And it’s that way by architecture. It’s counter-revolution as social and intellectual infrastructure. That’s why there’s no coherence or any “there there”. It also irritates me. People often want to engage me in such conversations and there’s just no polite way to explain to people they’re not speaking sense.
Peter - this article lands with precision. Your description of how the left–right spectrum functions as a containment system - a self-stabilizing illusion of choice - captures something many have sensed but not yet been able to name so clearly. It’s a sobering thought: that our political theatre might not be a clash of ideas, but a managed oscillation within the same logic of hierarchy.
Your framing of the “left” as a moral subsidiary of the system, offering emotional relief while preserving its core structure, reflects what we see in much of today’s activism and institutional discourse. Even critique becomes productized; opposition becomes a market segment. You remind us that power survives not only through coercion, but through a coherence it designs and controls.
Where I would take the reflection further is here:
If the binary is the cage, the deeper question is what creates the cage itself? Beneath political and economic forms lies an older operating grammar; the idea that reality is made of opposing forces that must defeat each other for truth to prevail. It’s this ontological dualism that keeps re-emerging in every era, from religion to revolution to the latest algorithmic politics.
As long as belonging depends on having an enemy, systems will reproduce polarity even when we try to transcend it.
What’s needed is a shift in perception - from opposition to relationship - from control to learning and from certainty to coherence. The task ahead is to grow a new mind: one capable of seeing that the health of any system depends not on who wins the argument, but on how truth circulates between us.
Someone said, “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” And that perfectly reflects the essence of your essay.
The left-right analogy comes from the Roman Senate, where the aristocrats sat on the right side, while the plebes sat on the "sinistra," or left side. Aristocrats righteous, scum of the Earth sinister.
Nowadays there is still a Left, but by definition it is anti-capitalist, and the capitalist media does not want to acknowledge its existence. It wants us to pretend that liberals, Democrats and Social Democrats are leftist. In fact, none of them are.
It's almost ironic how in today's Alt-right (for lack of better phrase) Internet culture, Gramsci has been appropriated as a creator of "Cultural Marxism."
A bizarre conspiracy theory, repeated ad nauseam by people who have never read a word of Gramsci, nor Marx; that literally every cultural trend which they do not like is part of grand Marxist conspiracy.
Ever try to communicate with someone who believes Marxist-extremists have fully infiltrated govt, corporations and the capitalist ownership class. And in secret meetings are promoting things like trans-sexualism and the war on Christmas, in order to usher in a Neo Marxist revolution?
Some sort of psychological projection going on there
Wow. Those who wish to completely detach from the market-economy´s systemic norm are not just some lame, dumb-ass hippies smoking weed. That´s how pathetic the entire oscillation and ideological rhetoric of the system´s political spectrum truly is. The left-wing and right-wing of the market beast screaming continuously at each other like unsoothable infants.
Good points Peter... few things—I think we can evolve out of the “left/right” duality intellectually and rhetorically, reject the “identity” pitfalls of it, and aim to get beyond the two party system… while at the same time face the reality that these two parties while simplistically categorical and loose in definition, definitely DO exist and have real meaningful impact in how society is being shaped, and draw the necessary ideological lines between them.
I believe there's significant enough ideological doctrines to draw lines upon wrt to left/right I think, even if they have shifted and evolved throughout different periods and moved through different parties as you point out, but the general ideological intents for right/left has at heart remained basically consistent and coherent over the centuries when you really break the ideas down—with the “left” seeking pluralistic society, equality, democratically run systems, progress, etc… and the "right" on the side of the status quo, authoritarianism, and theocracy.
There’s def room for more cohesiveness on the left, and they don't agree on everything, and def have some identitarianism, ignorance, and true progressive thought is limited… but generally align enough around the ideas stated above. Simply being on the left requires a base minimum level of rational critical thinking, as opposed to the right which is raw emotional tribalism absent all reason and logical moral and intellectual consistency and honesty whatsoever.
