429. Decrease (VIII)
It took me a while to reach this conclusion, but it broke through yesterday: left-wing politics is just criminality. This is a strong statement and one I resisted for many years, especially since I had once been a Marxist and was wary lest I ping from one strong position to another. For a time, I thought about politics with an inflexion from Hannah Arendt and Bernard Crick; and they both held that politics is a discussion—there needs to be two parties who interchange and exchange views, successful politics is the negotiation that occurs between parties.
Yet left-wing politics always amounts to theft—it starts with material property and often ends with the one property everyone owns, their life. This is because left-wing politics always ultimately advocates for the state to seize property—even intangible property, as with woke cultural politics—from other people. There is no other way to make it “fair”; hence the left always supports the idea that if you can arrange enough thugs together—the state or BLM—then you can do whatever you want to other people’s property; and this is a suboptimal and irrational outcome altogether.
When property is seized by the state it depresses our inclination and ability to cooperate with other people, to create value; not least because at any moment what we produce when we collaborate with others might be seized—we become cautious and distrustful. The left never, despite their claims, helps the poor with the seized property—as Arendt and Crick would have it in their give-and-take model—because it “helps” them through the state, it makes them dependent; it makes them into victims, and provides succour to victimisers.
In line with its primitive model where property and goods must be extorted from people by violence, the left always supports terrorism—in the word’s widest sense. Terrorism is in essence blackmail—do this or else “X” will happen—and it applies as much to an Islamist bomb as to climate change protests. The terror behind climate change protests is not about the actual passive aggressive roadblocks they undertake; rather, it is implicit in the movement itself: “You have to radically rearrange society, or else it will be destroyed by climate change.” The “bomb” in question is not a plastic explosive, rather it is a putative catastrophe. The basic model is the same in both cases, as it was with labour strikes; and all these approaches work by appeals to emotion interlarded with narcissism. People threaten you with what they fear themselves: in the left’s case, personal extinction and emotional disruption—since they have not confronted their unimportance and self-centredness. All terror is designed to upset emotions; it is a feminine method—an attack on how you feel—and the left is feminine.
Really, when you look at Biden with his narcotised son who has been woven into various deals to enrich his father it is pretty obvious the left is criminal—or just look at those American cities where, due to value limits on when a person can be prosecuted, shoplifting has been effectively legalised by the left. The left sees the world as a zero-sum game where it is best to band together and beat people over the head to take their stuff; alternatively, you can terrorise them with moral hysteria (“Racist!”)—your success is judged by how many victimised dependents trail about you, as with the clients of the welfare state bureaucracies. If you allow these people their way everything will degenerate and our capacity for advanced cooperation will degrade into a rat fight.
There can be no compromise with crime; when you cut deals with the left you cut deals with confidence men who are completely okay with betrayal—a fool’s errand. Long ago, at university, I composed an essay that compared Arendt and Carl Schmitt; and it is Schmitt who is more right, politics involves a friend-enemy distinction—even internally there is an enemy: the people who advocate to legalise crime.