, but still believes he is good, therefore he can watch
over the bad one, and his own badness, with his belief he is good. Letting the wolf guard
the hen house in the vernacular.
There are countless other examples of this alleged left meeting right and that's why those in
the middle have to protect themselves against either side. It is the struggle between the
apparent contradictions, the real contradiction still to come, that brings us reams of ideas,
then rampant in the Clinton Administration, that we can work a middle course, like the
Brigadiers riding in the Valley of Death, cannons to the left and cannon to the right. Each is
meaning to impose its own horrors on the less-than-vigilant middle ground. In foreign policy
George W. Bush has made the leap towards a new paradigm -- all repressive regimes, by
whatever name, have to go. It doesn't appear that he's grasped the domestic side.
The real contradiction is that there are two sides splayed against the middle, either on the
right or the left. The entire spectrum need redrawing ....
equation. It represents a socialist view of the world. It is the embodiment of the very
paradigm of which we speak.
It is correct in the sense, and to the degree, that a person sees that the "difference"
between left and right are not that much. First, that person is beginning to be forced by the
paradigm itself to question it as the sheer contradictions arise. And second, will make the
leap to the new paradigm if it either occurs to him or is presented to him. In what is
presented there will be a lot of competition -- the consensus on the new paradigm will
surface over time, perhaps two or three decades. In the short term there is enormous
tension and frustration in people about what they see to be true and what the paradigm
system holds to be true. It just does not mesh.
People in Eastern Europe finally saw that there is no difference between Communism and
Nazism. They are the same and they must get rid of it, they reasoned.
Some still believe in the old paradigm, and it is hard to shake off, and each country of the
old Soviet bloc is coming out of it in its own specific way.
Again, nothing new has been presented, there is still the attempt by the "best of both
worlds" analysis. But even that will fail.
If Communism is on the left and Nazism is on the right, yet they are both the same, then
everything in between must be the same, or similar enough. Remember that a paradigm
belief system is held by different people in different cultures at different times in different
ways. Even if the outer view seems different, the core is the same.
For instance, it is a socialist belief that Evil is in the economic system; a nasty insolent
greediness is the Product of Capitalism. That by putting the person in a socialist economic
system he will be nice and join the collective. When evil remained in socialism then it was
called "lingering capitalism" or false consciousness. That failed under scrutiny, so it was
decided that evil was also in socialism, because either it was not real socialism, or the social
setting prevented the true socialism -- which slipped to the idea that socialism had evil too.
Because there are certain similarities between organizing systems, i.e., someone must be in
control, and while economically capitalism was better, socialism had good points, But that
nasty thieving greed was part of both.
This circumstance, where supposedly both capitalism and socialism as practiced create evil,
at least we can be richer under capitalism as we look for ways to control evil. It leaves the
paradigm in effect, for it presupposes that the evil is in the economic system. That perhaps
a morality of socialism theory, with none of the economic theory can harness the greed in
economics. Really, the evil which socialism says is in capitalism only, is then found in itself,
can be stripped from socialism, leaving its belief that greed is not in it while knowing greed
is in it. That is having an ideal to eat, while looking at the reality and can then watch over
and mitigate or prevent the evil we will admit is in capitalism. First he is good, the other is
bad, then he recognizes, he is bad too, but still believes he is good, therefore he can watch
over the bad one, and his own badness, with his belief he is good. Letting the wolf guard
the hen house in the vernacular.
There are countless other examples of this alleged left meeting right and that's why those in
the middle have to protect themselves against either side. It is the struggle between the
apparent contradictions, the real contradiction still to come, that brings us reams of ideas,
then rampant in the Clinton Administration, that we can work a middle course, like the
Brigadiers riding in the Valley of Death, cannons to the left and cannon to the right. Each is
meaning to impose its own horrors on the less-than-vigilant middle ground. In foreign policy
George W. Bush has made the leap towards a new paradigm -- all repressive regimes, by
whatever name, have to go. It doesn't appear that he's grasped the domestic side.
The real contradiction is that there are two sides splayed against the middle, either on the
right or the left. The entire spectrum need redrawing ....
| CHAPTER 3 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
