The Left, the Right, and the Third Position

Edit (2011): I was no longer happy with what I had written for this post, hence I revised it.

As with most terminology, especially political terminology, there are disagreements as to what Left and Right refer to when used in political contexts. Insofar as a certain meaning for a word is widely excepted (or even only excepted nonwidely) then that meaning is legitimate in some sense. Words or terms are assigned meaning (including multiple and even mutually exclusive meanings) based on how they are used.

Another factor to consider in determining the appropriateness of a given meaning of a word is the word's etymology (how the word was used when it was constructed and/or how one might reasonably expect that the word would be used based on its construction and/or its relationship(s) to other words). For the revised version of this post I will consider the various meanings of the words Left and Right and expound upon how those meanings relate to how I interpret the Third Position.

For the most part, there are two meanings for the Left:
1) as a synonym for egalitarian and
2) as a synonym for anti-(conservative/reactionary) and hence progressive/revolutionary.

The first meaning is the dominant one. The original version of this post only dealt with the first meaning.

What it means to be of the Right is more complicated. Nowadays it is often thought that the Right is bland and uniform whereas the Left is vibrant and diverse. Such thinking is wrong.

The most inclusive meaning of the Right includes anything that isn't of the Left and hence can include quit a lot. By the first meaning of the Left, anything that is not of the Left would include any ideology which wasn't egalitarian (at least relatively speaking). By the second meaning of the Left, anything that is not of the Left would include reactionaries and conservatives only.

The Right can also specifically refer to traditionalists (either reactionaries or conservatives), and/or libertarians (hardcore classical liberals).

Originally, conservatives were those who wanted to conserve the status quo (the present circumstances) and slow change, and reactionaries were those who wanted to reverse changes that had occurred and return to the status quo ante (the circumstances in the past).

Libertarians are hardcore classical liberals. Classical liberals (what I prefer to just call liberals though that confuses many as liberal has come to be considered by many to be a synonym for leftwing) were those who prioritized the supposed rights of the individual in the abstract. The rights of the individual to have freedom from the interference of government or others.

The Third Position, in the philosophical sense of the term, refers to an ideology which is neither liberal nor traditionalist nor Leftist/egalitarian.

The Third Position isn't egalitarian and therefore, by the most common meaning of the Left, is also not Leftist. If the Right is defined as including anything that isn't of the Left then the Third Position is of the Right, if the Right is defined otherwise then the Third Position is neither of the Left nor the Right.

As I had pointed out in the pre-edit version there is another narrower and somewhat different notion of the Third Position. This other notion relates specifically to economics and refers to economic systems which reject both socialism and capitalism
- or at least which reject capitalism and socialism in their "pure" forms. I also belong to this category.

In addition, there have been, and continue to be, various other organisations and individuals calling themselves Third Positionist. They have a wide range of viewpoints and a wide range of interpretations of what is the Third Position. I do not necessarily agree with them on anything. For instance there is the recently founded American Third Position Party which appears to be a big-tent pro-White party with an otherwise pretty prozaic platform.

I chose to name my blog "The Third Position" and consider myself a Third Positionist because those considering themselves Third Posionists seem to have the most in common with me, politically, and also because the nature and spirit of the Third Position is such that it is expected that there can be many legitimate interpretations of it. In other words, the Third Position is a big-tent inclusive category which is largely defined by what it specifically excludes rather than by what it includes. Given that, I am in fact much more than merely a Third Positionist but, unfortunately, there is no name for my specific ideology as I am (so far) its only practitioner.

I also consider myself a fascist but I am not a "Fascist". I am a "small f" fascist. Fascist, when capitalised, refers to the more narrowly defined ideology of fascist Italy. The word in its non-capitalised form is much more general in scope and has a certain vagueness inherent to it. Mussolini accepted this dichotomy, explaining in The Doctrine of Fascism and elsewhere that he belonged not only to the ideology referred to as Italian fascism, or simply, Fascism, but also to another "eternal" ideology which manifests itself in many different ways in different times and places. This other more general ideology is what is referred to as "small f" fascism. I will compose a post on fascism later.

With this blog I hope to give other people the same understanding of the world that I hold dear and convince them that my prospective is a good one. I also want to learn more about how others think and how others would go about addressing the positions which form my ideology.

It is mostly the last block of text in the pre-edit version of the post which I dislike. The rest is OK and I might try to integrate it into the new version. I will probably delete the pre-edit version at some point.

To be continued?

/// What follows is the original pre-edit content of this post:

"The Third Position" has two different but related meanings. The first meaning refers to an economic ideology which is both anti-socialist and anti-capitalist. The first meaning will be discussed in greater detail in future posts. For this post the second meaning will be discussed. The second meaning refers to a philosophical ideology which is neither leftist nor rightist. To understand what it means for an ideology to be neither leftist nor rightist it is necessary to understand what it means to be leftist and what it means to be rightist.

Ultimately what distinguishes the left from the right is the extent to which equality is valued. The equality to which I refer includes several different but related notions. There is equality of outcome, equality of capacity/potential, equality of opportunity, equality of treatment, equality of moral or legal worth, and so on. Those who are considered to be on the left invariably value equality to a greater extent and with greater fervor than those considered to be on the right.

In particular, I believe, it is the extent to which equality is considered a priori (axiomatically) valuable that defines leftist thinking. Leftist thinking, assuming the definition just given, posits that equality is self-evidently good - that no explanation as to what makes equality desirable is required. The entire belief system or worldview of the left depends upon this assumption that equality is axiomatically good.

Many examples and/or illustrations confirm that the left-right spectrum principally relates to the extent of valuation of equality. Those who favour the redistribution of income from those with large incomes to those with smaller incomes are considered to be to the left of those opposed to such income equalization. So-called "Cultural Marxism" mostly deals with treating and/or thinking of various groups and lifestyles as if they were equal.

The entire left-right spectrum, including the centre, can be illuminated by examining the various possible stances one could take with respect to equality/inequality. The most extreme far-leftist is utterly obsessed with maximizing human equality. The opposite of equality is inequality. It follows, therefore, that the opposite of the far-leftist would be utterly obsessed with maximizing human inequality. Naturally, the opposite of the far-leftist is the far-rightist. Consequently, the most extreme far-rightist is one who is obsessed with maximizing human inequality. It also follows that one who is ideologically equidistant from the most extreme far-leftist and the most extreme far-rightist, who is neither leftist nor rightist to the slightest extent, would have a completely neutral/indifferent stance with respect to human equality/inequality or lack thereof.

-------