Some seem to believe that if one is against them one is for everything they themselves hate.  The trouble is all those ideas are too different from each other.  First, people are ascribed opinions which they in fact don’t have.  Second, groups are lumped together which in real life are bitter enemies.  For this reason, I divide political opinions in many different groups which I list below.  The boundaries between them are not sharp but I find these divisions useful.

What I will not list here is anarchism.  I don’t have knowledge detailed enough to say much about it.  However, what all anarchists have in common is not wanting any government.  Then they have different opinions of how society should be organised.  Anyway, I see it as utopic to get rid of formal political leadership.  Such leadership and eventually a government arose as a reaction to increased population density over time.  Considering today’s population density this can’t be avoided.  In contrast, what is required is division of power to keep political leaders responsible.  Otherwise, this only leads to abuse of power which there are plenty of examples of.

Here is a list of the rest from left to right:

• Communism is basically about planned economy.  There are not particularly many people promoting this today.  But some can’t leave the “class struggle” thinking behind them.  Every time there are conflicting goals they take the side of the involved belonging to the group with lowest status.  Groups can have subgroups which are exploited by other subgroups.  This is ignored by such left-wing extremists or entirely denied.

• Social democracy means support for a well-developed welfare system.  The point is people which can’t afford things have what they need payed by the government which gets its money though the taxes.  This leads to relatively high taxes which sensibility can be discussed.  However, one has to then ask how much welfare is sensible too.  In the long run one can’t have high governmental spending without high enough taxes.  This connection some has not got.

• Social liberalism accepts existing welfare systems.  It promotes freedom of choice within them or privately owned alternatives.  Such ones may work in some cases but not in others.  There may be required too much effort to change for something else for people to see the point.  Or there is only one alternative which is practically available.  In the latter case it is meaningless to say someone would “choose”.

• Libertarianism is primarily about individual rights.  Everything not harming anyone should in principle be allowed.  The concept of “harm” is relatively narrowly defined although the definitions vary.  This makes the adherents support those which at the moment demand their rights in opposition to prevailing double standards.  Oftentimes this makes them into opponents of contemporary social nit-pickers.

• Christ democracy is mostly for a market economy.  However, it accepts some degree of welfare to get away with the state of misery which were once common.  Originally this was introduced out of pure self-preservation.  Later a feeling of responsibility for people needing help arose.  Otherwise, it is most interested in upholding local traditions.  Oftentimes they are no older than having developed in the 19th century.

• Toryism is characterised by support for centuries-old institutions.  The tendency is great caution with changing any part of them.  This is about the desire of continuity rather than believing everything that old to be good.  The later I view as a myth which the adherents rarely believe in.  Consequentially they can compromise when they consider it necessary.

• Ethnonationalism equals “the people” with the own ethnic group.  That individuality applies outside of it is something not considered.  Otherwise, this is foremost about refusal to change any habits whatsoever.  Some of these habits causes problems for the adherents themselves and/or everyone else.  The existence if these problems is denied to save themselves from changing anything.

To the right of ethnonationalism opinions divide into two tracks.  One take as its starting point the nation which is depicted as a mythological being.  I would rather say nations are cultural phenomena.  Besides these groups mythologizing their own nation they can be characterised as this:

• Fascism denies the need for conscious reflection.  Instead, it requests action with is automatically assumed to be right.  Oftentimes physical violence is advocated against people which in some way differ from what is believed to be in majority.  In addition, there is contempt of everyone viewed as “weak”.  This also includes women with are seen as unsuitable for the labour market.

• Nazism consist mostly of a high degree of ableism, homophobia, racism and sexismBesides these is the belief that every single member of a certain religion would conspire against one’s own group.  Such a conspiracy would be impossible due to internal disagreement.  But the adherents are so prejudiced they don’t consider this.  They believe they could solve the problems of society by eliminating entire social groups.  Then I mean to forcing them out of the country or killing every single member.  That is how hostile they are.

Nazism is short for Nationalsozialismus which means national-socialism in German.  It does not follow that Nazism would be a form of socialism.  The name comes from a socialist party being taken over by people not being this is any useful sense.  These took the economy for granted and devoted themselves to blaming everything on others.

The other track takes as its starting point the refusal to change anything at all.  The difference between the two groups is just about the time they aim at.  One wants to preserve what one is used to or idealises the past:

• Vulnerableism is based on the idea of society being extremely vulnerable.  The adherents believe it only works if virtually everyone in society follow very specific habits.  These are the same habits which are the norm in their own circle of acquaintances.  That they have changed considerably over the generations don’t seem to occur to them.  Neither do they spend a thought at individuality being applied to strangers.  So they often believe entire groups in society to be out to them.

• Reactionism is the demand to return to an earlier organization of society.  In practice this means a return to a society where only those of highest social status have their will even considered.  Then the result is imagined as if it would be harmonious.  In reality the rest of the population would refuse to accept such a situation.  Especially if people are used to having their own wills considered.

Any regional tradition may be used as basis for reactionism.  Examples of this are afrikanerdom, islamism and hindunationalism.  To lump these together with communism is completely useless.  Instead, they are built on denying that conflicting goals exist.  The question is why individuals which had all chances to learn to know others would claim such things.  My best explanation is them believing themselves to earn from it.  Presumably they believe they themselves would get positions of absolute power.  Then they could set themselves above the law.

The scientific community is not driven by any political agenda.  Different scientists have different backgrounds and different temperaments.  So their political opinions are inevitably different.  If scientific results were politically motivated, they would differ from each other.  The scientific consensus can as such not be explained by any common political agenda.  Scientists are to disagreeing for that!  When someone accuses the scientific community of that it is instead a matter of something else.  What the scientists actually say is that things are not or does not work as the accusing person wishes.  However, just because one points out a problem one does not advocate a certain solution.  I have never seen a single scientist who wants total control over society.  Probably because it would be incompatible with scientific research.


Uploaded on the 21st of November 2023.