socialist mindset versus moderate mindset

a short briefing document

socialist versus moderate mindset

There is a cast of mind that differs between those of the Left and of the Right.

• The Right want rigid discilpline.
  The Left want no discipline.
  
  
• The Right want the letter of the law.
  The Left want to act arbitrarily.
  
  
• So the Right want strict constitutionalists,
  and the Left want judges who make it up as they go along.
  
  
• The Right want to control the laws.
  The Left want to remove the laws.
  
  
• In the UK, society wants Brexit, judges want to rule.
  
  
• The Left want to be the law.

  "The Führer is the supreme judge of the nation….there is no position in the area of constitutional law in the third Reich independent of this elemental will of the Führer."
  J. Noakes and G Pridham (editors),  volume 2: State, Economy and Society 1933 – 1939, a documentary reader.
  

• The Right want constraints on the rulers.

  "The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern."
  Acton [1881]
  

Without balance there is no sanity.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
Adolph Hitler, speech of May 1, 1927

Balance requires intelligence, not dogma.

nationalism

Often Socialists believe that 'democracy' is a dirty word.

National Socialist Adolf identified three 'vices': democracy, pacifism, and internationalism.

They are part of the cult religion of national socialism.

International socialists call national socialists 'right wing'.
National socialists call international socialists 'left wing'.

representative government

Winston Churchill said the duty of an member of parliament was

first to the country (I do not believe he was referring to the EUSSR)
second to his constituents (paternalism)
third to his party (the statesman).

A vast culture-changing technology, more disruptive than the printing press, is shaking the foundations of modern societies and long-established cultural settlements. Society is going to have to adjust, and that process will require patience and needs the time to evolve.
The central problem is how do societies and their politicians deal with the confusions as the changes unfold. What sort of country will emerge from these monumental forces (changes) ?

Currently (late 2016), it is very clear cut in the USA, are we to be with or without a constitution (or some substitute thereof)?
In the UK, it is 'the will of the people' and the 'arbitrary arrogance of a few middle class jobsworths'.

And in both cases, betwixt there are also a few venal, confused and blundering politicians.

Catholic doctrine does not favour any particular form of government. Catholic doctrine is embedded in much thinking on the European continent even when unconscious.

Catholic doctrine insists on something UK law would have regarded as 'equity', until Socialists started messing with the likes of the Magna Carta and national independence.

what the dogmas of socialism are not

Drones on the Right argue that redistribution is only done by the Left - it is not.
Drones on the Left claim that nationalism is the baby of the Right - it is not.

redistribution

Some of the Right has tended to take up a position of unthinking opposition to anything associated with socialism. This is not surprising, as socialism is one of the worst catastrophes ever to hit humanity.

One of the results of this has been to make a false confusion of redistribution with socialism.

The answer to most of that problem lies in a citizen's wage. President Richard Nixon tried to introduce a citizen's wage, way back in 1970, over 40 years ago. This was killed by the Left.

"What went wrong? Most of Moynihan's eloquent, polemical book is devoted to an exhaustively researched attack on the liberal opposition. To be sure, he does not spare the right (and is impressively blunt in recounting Nixon's own self-defeating partisanship in 1970--the year of Carswell, Cambodia, Scammon and Wattenberg). But the intriguing question--for the reader as for Moynihan--is why the left helped kill the guaranteed income." [Quoted from nytimes.com]

All the indications are that, in Britain, the Cameron administration and its successor are now preparing the ground for rectifying the problem there.

related material

authoritarianism and liberty
the psychology and development of Adolph Hitler Schicklgruber

site map

advertising disclaimer

bibliography

The Politics of a Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance Plan
by Daniel Patrick. Moynihan

Random House, 1973

ISBN-10: 0394463544
ISBN-13: 978-0394463544

amazon.com
amazon.co.uk

Allen Lane, hbk 2012

ISBN-10: 1846144485
ISBN-13: 978-1846144486

£12.80 [amazon.co.uk] {advert}

email email_abelard [at] abelard.org

© abelard, 2016, 7 november

all rights reserved

the address for this document is https://www.abelard.org/briefings/socialist-moderate-mindset.php

x words
prints as x A4 pages (on my printer and set-up)