"TINA" and the Left Right Thing. ‘COWBOY WIRING’ no Polarity.


Bruce Charlton’s Thought Prison Political Correctness Gives for me the best compass I have seen for tackling this sloppy left Right business which frankly ceased to apply when Tony Blair became the heir to Lady Thatcher.
Corbyns Geography Teacher Naivete is I would say legitimately considered Left but would I place him to the left of Tony Benn or Michael Foot,? Who knows and who cares and does it matter in a parliamentary democracy?.
Note: Why I use the term Political Correctness, instead of Liberalism or Socialism?
The reasons include:
1. The confusion over what ‘liberalism’ means – to some a free marketeer, to others a socialist. My definition of political correctness is broad and includes most mainstream conservatives, libertarians and anarchists; who are nowadays all significantly PC.
2. Differences in usage between the UK and US: in the UK the Liberals are a strange mixture of business- and farming-friendly Centrists with pacifist Leftists of an upper middle-class type; in the US Liberals are the furthest Left of mainstream political ideologies.
3. That although PC clearly evolved from (what is in the US) called liberalism, PC is the outcome of a distinctive ‘turn’ in Leftist politics, which became obvious in the mid-1960s. In its striking, explicit, surface features PC is something new under the sun, never before seen in history.
4. Leftist political groups have, over the years, called themselves Communist, Socialist, Social Democrat, Liberal Democrat, Democrat and various other names – but none of these have become dominant, and none are fully inclusive of Leftism.
5. The dawning realization that the phenomena collected together under the jokey term ‘political correctness’ was a vastly more robust and malignant thing than I had ever imagined.
So that what seemed either silly or trivial or both, will end by destroying that modernity which made PC possible in the first place.
Yet we can perceive now, in advance of all this, that even when PC is utterly swept-away it will be blind to what has happened, and to what it had done. PC will always see itself as being on the side of the angels, whatever its outcome may be.
It is a truly amazing thing, this political correctness; something so paltry, so puny, so soft – yet wreaking such devastation while rendering the devastation imperceptible.
It seemed, therefore, worth discussing under its new name, as a phenomenon not truly new at its deepest level – but new in its combination of idealistic, delusional subjectivism with deadly, plodding bureaucracy.
There is no acceptable left or right in the Politically Correct Centrist ( Neo-Liberal) World.
Charlton says this about Political Correctness.
Is anybody safe? ( p.43 at link.)
Under PC, whatever you do, whatever willing you show, status is contingent.
There is no safety even for members of the ruling elite in a system of Political Correctness; anyone at all is susceptible to denunciation for any reason or no reason at any time.
Since PC is a wave of moral ‘progress’ which leaves-behind all previous moral standards and behaviours – there can be no accumulation of moral capital.
This applies to the ultra-PC just as much as to the openly reactionary.
(In this respect PC is more like communist than fascist totalitarianism: under fascism membership-of and courageous loyalty to the in-group usually brings safety from denunciation, but under communism, anybody was vulnerable to denunciation – friends and enemies of the government alternated with bewildering rapidity: nobody was safe.)
Indeed, the PC elite seems especially vulnerable to denunciation – since they are under continuous scrutiny; it is hard to keep-up with the pace of change, and the change is so arbitrary; it is very difficult to suppress common sense 24/7.
The highest member of the PC elite is only a single gaffe away from disaster.
(Note: A ‘gaffe’ is when an elite PC intellectual momentarily forgets to lie.)
David Malone and I have often discussed the question of What Left and Right still means under neoliberalism and the TINA doctrine. This from David a few years ago as ever has proven prescient.
So let us all recite the liturgy our leaders would have us believe, that in the 21st century –
Democracy is the freedom to choose wisely.
In a globalized, inter-dependant world we cannot afford to choose irrationally or disastrously.
It is not what you believe but how you believe it.
Believe things rationally, based on evidence, with regard to how your beliefs affect those around you.
If you know someone who doesn’t, they may be irrational and suffering from a mental disorder in which the personal notoriety of being contrarian matters more to them than any harm they might do to the safety and stability we all depend upon.
We think we live in a democracy because that is what we are told, We actually live under an Oligarchy and the Democratic Process is run according to the Competing elites model as calibrated by Joseph Schumpeter.
‘Democracy is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a
competitive struggle for the people’s vote’.” Joseph Schumpeter, Quoted
from Roy Madron , Super Competent Democracies who in turn Cites.
“Participation, and Democratic Theory” by Carole Pateman. Dr. Pateman
says that, Schumpeter and his followers: … set the current
Anglo-American political system as our democratic ideal (with) a
‘democratic theory’ that in many respects bears a strange resemblance to
the anti-democratic arguments of the last (i.e. 19th) century. No
longer is democratic theory centred on the participation of ‘the
people’; in the contemporary theory of democracy it is the participation
of the minority elite that is crucial and the non-participation of the
apathetic, ordinary man lacking in the feelings of political efficacy,
that is regarded as the main bulwark against
Regarding Jeremy Bentham and his Liberalism, I would recommend a thorough reading of his In Defence of Usury John, from which it is possible to see where Bentham’s monetary proposals of Hedons and Dolars fall short of addressing the asymmetric problem of FIAT Money.
Bentham at the end of In defence of Usury does though give a very good argument against why being a colony is never advantageous.
%d bloggers like this: