PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

One can debate a variety of issues from opposite poles of the political spectrum. No matter how specific or complex an issue may be, the motivations for a worldview can be traced back to more fundamental beliefs. Many points of contention between the Right and the Left ultimately reflect more basic chasms in philosophical temperament. The subjective natures of such motivations make some values ultimately meaningless as issues for debate. It’s impossible to prove that  what’s “fair” to me is fair in the general scheme of things.

Unfair Definitions Of “Fairness”

In appraising daily events among people, one need not even consider politics to hold impressions as to what is, “fair” or “unfair.” When such values are extrapolated into the political sphere they are often embellished with common cries like, “It’s not fair…!” or, “It wouldn’t be fair if…!”

Anyone who has ever made a work schedule (I used to manage restaurants) realizes the power they hold to reward, punish, or acknowledge an employee by the shifts and hours they assign to them. When such employees take issue with their scheduling fate they inevitably argue the “fairness” of satisfying their personal interest in the matter. “I have more seniority than…” “I should get the good shifts and best hours…” “Why does X have off Saturday, I’ve worked here longer?” Of course seniority is a worthy consideration between employees of similar ability and application, but should a hard working, responsible, or superior worker be given a worse schedule at the expense of a less effective or committed employee who “has seniority?” Is there even such a thing as a “superior” employee, who deserves superior consideration? Similar mundane predicaments arise daily everywhere. Such issues can be extrapolated into the most complex social/political circumstance. Some economic systems clearly reward intelligence or initiative or even tolerate “luck” more than others. Some actually reward or tolerate apathy, sloth, and failure. In my college Teacher Education School, one fellow student once protested that in her classroom all students will get “A’s” because they all have equal potential, and any shortcoming on the part of a student must be the teacher’s fault. (By saying this she was of course also suggesting that she was an “A” producing teacher in general). If everyone is “special” doesn’t that ultimately mean that no one is? (This insightful question was asked by a character in the recent movie, “The Incredibles”). 

Is it fair when one sacrifices a dollar to buy a lottery ticket and wins two dollars…or thousands? Is it unfair when they “win” nothing and are a dollar poorer? Should one person be punished for winning or another rewarded for losing? Of course the typical left-minded political idealist would compel such people to “share” the win or the loss. If they didn’t “share” (relinquish) they’d be seen as “selfish” (i.e. “unfair”) and, in the ideal leftist system, probably publicly chastised and punished.

It’s ironic that some who see possession of wealth as unfair also see theft of wealth as…fair! 

The entire socialist perspective is ultimately based on the idea of redistribution of wealth as a means of establishing “equality” and by default, “fairness.” To achieve such a “fair and equal” system always necessitates conformity and submission to an arbitrary authority (i.e. The state). Is being forced into such submission fair? Those of us on the right -- classical liberals -- don’t think so.

In the rarified realms of ideal philosophy and religion one can of course speak of everyone as being equal “in the end,” or equal “before the law” or “before God” etc. These ideal values hold little practical significance when genuine standards are applied in appraising the differences among us. In honest contexts, some people are "better" than others (though many people hate hearing that). Certainly some are more honest, thrifty, original, ambitious, or prone to take risks. None are “equal.” There isn’t a molecule in existence that is truly “equal” to another considering factors of time, location, or other contextual status. One can claim it to be unfair to lose a loved one to a natural disaster. Would it be fairer for it to be someone else?

Definitions of fairness always assume that one’s self or groups favored by one’s self should be on the receiving end of such fairness. Then there’s the argument that, “I want a system that is fair to everyone…so give me your money” (a paradox, indeed).

The same obsessions that some have regarding fairness toward individuals or groups are often applied to differences among nations as well. 

In the United Nations, random members each get a turn leading its “Human Rights Commission.” This includes unelected dictatorships known for their serious lack of basic human rights – another bizarre manifestation of left-wing “fairness.”

It is often said that America’s wealth and success is unfair in a world where some nations are seen as unfairly poor. Zimbabwe is poor. North Korea is poor. Is this fair? I think it would be more honest and accurate to ask if it’s fair that the citizens of such countries live under authority that deprives them the freedom to pursue wealth and good fortune, but this is never much an issue of concern to those who sympathize with collectivism and the tyranny required to implement it. Robert Mugabe – in classic Marxist style – seized land from white farmers who he decided had owned it unfairly, and gave it to the blacks of Zimbabwe to farm. The result has been that the socialist definition of fairness has once again turned a “bread basket” into a region wrought with famine. Now some would claim that it’s not fair that some countries have so much food and Zimbabwe doesn’t. The socialist solution would no doubt be, to let them continue their stupid Marxist “agrarian reform” and givethem food -- or seize it -- from the free market countries that produce surpluses. 