I’m of the thinking that we need “moderate reforms within the system” if you will, in order to get to the larger goals of the abolition of the system. There’s no singular leaps to a new system, it requires a transition of the system mechanism by mechanism.
If all the left is, is opposition, which I argue its more than, isn’t that still enough? To move people in the right direction, at this point in time. It's where people are at... while still again aiming to get beyond the two party duality and identities, adopting reason and systemic thinking.
Also, important to maintain the distinction here between establishment politicians registered to the Democratic Party, and the actual "left”. Two different things. One not representative of the other.
What about the “New Left”? Did it ever truly exist? And does it still persist—if only through its achievements and the influence it continues to exert on some people today?
I understand your argument that “opposition reinforces power,” and I see that you have explored this theme before in your critique of the false duality between Capitalism and Socialism (on which I have commented). Yet, there is a “tradition” in America that, at least for brief historical moments, ruptures this managed opposition—even if it has never culminated in Revolution.
I look forward to your forthcoming “White Paper,” in which I assume you will clarify the path beyond this vicious circle or false duality. Still, I think it would strengthen your work to make a more explicit connection to its roots in radical theory, going back to Marx. That said, you have written another profound article, and I'm really benefiting from your work.
For Marx, the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is not merely a moral maxim, but a structural principle of a new economic order .If we understand it, and take it seriously, then it leads to your perspective of a civilization without private property, markets, money, exchange, profits.
I often identify as "on the left" and as a socialist as a short-form signifier for pro-humanity, pro-planet values. I could personally care less for the labels, and agree the paradigm of these labels have significant problems.
Films For Action for instance brands itself as an org that promotes ecological regeneration, democracy, compassion and egalitarianism, as it really ought to be about the substance of our ideas and values rather than politically-charged labels.
But even without the labels, that doesn't stop critics from labeling us "c0mmies" and other putdowns when we suggest universal healthcare would be a positive step forward.
So my question is, should be adopt new labels as short-hand for "people and planet values" etc? in place of socialism/the left? How do we break free from this language dichotomy while not leaving a vacuum?
Like every social critic of our times, you make arguments based on out-dated terms that blunt the force of your arguments. The issue for humanity is not “capitalism,” which is a holdover catch-all nebulous term from the horse-and-buggy days.
The issue is “corporatism,” in which corporations and state corporations accrue the hegemonic, near-totalitarian power to extract, bomb, murder, surveil, elect, educate, pollute, entertain. Corporations and state corporations are the ultrasocial drivers of a species’ self-generated extinction, and there’s not an event nor a person nor a book in our lifetimes that has even meekly protested their over massive dominance. Substack, after all, is a corporation. The internet is owned by corporations. Fossil fuels are corporate profit-makers.
Thank you, Peter, for yet another thought provoking article that makes this system much more transparent. This particular article really does expose the control mechanism that has been a serious personal frustration that has left me feeling somewhat confused about why the "left" has always felt disorganized and fractured. There are so many ways we can fix the present which leads to so many ways to be a "leftist" which in turn starts infighting amongst those that want to change the status quo.
The real “left” have always assumed and required deep changes. And it has to be by force, those who hold the power will not, practically ever, just drop it voluntarily.
But in most cases (rare, but some) when real left succedded taking the power what came next was abandoning the left’s original ideas - sooner or later, usually sooner, falling into the trap of corruption, personality cult and dictatorship. It is this form of “successful left” (but really failed left) that the conservatives always use as an example why real left is bad, admitting “ok, we are not perfect but look at the alternative”.
In our time some countries with real, deep changes seem to break the above rule - (so far) extremely successful alternatives have appeared that are impossible to ignore.
And it’s that way by architecture. It’s counter-revolution as social and intellectual infrastructure. That’s why there’s no coherence or any “there there”. It also irritates me. People often want to engage me in such conversations and there’s just no polite way to explain to people they’re not speaking sense.
