In response to Comrade Nathan. "Leftist Motivations" (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/leftism2.html

Summary

It is now clear that Rightists are not opposed to change but that "Western" Leftists seek it eagerly -- so attitude to social change is the defining characteristic of the political Left rather than of the political Right. Rightism ("conservatism") and Leftism are not opposites or mirror images, however, so Rightists in general are neither for nor against change. The archetypal Leftist in the economically successful "Western" democracies (a "liberal" in contemporary North American terms) is a keen advocate of change not for its own sake but rather to fulfil his/her ego needs -- needs for self-advertisement, self-promotion, excitement, influence and ultimately power. Leftists/liberals do nonetheless dislike neo-liberal (pro-market) change because it threatens their access to power. The old Soviet system showed that, once they have gained power, Leftists suddenly become very opposed to change. Change is just an instrument they use to gain their ultimate goal of power. And why is power sought so single-mindedly? Why the single-minded egotism? At its deepest level, Leftism appears to be psychopathic -- with the psychopathic disregard for all norms, morals, standards and ethics in the ruthless quest for personal praise and satisfaction.

It is because of their quest for power that Leftists come into conflict with conservatives. History shows that what has always motivated conservatives is resistance to government power -- in particular government encroachment on individual rights and liberties. So conservatives may either favour or oppose change to promote that cause.

A description of the political attitude domain in terms of two dimensions rather than a single Left/Right dimension is rejected on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The pervasiveness and evolutionary origins of egotism and reality denial generally are also briefly considered.

 

[walrusbear]

It is now clear that Rightists are not opposed to change but that "Western" Leftists seek it eagerly -- so attitude to social change is the defining characteristic of the political Left rather than of the political Right. Rightism ("conservatism") and Leftism are not opposites or mirror images, however, so Rightists in general are neither for nor against change. The archetypal Leftist in the economically successful "Western" democracies (a "liberal" in contemporary North American terms) is a keen advocate of change not for its own sake but rather to fulfil his/her ego needs -- needs for self-advertisement, self-promotion, excitement, influence and ultimately power. Leftists/liberals do nonetheless dislike neo-liberal (pro-market) change because it threatens their access to power. The old Soviet system showed that, once they have gained power, Leftists suddenly become very opposed to change. Change is just an instrument they use to gain their ultimate goal of power. And why is power sought so single-mindedly? Why the single-minded egotism? At its deepest level, Leftism appears to be psychopathic -- with the psychopathic disregard for all norms, morals, standards and ethics in the ruthless quest for personal praise and satisfaction.

It is because of their quest for power that Leftists come into conflict with conservatives. History shows that what has always motivated conservatives is resistance to government power -- in particular government encroachment on individual rights and liberties. So conservatives may either favour or oppose change to promote that cause.

A description of the political attitude domain in terms of two dimensions rather than a single Left/Right dimension is rejected on both empirical and theoretical grounds. The pervasiveness and evolutionary origins of egotism and reality denial generally are also briefly considered.

deluded partisan crap

 

[Not-That-Bright]

did you read on as to how he came to these conclusions?

Psychological Leftism

It is submitted here that the major psychological reason why Leftists so zealously criticize the existing order and advocate change is in order to feed a pressing need for self-inflation and ego-boosting -- and ultimately for power, the greatest ego boost of all. They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man. They fancy for themselves the heroic role of David versus Goliath. They need to show that they are in the small club of the virtuous and the wise so that they can nobly instruct and order about their less wise and less virtuous fellow-citizens. Their need is a pressing need for attention, for self-advertisement and self-promotion -- generally in the absence of any real claims in that direction. They are intrinsically unimportant people who need to feel important and who are aggrieved at their lack of recognition and power. One is tempted to hypothesize that, when they were children, their mothers didn’t look when they said, "Mummy, look at me".

This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is determinedly ignored. This view of Leftism as a club of the righteous that must never be disturbed or threatened is explored in detail by Warby (2002). See also Ridley (2002) for a brief account of the way Lomborg’s findings were greeted primarily by abuse rather than by any serious attempt at refutation.

And, of course, people who themselves desperately want power, attention and praise envy with a passion those who already have that. Businessmen, "the establishment", rich people, upper class people, powerful politicians and anybody who helps perpetuate the existing order in any way are seen by the Leftist as obstacles to him having what he wants. They are all seen as automatically "unworthy" compared to his own great virtues and claims on what they already have. "Why should they have...?" is the Leftist’s implicit cry -- and those who share that cry have an understanding of one-another that no rational argument could achieve and that no outsider can ever share.

