What is the left?

If we’re gonna have 4 axises, I’d have:

X Axis: Left/Right

Social: Egalitarianism/Elitism

Political: Ergatocracy/Timocracy

Geofiscal: Global Socialism/National Corporatism

Y Axis: Down/Up

Social: Liberalism/Authoritarianism

Political: Republicanism/Autocracy

Geo: Noninterventionism/Militarism

Fiscal: Marketism/Statism

Z Axis: Forward/Back

Progressivism/Conservatism

The 4th Axis: Inward/Out

Social: Populism/Unpopulism AKA Majoritarianism/Minoritarianism

Political: Democracy/Oligarchy

Geofiscal: National Socialism/Global Corporatism

If we’re gonna have 3 axises, I’d merge the X and Z Axises to make:

X Axis: Left/Right

Social: Progressivism/Conservatism

Political: Ergatocracy/Timocracy

Geofiscal: Global Socialism/National Corporatism

Y Axis: Down/Up

Social: Liberalism/Authoritarianism

Political: Republicanism/Autocracy

Geo: Noninterventionism/Militarism

Fiscal: Marketism/Statism

The 3rd Axis: Inward/Out

Social: Populism/Unpopulism AKA Majoritarianism/Minoritarianism

Political: Democracy/Oligarchy

Geofiscal: National Socialism/Global Corporatism

And sometimes I wonder if Centrism/Extremism and/or Pluralism/Monism (in the political sense of these words, not in the metaphysical) should be given their own axis, or just lump Centrism and Pluralism with Liberalism and Extremism and Monism with Authoritarianism.
Sometimes I wonder if Scientism and Technocracy/Religion and Spirituality should be given its own axis, or just lump them in with Progressivism/Conservatism, because Religion and Spirituality can sometimes be revolutionary and so in a sense Progressive, just as Scientism and Technocracy can be reactionary and so in a sense Conservative, just as Scientism and Technocracy can be Elitist and Religion and Spirituality Egalitarian.
When we lump a lot of pretty distinct and important stuff together for convenience we sacrifice clarity and flexibility in our thinking.

So for me, liberalism, progressivism and populism are all distinct from leftism (egalitarianism) just as authoritarianism, conservatism and ‘unpopulism’ (for lack of a better term) are all distinct from rightism (elitism).
However, they can all augment leftism and rightism.
So we may speak of a liberal left, a progressive left, a populist left and an authoritarian left, a conservative left and an unpopulist left.
Likewise we may speak of a liberal right, a progressive right, a populist right and an authoritarian right, a conservative right and an unpopulist right.
These’re the main factions within the left and right.
Marxism in practice is part of the totalitarian left, fascism part of the totalitarian right.

And if we split centrism and extremism from liberalism and authoritarianism respectively we may also speak of a centrist and extremist left and right, and if we split technocracy and religion from progressivism and conservatism respectively we may also speak of a technocratic and religious left and right.

So the 6 major factions within the left are:

The Liberal Left
The Progressive Left
The Populist Left

The Authoritarian Left (Marxism belongs here)
The Conservative Left
The ‘Unpopulist’ Left

The 6 major factions within the right are:

The Liberal Right
The Progressive Right
The Populist Right

The Authoritarian Right (Fascism belongs here)
The Conservative Right
The ‘Unpopulist’ Right

I may explain them in some detail later.

If you look at the left, the middle and the right in connection with the progressive and the conservative, you have to admit that without the conservative nothing works in life. Those who deny their origins and do not want to be conserved are punished by life. Every living being feeds on its origin (past) in both an evolutionary and historical sense.

The progressive is as uncertain as the future, the conservative as certain as its origin (past). The fact that in wealth societies the progressives form a majority over the conservatives has almost invariably to do with their cultural beingness, which has brought about their prosperity, and once this prosperity is achieved and continues to grow, then the progressive is thereby appealed to and also continues to grow. Our occidental economic “experts” believe that prosperity grows to the heavens - which of course it cannot - and so many progressives also believe that progress grows to eternity. And if they are not right-wing but left-wing, not labour/achievers but greedy labour-deniers (achievement-deniers), then they tend towards egalitarianism - read: communism - because it promises everything to everyone and distributes stolen money and property to those who believe in it and fights those who do not. Also, because progressives, especially the work-/benefit-denying left progressives, often expect and therefore demand more than the nevertheless perceivable real world and real markets can offer them, they are very susceptible to greed and envy and thus to egalitarianism because it promises them redistribution. The conservatives, especially the right-wing conservatives, are modest because they are down-to-earth, that is why they are very realistically oriented and expect much less, demand much less than their counterparts. The extremely overestimated importance of demand and consumption, for example, by the Keynesians, as well as the associated ignorance of the long term, are a very pleasant matter for the progressives, who want to consume here and now, but a huge evil for the conservatives.

