And Where Do You Stand?

              Everybody talks about a Great Divide in politics these days. Left-Right, Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative, where do you sit on the spectrum? But what if the spectrum itself is misleading? Is the common notion of a philosophical line from “left” to “right” really true?

              We commonly think of a line starting on the Left at Communism, and heading to the right to Fascists and Nazis. Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot on one side, heading to Mussolini and Hitler on the other. Far Left to Far Right. But if you think about it, the basic concept breaks down. Communism and Fascism aren’t opposites, but twin brothers. How can that be? Simple. They’re both creeds of tyrants and slavery.

              Marxist Communism and Fascism/Naziism are both “ideologies”—which means secular political faiths: religions without God. Instead of an Almighty, Karl Marx wrote of titanic historical forces, very much Earthly and human. His “scientific” analysis of these forces led him to conclude: the individual human being was nothing, the group—or “class” he belonged to was everything.

              Humanity was divided into two groups: good people and bad people. The good people are the “proletariat” or workers, and the bad people are “bourgeoisie” or owners. The bad people own everything and have all the power, and are in eternal war with the good people, who must seize that power by any means necessary to do it. Everything is about power.

The good people are entitled to do anything, and the bad people are deserving of anything done to them. There are no innocents or neutrals: you’re Good People or Bad People. Lenin took this, tweaked it a bit, and started the USSR. Mao tweaked it a bit more for Red China. Seize power by any means necessary, once in power rule by any means you want. You enemies are Bad People, deserving anything.

Italy’s Mussolini started out a Communist. He changed the rules: Marxism, Communism, is International. “Workers of the World unite.” What was important was the class, and nations were silly things invented by the Bad People to keep workers separated and out of power. But Mussolini developed “Fascism” as a NATIONALIST creed. He was all for Italy, especially it’s Roman past. But Italy’s Fascism was a rogue form of Communism, with the nation instead of economic class as the group.

Hitler’s organization was the same: “Nazi” is an abbreviation for “National Socialism.” The full name is “National Socialist German Workers Party. It’s Marxism with a different slant. Instead of Marx & Lenin’s International Socialism, we have National, or German Socialism. Actually, Hitler’s ideal was the “volk,” a German word that has no real English Equivalent. It means “people, race.” Hitler thought the German people were a superior group of humans, at War with the other lower folk, especially Jews.

But what Marxism, Fascism, and National Socialism all have in common, is that they are collectivist. They exalt the group above all else. The individual counts for nothing.  They expressly deny the individual. All their political schemes are tyrannies. They’re dictatorships, and all people are slaves of the Party and the State. There’s no difference between them, practically speaking. They’re not opposites but mirror images. They’re collectivist twin brothers.

So why do we use a political explainer that goes from slavery on one end to slavery on the other? Far Left, Far Right, what’s the difference? They’re both horrible slave systems. Maybe the real spectrum should go from slavery on one side, not to mirror image slavery but freedom. Maye the real divide is between collectivism and individualism!

A true political spectrum would go from Tyranny to Freedom. It would start on the Left with totalitarianism: Marxism and its ‘Progressive’ variants, move through authoritarian, to Social Democracy (in the US, what we call “Liberalism”) to Constitutional limits, through Libertarianism, and finally to anarchy. Instead of slavery to slavery, it would go from slavery to absolute individualism.

Using this spectrum, we could better identify the players. Are they collectivist or individualist? Do they divide humans up into ironclad groups, whose rights and status are fixed in their group? Or do they hold truths to be self-evident, that all people are individually created, endowed with inalienable rights? That society is made up of unique individuals, and governments are properly instituted to secure these rights?

That’s the real Great Divide today: Collectivists versus the Individualists. We’re divided by followers of one brand or another of Marx, who divide humans into immutable classes of Good People and Bad, and war for power, versus those who believe every single human being is unique, precious, and irreplaceable. Whether it’s race, economic class, nation, Volk, sexuality, or religion, Collectivists are tyrants, slavers. Their opponents aren’t other collectivist tyrants. Their true opponents are those who uplift and uphold the Individual human being, with free choice of life, liberty, and faith.

That’s the real Great Divide. Where do you stand on it?