Envy is a very common thing and most of us have probably at some time envied someone but, for someone with the Leftist’s strong ego needs, envy becomes a hatred and a consuming force that easily accounts for the ferocious brutality of Communist movements and the economically destructive policies (such as punitively high taxation, price controls and over-regulation generally) employed by Leftists in resolutely democratic societies. So the economic destruction and general impoverishment typically brought about by Leftists is not as irrational as it at first seems. The Leftist actually wants that. Making others poorer is usually an infinitely higher priority for him than doing anybody any good. One suspects that most individual Leftists realize that no revolution or social transformation is ever going to put them personally into a position of wealth or power so the destruction of the wealth and power and satisfaction of those who already have it must be the main thing they hope to get out of supporting Leftist politics. For a fuller account of the enormously destructive nature of envy see Schoeck (1969).

Whether or not someone is important, rich, successful, famous etc., is however of course very much a matter of individual perception. If many of the world’s most famous sports stars were introduced to me, for instance, I might well in all innocence proceed to ask them; "And what do you do for a living?" And while Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is my personal hero, there are many, even in academe, who would never have heard of the Mahatma. This "relativity" of importance, prestige etc. would seem to explain why many active Leftists are in fact college or university professors. College or university professor is a generally high status occupation that provides an above-average income so might, on the face of it, be seen as already providing considerable recognition and praise. But if status is precisely why certain people have gone to the considerable trouble generally required to enter that occupation, it could well be that the ego need of that person is so big that even more recognition is then craved. A college professorship may be prestigious but still be seen as providing far too little power, public exposure and opportunity for self-display. "Seeing I am so smart, I should be running the whole show", is an obvious line of thought for such people. Just some power and fame is still not enough power and fame for them.

The need for self-display does however in most people tend to decline as they mature -- which is part of the reason why graduates tend to be less radical than students and why older people tend to be much more conservative than young people (Ray, 1985). To misquote Lenin (1952) only slightly, much of Leftism would appear to be "an infantile disorder".

And nothing above, of course, is meant to suggest that pressing ego needs, self-righteousness etc are confined to Leftists. It is merely meant to say that Leftism is the principal political expression of such needs. Such needs can also be met by religion etc. and it must be noted that Communism was often described as a religion by its critics. Why people choose politics rather than some other means of meeting their ego needs would have to be the subject of a whole new enquiry but it seems possible that the potentially very broad exposure that politics provides to an individual might attract the people with the very highest ego needs. This high level of ego need among Leftists would also explain the generally much greater political activism of the political Left compared to the rather somnolent political Right.

It would also explain why Leftists so often have a "spare me the details" or "Don’t worry about the facts" orientation. For most Leftists, it is the activism itself rather than what is advocated that is the main point of the exercise. As long as the cause advocated is both generally praiseworthy and disruptive to implement, that will suffice. The insincerity of the Leftist is of course an abiding theme in the many writings of Ayn Rand (e.g. Rand, 1957) -- who sees the hunger for power as the real motivation behind everything that the Leftist does.

Partisan for sure, deluded - you show me how?

 

[Generator]

This means that the "warm inner glow" that they obtain from their advocacy and agitation is greatly prized. So it is no wonder that anything which threatens to disturb it -- such as mere facts -- is determinedly ignored.

Awesome quote.

Seriously, though, why do you bother with such garbage, Not-That-Bright? This appears to be more than a mere attempt to counter our dear Comrade's thread, after all.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

* waiting for some type of actual critique beyond "this is stupid" *

I think it's rather cynical, but makes some points I found interesting. Particulary about "conservativism".

 

[walrusbear]

did you read on as to how he came to these conclusions?


Partisan for sure, deluded - you show me how?

come on dude, this is some silly shit
it'd be like if i ripped on some neo-libs using tired stereotypes and posed it as an intellectual article

 

[Not-That-Bright]

come on dude, this is some silly shit
it'd be like if i ripped on some neo-libs using tired stereotypes and posed it as an intellectual article

Well the article comes from an academic with good credentials so I don't see whats the problem?

Studied languages at uni, Studied economics (for a year) at UNSW, has a B Psychology with honours from UQueensland, a M.A. with second class honours from USyd, recieved a PHD from Macquarie, was a tutor of social psychology at macquarie during this time and later taught HSC Economics.. work has appeared in academic journals, ran sydney MENSA, taught Social Psychology at UNSW and did alot of research pieces for them.

I can't see how you can reject concepts/idea's on the basis of partisanship.

 

[absolution*]

Its not a scholary source. Not peer reviewed. You couldn't even reference it in an essay. FFS it even links to some FAR FAR right wing pro Bill ORielly rubbish.