At the core, everyone is a conservative.

I think we all know what leftwing progressives and rightwing conservatives are, but can you elaborate on leftwing conservatives and rightwing progressives?

The liberal left are the small government left.
Overall they want small government, but insofar as they want government intervention, they want it to intervene to protect the proletariat, women, minorities and the environment.
The liberal lift are champions of civil liberties and democracy.
They believe free markets are fundamentally a good thing, just that they need to be guided somewhat, not dismantled, and they tend to be pacifists, anti-war.
They believe in intellectual diversity, and look forward to collaborating and compromising with people who have different ideas.

The progressive left want technocrats to radically transform society in ways thought to be beneficial for the proletariat, women and so on, as well for society as a whole, they’re skeptical of these groups of the masses ability to organize and come up with feasible ideas to advance their own interests.

The populist left believes in grassroots organization to protect the interests of the proletariat, and they’re much more focused on class interests than social and environmental interests, on economic issues they tend to be radical and extreme, on social they tend to be conservative and moderate. The populist left tend to be nationalists and anti-war.

The authoritarian left are distrustful of liberal democracy, they want a one party state to implement plans for the betterment of the proletariat, women and so on from the top-down.

The conservative left don’t believe in going far beyond the leftwing forms of the past, so in other words in America for example they wouldn’t go much further than the reforms of FDR, they would just restore them and move away from neoliberalism, they are skeptical of radical, unprecedented change, but at the same time they do believe more needs to be done to help the proletariat, women and so on, but they want to work with traditional institutions and norms to get things accomplished, not against them.

The unpopulist left believe wealthy leftist philanthropists and do-gooders know what’s good for the working class, women and minorities better than the masses do, they’re also far more focused on social issues and the environment rather than class for obvious reasons, they don’t want to part with their money, and insofar as they focus on class, they tend to redistribute things in ways that harm the middle class more than themselves, often their intent to help the working classes is disingenuine, rather they just want to control them, and will get them to jump through all sorts of hoops to get anything.
They’re globalists, and believe in mass illegal immigration, offshoring, outsourcing, and international organizations like the UN, WEF and WHO.
They’re pro-war.
Really I would say this is the dominant faction of the left in western countries, whereas the authoritarian left is dominant in China.

These are just labels
They are not identities, policies, nor ideologies.
They are as meaningless as Astrological star signs; they do not apply to anyone.

I think some people will show up to a garage sale not even wanting anything there but just wanting to haggle on the prices or try to convince you that what you have is something entirely different from what you actually have, and sell you something you don’t need, and give you something entirely different. just because they can. And they have no idea what they really should do—just that they are not satisfied doing nothing. They’re just filling that hole in, but in doing so they bury themselves alive.

Or something.

I think we’re all guilty of that on this forum, neh?

All? No.

This thread got me thinking:

https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=198392

In practice, elitism is the rule, egalitarianism the exception.
Illiberalism is also the rule, liberalism the exception.
What we have in the world today, what we’ve always had, are competing forms of authoritarian elitism.
What’s different about modernity is not that it’s making the world more egalitarian and/or liberal, FTMP it’s not, but that it’s introducing new forms of authoritarian elitism.

In the premodern world, there was largely only agrarian and commercial authoritarian elitism, in the modern world there’s also industrial and postindustrial authoritarian elitism.
In the premodern world, there was largely only national conservative and religious authoritarian elitism, in the modern world there’s also global progressive and secular authoritarian elitism.
In the modern world, there’s also more quasi and pseudo egalitarianism and liberalism.

So what’s this contemporary antagonism between left and right, the west and BRICS really about?
Insofar as it’s not completely contrived, it’s about competing forms of authoritarian elitism.
FTMP the masses are simply incapable of organizing themselves, and so their agency, insofar as they have any, consists in which authoritarian elitists they give their support to.
Hitherto the masses have been incapable of creating grassroots movements capable of seriously challenging the ruling classes, and so there is little egalitarianism or liberalism in practice.

In America, Brazil and some parts of Europe like Italy where there’s actually a bit of difference between left and right, the right stands for national conservative and religious authoritarian elitism, as well as quasi or pseudo liberalism, the left stands for global progressive and secular authoritarian elitism, as well as quasi or pseudo egalitarianism.
And in places like Canada, Australia and NZ, where we’re laid back and don’t like to rock the boat, there is almost no difference between left and right.
Overall the west, both the left and right together, are more global progressive and secular, whereas the Muslim world are more national conservative and religious, while BRICS are somewhere in between.
Only time will tell which forms of authoritarian elitism will prevail, and where, assuming nuclear Armageddon isn’t imminent.