In the left’s pathetically simple view; the US is wealthy, North Korea and Zimbabwe are poor, therefore citizens of the US should give their wealth to North Korea, – “We should all learn to share.” Usually the demand is made in a more roundabout way, “We need to do the things required to create a more just and equal order among nations.” How about supporting the concept of giving all citizens the freedom to create, buy, and sell freely, and allowing them to keep the wealth they obtain from such interactions? – Well, no, that’s not quite what they have in mind when calling for socialist "fairness." 

One’s sympathy or support for capitalism or communism ultimately arises from the stance one takes in considering what is “fair” in a natural world that takes no sides. To classical liberals, communism -- the seizing of personal property, wealth, and values -- is unfair; to the left and its varieties of socialism, capitalism is unfair because free agents and actions will skew society considerably from a cherished “equality.” To them, it’s simply not fair that life isn’t fair (i.e. doesn’t give them automatic access to conditions as they want them to be).

Self-interest of course enters the picture when considering the motivations that draw one to a side of the political spectrum. First one must acknowledge the existence of self-interest in the first place. The Left prefers the word, “selfish” and thinks the concept is “socially constructed,” but that’s a whole other issue in the dichotomies that separate right from left.

Operating a large company for profit is no more an act of self-interest than imposing state authority over such an industry to placate one’s philosophical yearnings. Is it not an act of self-interest to want one’s own philosophy to be the standard upon which society operates?  

Related to the issue of “what is fair” is the often-arbitrary appraisal of what one “deserves.” If someone works hard, is ambitious, makes sacrifices, bides their time, and achieves their goals, I would say they “deserve” the rewards of their actions – monetary or otherwise. To many on the left, however, a person’s mere possession of wealth is in itself cause to claim they “don’t deserve it” and it should be given to people who “deserve it more” (another one of the lefts’ more common and groundless assertions).  

Those of us who value our individuality and have faith in our capacity to achieve our goals when unhindered will always see it as unfair when others seek to restrain our free thought and action or deprive us of what we seek or what we have gained. There will also be those who feel their own lower status can only be the result of victim hood at the hands of unfairness. One side of the issue will always favor individuality and freedom, the other, “equality” (of outcome) and coerced “redistribution.” Both sides will be arguing from a standpoint of self-interest. While a belief in self-interest and individual freedom certainly drives the philosophy of the right, the left is no less motivated by self-interest. 

When the Right seeks to make the case for what it sees as fair to its own self-interest and values, it need only say, “Leave me alone.” The Left’s case is always stated as a variation on, “Give me your stuff” and, “Do what I tell you to do.” What could be a more unfair definition of fairness?

I dare suggest that a love of artistic beauty coincides with a preference for harmony in civil affairs 

I really like classical music from the latter half of the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries. Innovative minds in this period took composition to new levels of beauty and pathos. An equal respect for both harmony and dissonance mimicked such tensions in life itself. An intelligent construction of sound portrayed the Taoist dance of opposites in conflict and reconciliation. Something one might call “bitter sweet” can be heard in the music of Mahler, Shostakovich, and Hindemith et al. 

By the 1960’s, other more abrasive musical goals culminated in the utter chaos and cacophony of pure dissonance. One can hear such screeching howls in the works of Karl Heinz Stockhausen as well as other “experimental” writers of music. It’s probably no coincidence that Stockhausen described the 9/11 murder of innocents as “great art.” Such is the mindset that undermines repose and praises chaos and destruction. 

There are a lot of intellectual arguments that can be made for why one may consider chaotic music to be great. Such composition is certainly unique, perhaps even witty – but it’s not beautiful. One certainly must be intelligent to even write musical noise, just as many "scholars" devote praise to "revolutionary" violence and destruction. 

During the same period of music history that edgy mind-noise came of age, other composers reacted in numerous schools of neo~ (i.e. Classicism, Romanticism).  

The symphonies of Howard Hanson clearly respect the value of well-placed disharmony, yet their general mood is one of beauty. 

I’m not going to make the pedestrian claim that Hanson’s music is “better” than Stockhausen’s or, in the visual arts, that Rembrandt’s soul-inquiries are better then Andy Warhol’s pop vision (though personally, I believe this to be the case).  