Peter - this article lands with precision. Your description of how the left–right spectrum functions as a containment system - a self-stabilizing illusion of choice - captures something many have sensed but not yet been able to name so clearly. It’s a sobering thought: that our political theatre might not be a clash of ideas, but a managed oscillation within the same logic of hierarchy.
Your framing of the “left” as a moral subsidiary of the system, offering emotional relief while preserving its core structure, reflects what we see in much of today’s activism and institutional discourse. Even critique becomes productized; opposition becomes a market segment. You remind us that power survives not only through coercion, but through a coherence it designs and controls.
Where I would take the reflection further is here:
If the binary is the cage, the deeper question is what creates the cage itself? Beneath political and economic forms lies an older operating grammar; the idea that reality is made of opposing forces that must defeat each other for truth to prevail. It’s this ontological dualism that keeps re-emerging in every era, from religion to revolution to the latest algorithmic politics.
As long as belonging depends on having an enemy, systems will reproduce polarity even when we try to transcend it.
What’s needed is a shift in perception - from opposition to relationship - from control to learning and from certainty to coherence. The task ahead is to grow a new mind: one capable of seeing that the health of any system depends not on who wins the argument, but on how truth circulates between us.
Someone said, “The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” And that perfectly reflects the essence of your essay.
The left-right analogy comes from the Roman Senate, where the aristocrats sat on the right side, while the plebes sat on the "sinistra," or left side. Aristocrats righteous, scum of the Earth sinister.
Nowadays there is still a Left, but by definition it is anti-capitalist, and the capitalist media does not want to acknowledge its existence. It wants us to pretend that liberals, Democrats and Social Democrats are leftist. In fact, none of them are.
It's almost ironic how in today's Alt-right (for lack of better phrase) Internet culture, Gramsci has been appropriated as a creator of "Cultural Marxism."
A bizarre conspiracy theory, repeated ad nauseam by people who have never read a word of Gramsci, nor Marx; that literally every cultural trend which they do not like is part of grand Marxist conspiracy.
Ever try to communicate with someone who believes Marxist-extremists have fully infiltrated govt, corporations and the capitalist ownership class. And in secret meetings are promoting things like trans-sexualism and the war on Christmas, in order to usher in a Neo Marxist revolution?
Some sort of psychological projection going on there
Wow. Those who wish to completely detach from the market-economy´s systemic norm are not just some lame, dumb-ass hippies smoking weed. That´s how pathetic the entire oscillation and ideological rhetoric of the system´s political spectrum truly is. The left-wing and right-wing of the market beast screaming continuously at each other like unsoothable infants.
Left vs right as a tool for the ruling class to keep the classes from realizing who’s pulling the strings. Total puppet show
Good points Peter... few things—I think we can evolve out of the “left/right” duality intellectually and rhetorically, reject the “identity” pitfalls of it, and aim to get beyond the two party system… while at the same time face the reality that these two parties while simplistically categorical and loose in definition, definitely DO exist and have real meaningful impact in how society is being shaped, and draw the necessary ideological lines between them.
I believe there's significant enough ideological doctrines to draw lines upon wrt to left/right I think, even if they have shifted and evolved throughout different periods and moved through different parties as you point out, but the general ideological intents for right/left has at heart remained basically consistent and coherent over the centuries when you really break the ideas down—with the “left” seeking pluralistic society, equality, democratically run systems, progress, etc… and the "right" on the side of the status quo, authoritarianism, and theocracy.
There’s def room for more cohesiveness on the left, and they don't agree on everything, and def have some identitarianism, ignorance, and true progressive thought is limited… but generally align enough around the ideas stated above. Simply being on the left requires a base minimum level of rational critical thinking, as opposed to the right which is raw emotional tribalism absent all reason and logical moral and intellectual consistency and honesty whatsoever.
I’m of the thinking that we need “moderate reforms within the system” if you will, in order to get to the larger goals of the abolition of the system. There’s no singular leaps to a new system, it requires a transition of the system mechanism by mechanism.