So in light of that; authoritarian elitism is the rule, liberal egalitarianism the exception, even in so called ‘democracies’, what does, or can that do to typology?

Left/Right: Quasi-Egalitarianism/Elitism

Top/Down: Authoritarianism/Quasi-Liberalism

Forward/Back: Progressive Technocracy/Conservative Theocracy

Quasi-Populism is perhaps less important.
One way of looking at it is; populists are more political economically egalitarian, authoritarian and progressive, and geosocially more elitist, liberal and conservative.

In democracies/covert oligarchies, it’s important for politicians to portray themselves as egalitarians, liberals and/or populists.

In leftwing authoritarianism, the economy is sometimes completely subsumed by the state, as it was behind the iron curtain, in rightwing authoritarianism, the church is sometimes completely subsumed by the state, as it was in Byzantium.

One can best understand my illustration if one first separates oneself from all prejudices about the conservative, the progressive, the right and the left and goes back to the basics. Plants and animals are and also all humans up to the time of the Neolithic Revolution and the beginning of writing and thus also of written history (i.e.: the beginning of historical science) were never progressive and never right or left, but always only conservative, because they firmly believed that only the conservative ensured their survival and punished everyone with death who rebelled against it. So there were always a few anti-conservatives, but they had no chance of being realised until the time of the changes just mentioned. Conservatism has been so dominant in about 98-99.99% of human history, namely in their natural history (macro-history or evolution), that nothing else was possible - this is what I meant when I said: “At the core, everyone is a conservative”. But since the Neolithic Revolution and the beginning of writing, and thus of written history, the anti-conservative has become more and more dominant, first slowly, then faster, finally exponentially, and soon called itself the progressive and also divided itself into right and left. The only problem is that this cannot go on forever, because it is not natural.

You must always take this into account if you want to understand why there can be right-wing conservatives and left-wing conservatives as well as right-wing progressives and left-wing progressives. As I said, the conservative and the progressive (anti-conservative) are opposites. And the right and the left are also opposites. We think we know that a progressive believes in progress - that is not entirely wrong either, but still a progressive is first and foremost an anti-conservative. He is more concerned with opposition than with the content of his belief (ideology). There is always progress anyway. A left-wing progressive is the progressive who is not so much anti-conservative as the progressive, but is more specifically aligned against everything right-wing conservative. All live from the opposites. That some of them believe in progress is the theoretical part of it, the practice is directed against the opposition. Now you can probably guess the rest: right-wing conservatives and left-wing progressives, like right-wing progressives and left-wing conservaives, are direct opponents. The only ones who do not attract any oppostion, or, as you could also say, all opposition, are the middles.

A right-wing progressive goes with progress, but wants to control others for himself and/or his group by using technical and scientific progression and master morality, i.e. as a representative of the technically and scientifically progressive master people, he wants to control the rest, i.e. enslave the others, especially the left-wing conservative. A left-wing progressive goes with progress, but wants to control others for himself and/or his group by using technical and scientific progression and slave morality, i.e. as a representative of the technically and scientifically progressive slave people, he wants to control the rest, i.e. enslave the others, especially the right-wing conservative. The right-wing conservative goes along with the conservative, but wants to control others for himself and/or his group by using conservative values and master morality, i.e. as representative of the conservative master people the rest, i.e. enslave the others, especially the left-wing progressive. The left-wing conservative goes along with the conservative, but wants to control others for himself and/or his groupby by using conservative values and egalitarian morality, i.e. as representative of the conservative egalitarian people the rest, i.e. enslave the others, especially the right-wing progressive.

So we have for instance:

MOST CONSERVATIVE (PURELY CONSERVATIVE): CONSERVATIVE.
SECOND MOST CONSERVATIVE: LEFT-WING CONSERVATIVE, MIDDLE CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE.
THIRD MOST CONSERVATIVE: CONSERVATIVE LEFT, CONSERVATIVE MIDDLE, CONSERVATIVE RIGHT.
MOST PROGESSIVE (PURELY PROGRESSIVE): PROGESSIVE.
SECOND MOST PROGESSIVE: LEFT-WING PROGRESSIVE, MIDDLE PROGRESSIVE, RIGHT-WING PROGRESSIVE.
THIRD MOST PROGESSIVE: PROGRESSIVE LEFT, PROGRESSIVE MIDDLE, PROGRESSIVE RIGHT.
MOST MIDDLE (PURELY MIDDLE): MIDDLE.
SECOND MOST MIDDLE: CONSERVATIVE MIDDLE and PROGRESSIVE MIDDLE as well as LEFT-WING MIDDLE and RIGHT-WING MIDDLE.
THIRD MOST MIDDLE: MIDDLE CONSERVATIVE and MIDDLE PROGRESSIVE as well as MIDDLE LEFT and MIDDLE RIGHT.
SPECIAL CASE EXREME LEFT: EXTREME LEFT (LEFTISM).
MOST LEFT (PURELY LEFT): LEFT.
SECOND MOST LEFT: CONSERVATIVE LEFT, MIDDLE LEFT, PROGRESSIVE LEFT.
THIRD MOST LEFT: LEFT-WING CONSERVATIVE, LEFT-WING MIDDLE, LEFT-WING PROGRESSIVE.
SPECIAL CASE EXTREME RIGHT: EXTREME RIGHT (RIGHTISM).
MOST RIGHT (PURELY RIGHT): RIGHT.
SECOND MOST RIGHT: CONSERVATIVE RIGHT, MIDDLE RIGHT, PROGRESSIVE RIGHT.
THIRD MOST RIGHT: RIGHT-WING CONSERVATIVE, RIGHT-WING MIDDLE, RIGHT-WING PROGRESSIVE.

There are more than these mentioned 39 examples. History is full of them.

Like I said: the so-called “progressive” is the anti-conservative. Nothing is as anti-human as the anti-conservative. The left, the right and the middle are not as anti-human as the anti-conservative (“progressive”). They would have to become very extreme to be able to participate in at least one of the sides or the “lower” middle of the anti-conservative. And indeed: communism and fascism (especially National Socialism) are also anti-conservatives (“progressives”) because they are left-wing-“progressives” of the extreme kind and right-wing-“progressives” of the extreme kind respectively. But the greatest enemies of humanity are the pure “progressives”, because they are the most " progressives" (most anti-conservatives). We can see this very well in the current development. It shows us that in a historically short time man will be replaced by machines with the aim of eliminating him for the most part and making the rest completely dependent on the machines, before this rest will also be eliminated. It does not get any more anti-human than this! In his book “Der Untergang des Abendlandes” (“The Decline of the West”), published in 1918 (I) and 1922 (II), Spengler already predicted that man is about to become the slave of the machine. Others also said this later, but Spengler was the first to say it and make it very explicit. Goethe (1749-1832) already said this, but not so explicitly as later Spengler.

If the machines are much, much more intelligent in terms of the algorithms of mental processes than the most intelligent human being and also than all intelligent human beings put together, then human beings will have returned to where they were before, when there was no writing and all human beings had to be conservative (for natural and primitive cultural reasons - they would not have survived otherwise). All humans will be conservative again, because the machines will have taken over the “progressive” (anti-conservative), and again humans will have to be conservative (for almost the same reasons as then - this time only as high civilisationals: last men).

I was thinking something along similar lines.
The progressive right use progressive or empirical, rational, heterodox, scientific, philosophical and secular means for rightist or elitist, exclusionary, segregationist, separatist and supremacist ends.
Conversely the conservative left use intuitional, emotional, orthodox and religious means for leftist or egalitarian, inclusionary ends.
Sometimes we group empiricism and rationalism with heterodoxy but they could just as easily if not more so be grouped with orthodoxy, it just depends on what sort of orthodoxy we’re talking about, if it ultimately has some basis in what is empirical and rational.

Entropy.

I think entropy happens when you go too far left (egalitarian) or right (elitist), but interesting take.

What’s-his-name did a take on this and I was surprised to see another person with the same idea. The left (also called progressivism) is a manifestation of entropic release of energy from within the system. This is achieved primarily as a result of ever-increasing technology. The more technology exists and the faster it is being developed, the more leftism/progressivism will spread and increasingly dominate that society.

Moldbug, that’s the name of the guy I was thinking of. He explained this pretty well. Communism is a form of leftism, therefore is a form of entropy. Obvious when you look at the results of enacting communism within a society. The enlightenment was also a form of leftism, therefore entropic. You would expect it to have resulted in a slackening and at least partial collapsing of the existing social structures, norms, values and ethics of the people. And it did. Every move leftward is a collapse or lessening of something that had prevously existed as an important component of society. Marriage, duty, hard work, frugality, independent thought, even concepts themselves. Today we are so far advanced in the entropic decline that even the most basic concepts are collapsing. What is a man, what is a woman? Did you know you’re a bigot for even asking such a thing? Of course men can get pregnant, you transphobe neandertal!

Well that’s an interesting take.