Saturday, May 21, 2011

The Status Quo

Okay. Let me see if I've got this straight: Me and all the other Canadian leftists that I know, ... ALL of us, share the following principles ...

We're "Stalinists." Which is to say that we advocate locking-up our political enemies and then executing them, with or without the benefit of a show trial. This is because ... I don't know really, I'll need someone to explain it to me.

We're also "fascists" because fascism and Stalinism are two sides of the same leftist, authoritarian coin. This is because fascism is a movement of the left. This is because ALL leftists believe in worshipping the collective over the individual.

It stands to reason, then, that all rightists are champions of the individual. Unless, and until, all individuals are free from any obligations to any society anywhere, ... unless every individual is free to do anything but break a business contract (and the only power the state must have is to be able to enforce contracts between consenting individuals), we are not truly free.

The right-wing is about individual freedom.

Except that the roots of "conservatism" are in the protection of ancient cultural traditions, which are not to be lightly discarded.This is the conservatism of Edmund Burke, who, besides recognizing the powerful importance of tradition in maintaining the peaceful social order, regarded the masses as "the swinish multitude." The traditions that Burke and others upheld were based on the feudal past, of rigid hierarchy and religion.

So, there's a disconnect between present-day conservatives (who are now some variant of 19th Century liberals) and the roots of their own political organizations.

But anyway, the Conservative Party of Canada is the best guarantor of individual freedom for Canadians, and the Liberal Party of Canada is really a close second, given the impotence of its "progressive" left-wing.

Both parties would also be the champions of democracy against the inherent "Stalinism" of the NDP and its supporters, with the Conservatives, once again, being the best defenders of democracy (within the limits of a democracy that is restrained by a respect for individual rights a-la 19th Century liberalism as enshrined by the 20th Century Liberal liberal Pierre Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Furthermore, it is the Conservative Party that should naturally be the best defender of our Westminster system of parliamentary government.

Have I got that right?

Because it's all a little confusing. What with the fact that it's the mainstream, respectable, Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, and Democrats who believe in locking people up without charges, indefinitely.

It's the Conservatives who have recently trampled all over the basics of Westminster-style parliamentary democracy; shutting down Parliament to avoid a vote of non-confidence, and again, to avoid handing over evidence to establish whether the government is complicit in the war crime of torture.

It's the Conservatives whose last outrage is to refuse to divulge the cost estimates of their policy proposals, prepared by state bureaucrats paid by the taxpayers.

It's the Conservatives and the Republicans who want to impose their perverted religious values on all of us, and who seek the freedom to start wars without any oversight. (Actually, given Obama's blatantly illegal aggression in Libya, and the Liberals conniving with the Conservatives to avoid any debate when extending our occupation of Afghanistan, it appears that neither mainstream party has a monopoly on lawless, arbitrary war-making.)

Anyway, ...

15 comments:

The Mound of Sound said...

Stalin was an authoritarian despot. He harnessed the state apparatus to his personal service. He appointed political commissars to filter information passing from the state to the public so as to accord with his message. We have our very own, living and breathing Comrade Joe today, Stephen Joseph Harper.

Some ignorant types blur the distinction between being left-leaning and being totalitarian. They completely ignore the history of rightwing totalitarianism. Hitler and Mussolini were anything but lefties. Benito espoused a notion of fascism that he described as the perfect union of corporate and political power.

thwap said...

MoS,

I just find it rich how Canadian pinkos are accused of being "Stalinists" in light of our accusers' support for torture and dictatorship.

The sloppy thinking, hypocrisy, and/or self-delusion of our enemies is truly of vast proportions.

Anonymous said...

The homophobe sees the light!

thwap said...

Anonymous,

I didn't check out your link, because I don't think it would really change things.

Homosexuals don't have a monopoly on sticking things up their asses.

Homosexuals aren't attracted to gerbils.

Gerbils can be male or female, ... so it's not clear that sticking a female gerbil up you asshole constitutes being gay, and on and on.

As I said, if you had something other than shit for brains you'd know all that already.

Same as how it's self-evidently absurd that Canadian progressives are Stalinists.

Unless, that is, you can somehow demonstrate that we are.

And do a better job of it than your sleazy attempt to paint me as a homophobe.

Anonymous said...

If the nazis weren't pinkos, why did they call themselves National Socialists? Why didn't they call themselves National Conservatives? Why did Nazis become communists and vice versa in Weimar Germany?

Communists hate homosexuals as much as Nazis. Why was abortion illegal in communist Romania?

Anonymous said...

The link proves, definitively, that gerbilling is a homophobic slur and that you are homophobic retard.

thwap said...