In the social sphere of the time span I’ve been addressing, a similar reckless nihilism arose, also culminating in the 1960’s. “Down with 'the system',” became the mere social equivalent of the screeching aleatory whines of atonal music. In music and political philosophy, the intellectuals marveled at such contrived heresies (and, vicariously, marveled at their own self-importance). 

The nihilist hates beauty. Harmony, stability, and grandeur are the enemies of any angry pseudo-rebel. “Fighting against oppression” is a mere incidental contrivance to justify the true cause of mock “revolution” -- wanton destruction. 

Thinkers like Carl Jung have accurately (I think) noted that one can extrapolate basic concepts in physics into the psychological/social sphere. We can see this in the the concept of entropy. There are political systems that seek to further the cause of chaos and energy depletion, something “they” call “revolution” or revolution-lite (“social change”).  In polarity to this are the forces of maintenance that seek to preserve and maintain stability.  Extremes of either will steer a civilization into territory with negative repercussions to citizens.  Canadian psychologist, Jordan Peterson also speaks extensively on the issue of chaos and order in context to a Taoist appraisal of life.

We live in a time where an “anything goes” mentality continually pushes the boundaries of sane living to incorporate every niche of absurdity.  It should be no surprise when concerned parents want to see their progeny benefit from a societal order (no pun intended) that pursues an organized path to stability and prosperity.

The current collapse of order in politics can be seen in tandem with an emerging AI revolution. A new worldview is being born that requires and seeks the destruction of the old order. As each side entrenches it’s position the border between chaos and order becomes agitated and we’re compelled to go along for the ride. Meanwhile opportunist parasites like the World Economic Forum and its minions seek to steer the momentum to their favor in their own personal will to power.

The arts are only one facet of civilization where chaos and order go to battle and they can often be invigorated by the changes which occur in the storm. It all makes for an entertaining tableau but for sane people with families and a moral compass there is just cause in clinging to an old order less devoted to wanton destruction. 

Whether the raised fist of Marxist “anarchists” or the raised screech of un-tuned violins, nihilism in art and life offers nothing to souls who seek solace in beauty. They're both just noise in the end. 

*********************************
A problem with musicians, artists, and entertainers is that some are good at what they do and think it somehow qualifies them as experts in completely unrelated fields; like domestic and international political policy. 

"Fight the powers that be" -- then collect a check from them for singing about it...

Contemporary society is comprised of diverse groups; laborers, technocrats, farmers, clerks, intellectuals, etc. They generally have different interests and, accordingly, tend toward certain characteristic perspectives. Among these perspectives is often a certain bias in philosophical affiliations as well. Among intellectuals, there are ones who are right wing, left wing, and even occasionally, “center,” but in our own time, there is a clear tendency for most to be, “left of center,” if not extremely left of center. 

It would probably be reasonable to describe intellectuals as people who direct considerable attention to, “things of the mind,” this supposes an interest in philosophy, the arts, and ideas in general. It would be odd indeed to find a person drawn to philosophy (a “love of knowledge”) and they not show interest in issues regarding human society and politics. It’s probably safe to say that most intellectuals take more than a passing interest in political matters. 

Throughout history we find intellectuals of both moderate and extreme political belief spanning the political spectrum. There were Nazi intellectuals, Communist intellectuals, and there are free-market intellectuals. So why is it that in our own time, in the west, intellectuals are more often than not, allies of Leftism? What distinguishes a leftist intellectual from a right-wing one? First we must realize that both philosophies, in their extremes, are statist in nature; they wish to establish an order where others are forced to conform to the intellectual’s “plan” – collectivism. Neither Communist nor Nazi will be found to argue the superior value of a free and open society of autonomous citizens. Both sides of the extreme Right/Left false dichotomy feel the need to impose the template of central authority upon all aspects of society. 

It is surely more than coincidence that we find “right” and “left” intellectuals in agreement on a variety of matters, particularly in their attitudes toward Capitalism, which they both see as corrupt, decadent, and “unjust.” It is equally no coincidence that most left-wing intellectuals today are found to side with far right Islamo-fascism in its current war on free society. 

A most insightful critique of this paradox can be found in a work by Eric Hoffer, (best known for his book, The True Believer). In his book, The Ordeal of Change, Hoffer addresses the unique nature of Leftism’s popularity among intellectuals -- in America in particular. 

