YMMV 1: Politics, Left vs. Right, Socialist vs. Libertarian

Political matters can be described in terms of any number of axes. One that interests me is the difference between the governmental systems of any given country, and the broader cultural politics that everyone engages in with every value judgment they make. Another political axis which has become less and less interesting to me is the distinction between Left and Right, or more specifically between Socialism and (right, economic, US-style) Libertarianism.

Before going any further, let me emphatically clarify that I’m perfectly aware that the labels ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ do correspond to perfectly real and opposing sentiments. I am not trying to say that I don’t think there is any difference between Left and Right, that Stalinists and Anarcho-Capitalists are all just the same really, and can’t we all just get along? That, to be frank, would be stupid.

No, what I’m saying is that I don’t find the distinction very interesting. Why? Because I find that I can agree and work with people from either camp when they decide to be intelligent and constructive human beings, working toward common goals. Conversely, I find that I lose all respect for people from both camps equally when they push their ideologies to ridiculous, dangerous, unbalanced extremes.

For example, I am vehemently opposed to authoritarianism. For this reason I am very much against all historical forms of Communism, and am extremely wary of Communists making “No True Scotsman” arguments. I am opposed to governments constantly seeking to expand and abuse their powers. That said, I am very much in support of many of the ideals traditionally aspired to by Socialists, and furthermore feel that the extremist, right-wing Libertarian response to the problem of authority is equally flawed. Just as extreme, authoritarian socialists seem blind to the dangers of unchecked government, the most extreme Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists seem blind to the dangers of unchecked corporations.

​The fact of the matter is that while serious organisation is required for influence in this world, and that is necessary to make good things happen, too much influence in the hands of any one centralised organisation or group of organisations is inherently dangerous. It doesn’t matter what type of organisation it is. Opposing companies to effectively support all-powerful governments, opposing governments to effectively support all-powerful companies, even opposing both to support an all-powerful church… these all amount to the same thing – authoritarianism – and I will not tolerate it in any guise.

We could debate the details until the cows come home of course, but the point of this post is to say that I have no intention of having that debate any more. The views I hold and the goals I work toward are a matter of public record. If you object to them on the grounds not of some concrete detail which could be addressed constructively and intelligently but on the basis of an extreme ideological reaction to a single word or assumption, then the merits of your arguments are utterly unimportant to me. What matters to me is that people can be sensible, listen to what is actually being proposed, and work through the details toward commonly acceptable outcomes.

If your reaction to my views is so extreme that you are incapable of even trying to have a constructive conversation about how our views might overlap, then either our views truly are entirely incompatible, or the point is moot because you have demonstrated a disinclination to work toward a common understanding. In either case, I have no incentive to continue the conversation. It serves no purpose that interests me.

So please, before you launch into a rant about the evils of the Left, the Right, government or corporations, please bear in mind that you are only making it highly unlikely that I will continue participating in the conversation. Focus instead on practical goals and common ground, and we may just have something to talk about.