Anonymous,

"the link" is an argument from authority.

fail.

Wow. Yet another puerile internet hero read that Nazi was derived from "National Socialism," as if that's a big surprise.

You got's to do better than that.

Uncommoner said...

The cognitive dissonance inherent in the CPC (and the right-wing mindset generally) never ceases to amaze me.

It's as though they pick and choose their beliefs depending on what point they're arguing at the time, freely changing them for a different set when they want to support something else. And God (or is that Rand?) forbid that facts get in the way of what they're trying to say.

For the professional pundits, that's understandable (though not excusable) because their livelihood seems to rely on peddling a thousand and one brands of horseshit.

But for the everyday individual, it simply points out the holes in their philosophy in short order.

That's generally the point where I cease actively debating them and simply add them to the list of people beyond saving.

The Mound of Sound said...

@ Anon - "Why did Nazis become communists and vice versa in Weimar Germany?" Have you read any history, anything? Really? The Brown Shirts engaged in fierce battles with German communists. Hitler became accepted by prominent Germans who perceived him as their country's best hope of thwarting communism.

Names mean nothing. My province is led by the BC Liberal Party and there's nothing remotely liberal about it. Now, go catch your breath. Your brain is overheating.

Scott Neigh said...

It always kind of stupefies me how ignorant you have to be of actual history to buy the Glenn Beck "Nazi = left" silliness...to actually believe that right-wing misappropriation of a very popular brand in interwar Germany -- that is, "socialist" -- somehow matters more to defining who is and is not on the left than the fact that the Nazis gleefully enhanced corporate power; killed many many thousands of actual Socialists, Communists, and labour activists of various stripes; and destroyed unions.

Actually, I think many of the folks who most actively spread such foolishness don't actually believe it -- they just see it as a good way to spread a politics grounded in openly dishonest thuggery. And, as an added bonus, to irritate leftists.

Anyway, the real reason I'm commenting is because there is some interesting writing by Richard Seymour of Lenin's Tomb -- I think maybe a book, but certainly some posts in his archive -- that talk about how conservatism has never really, at least in the context of capitalism, been about preserving an older social order and has more been about facilitating change of a particular, hierarchy-enhancing sort. Something like that. Anyway, thought you might be interested in that.

And for all of Edmund Burke's offensive aspects, at least he was a fairly anti-colonial fellow, at least some of the time -- if only his erstwhile descendants on the North American right were the same.

thwap said...

Oh yeah, if Edmund Burke were arguing for the rights of colonials in a legislature anything like present-day Canada's or the USA's, he'd be excoriated as a terrorist-lovin', troop-hatin' homersexual.

He was a product of his times.

This anonymous drool is an embarrassment now and it'd be an embarrassment in Burke's time.

Orwell's Bastard said...

I've always had a soft spot for Edmund Burke.

thwap said...

OB,

I have a lot or respect for Burke's principled defence of the rights of the colonists.

Some of what you wrote at your link, I agree with, but some of the qualities you attached to the word "presumption" I'd attach to the traditional world view that Burke defended.

And he was probably vilified for his principled stance as much as he was an impoverished lickspittle to the leaders of the Whig faction in the British Parliament.

I logged in though, because i wanted to tell our anonymous friend that i think he might be a sincere victim of the class-confusion of our times, wherein we see the ONDP leader Andrea Horwath, spouting the same neo-liberal nonsense that just got the federal liberals booted into oblivion.

The NAZIs did indeed call themselves "National Socialists" and if you truly believe that you've discovered something new, you're no doubt frustrated and/or vindicated by our affected yawns and empty dismissals.

So, just in case you're sincere, here's the skinny: check out the political groups that actually benefited from the Nazis once in power. Check out what happened to the dude who wrote their first platform. (Hint; He was not rewarded by Hitler.) Check out the groups who claimed to benefit from the persecution of the Jews.

I think if you honestly look at things, you'll see that there's less daylight between the tea-baggers and the Nazis than there is between the Nazis and Canada's NDP.

It now occurs to me that i could have lazily asserted Godwin's law and consigned you to oblivion, but i don't roll that way.

Owen Gray said...

Like OB, I've always had a soft spot for Burke, too. As an Irishman, he knew something about despotism.

Orwell's Bastard said...

Thwapster:

Fer shur. No doubt Burke was a servant of the class structure of his time, but his stature as a principled conservative bears repetition in the contemporary context.

It's a useful thing to remember, especially as we work to reclaim the discursive turf and prevent the other side from redefining words to suit their own purposes. Especially words like "conservative," which used to have a very different (and honorable) meaning.

OB