Political Thinking

 

I have a problem with the concept of the horseshoe theory of politics. My main complaint is that I find that it falls under the "a pox on both their houses" non-reason argument. In other words, all political positions, left or right, when taken to their most extreme must nearly mirror one another in end result if taken to their farthest conclusions; aka authoritarianism. I take issue with this reasoning. I am uncertain if this is even a real criticism at all, and here is why.

I always categorized, and have heard it said, that the Russian revolution was a revolution of the left coopted by, and later ruled by, the right. Today we see the very same basic tactics of misinformation and 'pureness' from today's 'capitalist' dogmatists as we saw in 'communist' Russia. I am almost tempted to believe that the very concept of the right wing has nothing to do with economic tendencies at all, rather a mindset of authoritarian behavior and seeking. In this way it would render the 'horseshoe' theory of politics void; as I find such a hypothesis to be flawed in it's conception.

The authoritarian mindset does not care about ideology, it just want to tell and be told what to do; the beliefs are irrelevant. In this way, I would argue, communism cannot have a legitimate right wing in the sense that such a thing would undermine the very foundations of the system; the same is true of any democracy, in that power is meant to be spread out and not concentrated in both systems. Thus I would argue that the right wing is more of a malignant mindset rather than a legitimate political theory.

I know that such a statement may come off as an awkward criticism, however I think this is more true that the 'horseshoe' argument for the reason that authoritarianism does not care about anything but it's own authority and would thereby cloak itself in any and every ideological cloth in order to mask itself. This in no way is making a claim that certain systems do not contain more authoritarian structures within them than others, capitalism having authoritarianism built into the very framework of the ideological/structural makeup, while socialism or even communism would contain fewer authoritarian structures; though not divest of them. These statements are taken from the 'tenants' of the structures themselves, IE capitalism requires/contains people who have power over the working class, where as a socialist or communist system would attempt to divvy up the worker power between workers in as much as possible.

I believe that it is the authoritarian mindset, people wanting power over others along with people wanting to be told what to do, that is really the offending appendage of this entire equation. As I have stated earlier, authoritarianism does not care about the actual tenants of the beliefs, this would explain why we see so much hypocrisy in the midst of many belief systems that seem to have good ideas, and yet all of the good ideas are ignored by the rulers and merely used as empty platitudes by which to claim authority over the masses and hoodwink them into thinking they are living the dream when really they are squashed beneath the boot of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism swings both ways, in that there are ruling authoritarians and followers who just want to be told what to do. Many people just want to go along to get along, so they gravitate towards a ruler who grants safety and security through obedience; this usually is entirely voluntary, no one is coercing them. Over time they begin to see the ruler as 'ever right' as they have provided safety and security, along with the feeling of safety and security (this is the most important part), and the ruler's ego (usually grandiose to start with, before said power has been attained) only swells larger and becomes even more malignant than previously. I must stress, authoritarians will wear any and every ideological cloak, they do not care about the ideology at all, it's all about the authoritarian's power and desire for more so.

If this is correct, as I believe it is, than the reality is more about the human mind than that of political makeup. Yes, political beliefs can foster authoritarianism, but authoritarian thinking cannot be controlled for in even the most free society as the very mindset of authoritarianism is a thing ingrained in a select percent of the human psyche and thereby means that our tending towards is more of an individual/group think weakness. I must stress again, authoritarians do not care about 'principles' or the merits of political beliefs or logic or reason, they are in it for their own power; this does not mean they do not have beliefs themselves, but that their beliefs are clouded by a desire for power.

How do we solve this problem? A difficult question, my only argument would be to foster a more pro-social societal structure; divvying up power and responsibility between the masses and attempting to ingrain a more interconnected behavior between the masses. This will not solve the problem, but I believe it will help mitigate it. I also believe that if we knew/understood this, that we hold these tendencies within us, that we could recognize them before they became too prevalent as a society and attempt to reintegrate ourselves into more social behavior. We have noticed in this modern era that people who feel powerless/disconnected from/in our society trend more toward authoritarian behavior than not; this is critical to understand if we are to combat this problem.

If we want to stop the slide into authoritarianism, we must work towards structuring society in a more integrated way. We must find a way to get people to feel involved and interconnected. I believe that a more socialist structure would help. Mandatory paid government service, in any capacity, would help in this way. More socialized labor, unions, worker coops and so forth. We must find ways to create checks and balances within the human social life so as to not flood people with too much 'people time' but also maintain solid relationships within the social structure and keep the masses feeling connected in and amongst themselves. I know that these observations may seem pithy, but I just have a real problem with the structuring of the entire political position of social behavior will lead to authoritarianism just as much as authoritarianism leads to authoritarianism; bad argument.