It seems, from reading bits of it, that he is pissed off with alot of things. He then goes on a rant about the days of old.

Yay!

NTB. If you are going to get stuff to support your argument at least try the proper online journals that have proper peer reviewed academic/scholary articles. Not just Googled e blogger crap from some extreme right wing Queenslander who keeps going back to the early 70s.

If what he writes appeals to you it just shows very little you understand of the otherside.

asqy lays tha smackdown


*applause*


NTB. Youre a dumb fuck.

 

[chubbaraff]

That article is discaceful, institutionalised propaganda

VITRIOL! Period

 

[shady_03]

God the whole right/left debate gets SO FUCKING OLD ..

P.s Fuck the right!

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Its not a scholary source. Not peer reviewed. You couldn't even reference it in an essay.

NTB. If you are going to get stuff to support your argument at least try the proper online journals that have proper peer reviewed academic/scholary articles.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/jsocpsy.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/anzac.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/brits.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/politics.html
That link I provided was just a monograph of all his work on leftism...

NTB. Youre a dumb fuck.

I'm still waiting for your crushing in-depth attack on his work.

 

[Comrade nathan]

I have read you first post NTB, i am to tired to read the rest of this thread. One thing i noticed straight away was this.

The old Soviet system showed that, once they have gained power, Leftists suddenly become very opposed to change

If the author can't comprehend how many political, economical and social changes the Soviet system went through , then we can question how much he really understands about leftism, Sovietism etc.

Basically the right wing has a great problem that if a one party country doesn't make any changes to a liberal democracy then it is still the same country as it was at indepence. That it has no democracy. That is why the word Stalinism is used to describe almost every one party system.

So to them the Soviet Union never changed untill that fat idiot Gorbachev tried to save the USSR.

Its actually quite funny becase of this flaw the right wing press and the US government is so confussed about Venezeula. They don't know what to do. They could never comprehend a liberal democracy turning into a Socialist democracy.

They haven't seen something like this since Allende.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I have read you first post NTB, i am to tired to read the rest of this thread. One thing i noticed straight away was this.



If the author can't comprehend how many political, economical and social changes the Soviet system went through , then we can question how much he really understands about leftism, Sovietism etc.

Basically the right wing has a great problem that if a one party country doesn't make any changes to a liberal democracy then it is still the same country as it was at indepence. That it has no democracy. That is why the word Stalinism is used to describe almost every one party system.

So to them the Soviet Union never changed untill that fat idiot Gorbachev tried to save the USSR.

Its actually quite funny becase of this flaw the right wing press and the US government is so confussed about Venezeula. They don't know what to do. They could never comprehend a liberal democracy turning into a Socialist democracy.

They haven't seen something like this since Allende.

he said that it kept changing rapidly for a few years, then stopped. You need to read the extended version, tho i kno it's very long and i probably wouldn't read something as long just for kicks.

Thanks for actually attacking it however, rather then simply dismissing its credentials.

 

[Korn]

http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/jsocpsy.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/anzac.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/brits.html
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~jonjayray/politics.html
That link I provided was just a monograph of all his work on leftism...


I'm still waiting for your crushing in-depth attack on his work.

Search it through the uni's off-campus library E-collections

 

[Comrade nathan]

I have read the second post you made NTB.

All i can say it is very unwise to underestimate your enemies.

I don't understand why the right wing does this. Marxist and other forms of serious leftist put years of work into thousands of books on right wing politics.

The thread i started i didn't intend to defend it, or take it as a serious thing to condsider.

Now i don't doubt that there is pyschological patterns that draw people to leftism or rightism, but once people start to go behind the naive thought how much can we say it is a pyschological.

Neither of the two "studies" make any serious attempt to connect pyschological condition with political standings. The both just take cheap shots at each other.

If you believe this study then leftist movements around the world could not have happened.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't 'believe' this study, I just find some of the notions interesting.

 

[Generator]

I don't 'believe' this study, I just find some of the notions interesting.

Then why are you asking us to actually question its validity rather than just dismiss it as a pointless opinion piece when you yourself only find some the points raised interesting? For what it's worth, articles of this nature aren't worth discussing if their credentials aren't up to standard.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You don't believe its credentials are up to standard?

 

[Generator]

The article itself, yes. A postgraduate degree or two does not mean that a person will always produce work of some worth.

Once again, though, why are you doing this? Why the constant attacks on the 'left'? Did a 'leftie' steal your lunch at primary school or something?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

hahaha
Mainly just because the article that Nathan posted bothered me, and the fact that spell check denied that you can study the left wing ideology as a psychological condition (like the right wing ideology).

When I read it, it also raised points I found interesting.