Hoffer’s book (now out of print) contains some insightful commentary on the nature of the intellectuals in modern western society, the things that motivate them, and the flawed leftist ideals they tend to rally around. 

One of the issues that Hoffer addresses skillfully is the nature of management in Capitalist society vs. Socialist society. 

”To the eternal workingman management is substantially the same whether it is made up of profit seekers, idealists, technicians, or bureaucrats. The allegiance of the manager is to the task and the results. However noble his motives, he cannot help [but view] the workers as a means to an end. He will always try to get the utmost out of them; and it matters not whether he does it for the sake of profit, for a holy cause, or for the sheer principle of efficiency…. 

…Any doctrine that preaches the oneness of management and labor – whether it stresses their unity in a party, class, race, nation, or even religion – can be used to turn the worker into a compliant instrument in the hands of management. Both Communism and Fascism postulate the oneness of management and labor, and both are devices for the extraction of maximum performance from an underpaid labor force… 

…Seen from this point of view, the nationalization of the means of production is more a threat than a promise. For we shall be bossed and managed by someone, no matter who owns the means of production – and we can have no defenses against those who can tell us in all truth that we, the workers, own everything in sight and they, our taskmasters, are driving us for our own good. The battle between Socialism and Capitalism is to a large extent a battle between bosses, and it is legitimate to size up the dedicated Socialist as a potential boss.  

One needs not call to mind the example of Communist Russia to realize that the idealist has the making of a most formidable taskmaster.” (The Ordeal of Change, Pgs. 64-65)  

In addition to Hoffer’s insightful appraisals of "management," his inquiry -- a concise 120 pages -- dissects the reasons why contemporary intellectuals tend to be Leftist in their sympathies and more so, why they so despise the United States in particular. In other countries, such extremist elites are often openly nationalistic, if not adoring of their own state’s authority – why should this be?  

Through stealth and guile, the movers and shakers of leftist polemic have sought to transform America slowly and by degree into the socialist model of mega-government. The dilemma for them has been the nation's natural tendency to continually recoil back to its true nature as a haven for individualist thought and free and open commerce – no place for a social planning intellectual to feel at home, to be sure. 

In France, a totalitarian adoring Jean Paul Sartre was held in high esteem by both the state and its citizenry. Where are the admired intellectual heroes of America? Noam Chomsky is a fringe political charlatan at best, esteemed by a thin sliver of self-absorbed intellectual wannabes.  

America’s genuine hero figures are entrepreneurs, sports figures, and entertainers (with an occasional astronaut thrown in for novelty). Seen as evidence of shallow value standards by the arrogant Euro-chic, Americans have directed their admiration to people like Elon Musk and Steven Spielberg. France has Jean Baudrillard and a dead literary quack named Derrida.

The average American “worker” -- proletarian interests aside -- would probably pass on the opportunity for leisure conversation with a French “thinker.” In fact, most would have more in common with a billionaire entrepreneur or pop film director. 

Don’t think that the irony of this circumstance is lost on the celebrity wannabes of the academy. In essence, most Americans see intellectuals for what they are, mere scholastic entertainers – albeit considerably less entertaining than most pop figures. 

Intellectual brilliance is, of course, a good thing, but that bitter and transparent undercurrent of wanting to rule and wanting to “plan” (other’s lives) has fortunately been rejected by simple citizens.

Most intellectuals today don’t like America because they don’t like bourgeois society in general, or the capitalist system that allows such society to flourish. As long as Americans shower attention, admiration, and power upon entrepreneurs, media personalities, and the like, the intellectuals will resent the system that has placed them (the intellectuals) into such an irrelevant status. 

It’s hardly a surprise that most intellectuals today are so allied with the forces of collectivist philosophy and the manifest bureau state. They would hate to have it pointed out to them, but their allegiance is motivated primarily by the attribute they despise most in free capitalist society -- individual self-interest. 

It’s no wonder that recently we find the Left so defensive, if not outright supportive, of Islamo-fascists and other assorted cliques of totalitarianism.  It’s not so much that they approve of Burka dress codes and fatwas as simply sharing a hatred for America and its values. It turns out that typical American values fail to promote submission to the intellectual’s self-perceived greatness.  

It’s no coincidence that most intellectuals today are kindered spirits of the far Left’s cause, just as it is no coincidence that most of the bloodbaths and oppression of the last century occurred under their watch. 

“Thinkers” should think, and leave the rest of us alone to live as we choose.