If all the left is, is opposition, which I argue its more than, isn’t that still enough? To move people in the right direction, at this point in time. It's where people are at... while still again aiming to get beyond the two party duality and identities, adopting reason and systemic thinking.
Also, important to maintain the distinction here between establishment politicians registered to the Democratic Party, and the actual "left”. Two different things. One not representative of the other.
What about the “New Left”? Did it ever truly exist? And does it still persist—if only through its achievements and the influence it continues to exert on some people today?
I understand your argument that “opposition reinforces power,” and I see that you have explored this theme before in your critique of the false duality between Capitalism and Socialism (on which I have commented). Yet, there is a “tradition” in America that, at least for brief historical moments, ruptures this managed opposition—even if it has never culminated in Revolution.
I look forward to your forthcoming “White Paper,” in which I assume you will clarify the path beyond this vicious circle or false duality. Still, I think it would strengthen your work to make a more explicit connection to its roots in radical theory, going back to Marx. That said, you have written another profound article, and I'm really benefiting from your work.
For Marx, the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” is not merely a moral maxim, but a structural principle of a new economic order .If we understand it, and take it seriously, then it leads to your perspective of a civilization without private property, markets, money, exchange, profits.
I often identify as "on the left" and as a socialist as a short-form signifier for pro-humanity, pro-planet values. I could personally care less for the labels, and agree the paradigm of these labels have significant problems.
Films For Action for instance brands itself as an org that promotes ecological regeneration, democracy, compassion and egalitarianism, as it really ought to be about the substance of our ideas and values rather than politically-charged labels.
But even without the labels, that doesn't stop critics from labeling us "c0mmies" and other putdowns when we suggest universal healthcare would be a positive step forward.
So my question is, should be adopt new labels as short-hand for "people and planet values" etc? in place of socialism/the left? How do we break free from this language dichotomy while not leaving a vacuum?
An excellent analysis!
We face a similar problem in Australia - the charade of debate to maintain the establishment:
https://open.substack.com/pub/beyondtheragemachine/p/australias-career-focused-permissive?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=22gf1f
Here's your new left ;)= https://open.substack.com/pub/empathphilosophy/p/humanity-first?r=62kuhy&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Like every social critic of our times, you make arguments based on out-dated terms that blunt the force of your arguments. The issue for humanity is not “capitalism,” which is a holdover catch-all nebulous term from the horse-and-buggy days.
The issue is “corporatism,” in which corporations and state corporations accrue the hegemonic, near-totalitarian power to extract, bomb, murder, surveil, elect, educate, pollute, entertain. Corporations and state corporations are the ultrasocial drivers of a species’ self-generated extinction, and there’s not an event nor a person nor a book in our lifetimes that has even meekly protested their over massive dominance. Substack, after all, is a corporation. The internet is owned by corporations. Fossil fuels are corporate profit-makers.
Thank you, Peter, for yet another thought provoking article that makes this system much more transparent. This particular article really does expose the control mechanism that has been a serious personal frustration that has left me feeling somewhat confused about why the "left" has always felt disorganized and fractured. There are so many ways we can fix the present which leads to so many ways to be a "leftist" which in turn starts infighting amongst those that want to change the status quo.
Love the analysis. Until "the left" becomes tangible, development-based activist system, nothing will fundamentally change.
The real “left” have always assumed and required deep changes. And it has to be by force, those who hold the power will not, practically ever, just drop it voluntarily.
But in most cases (rare, but some) when real left succedded taking the power what came next was abandoning the left’s original ideas - sooner or later, usually sooner, falling into the trap of corruption, personality cult and dictatorship. It is this form of “successful left” (but really failed left) that the conservatives always use as an example why real left is bad, admitting “ok, we are not perfect but look at the alternative”.
In our time some countries with real, deep changes seem to break the above rule - (so far) extremely successful alternatives have appeared that are impossible to ignore.