L(c->i)/R(i->c)
Me:
The right claims that they are all for individualism and personal freedom, and decry the supposed collectivism of the left, but when there is any threat to their collective hegemony they all fall in line perfectly and defend positions that historically are on the wrong side of progress. On the other hand, the left wants people to have what they need, but can never get together and agree to any one set of articulated principles and so can’t beat the collective meta-ideology of the right. The lesson here is that the effects and consequences to the individuals in either group are immaterial, because the only notion of success is survival and the group with the highest meta of cohesion wins? The right are the ‘dirty’ collectivists, that’s why they call the left that, not that there’s anything wrong with being a little collectivist at some level.
ChatGPT:
Your observation taps into a fundamental paradox in contemporary political dynamics. The right often champions individualism and personal freedom, yet exhibits strong collective cohesion when their dominance is challenged. Conversely, the left, which aims to ensure collective well-being and equity, often struggles with internal disagreements and a lack of unified principles. This dichotomy can be seen through several lenses:
Cultural Cohesion vs. Ideological Purity: The right often leverages cultural and social cohesion, focusing on shared values and identity, which can lead to a more unified front. The left, with its focus on inclusivity and diversity, may face challenges in maintaining a consistent message or unified stance.
Strategic Unity vs. Principle-Driven Division: The right’s ability to align strategically, even when individual beliefs may differ, contrasts with the left’s tendency to prioritize principle and ideological purity, sometimes at the cost of strategic advantage.
Survival Mechanism: As you pointed out, the notion of success being tied to survival can explain why the right may adopt a ‘dirty collectivist’ stance. When faced with existential threats, their cohesion can be seen as a survival strategy, prioritizing the collective over the individual.
Critique and Projection: Accusations of collectivism directed at the left might be a projection of the right’s own practices. By framing the left as collectivist, the right can deflect attention from its own collective actions, maintaining the narrative of individualism while practicing effective collective strategy.
Efficacy of Meta-Cohesion: The group with the highest level of meta-cohesion, where strategic unity overrides individual differences, often prevails. This doesn’t necessarily mean the individuals within the group benefit equally, but the group’s survival and dominance are ensured.
In essence, the right’s ability to coalesce under threat highlights a pragmatic approach to maintaining power, even if it contradicts their individualistic rhetoric. Meanwhile, the left’s struggle with internal unity, despite its collectivist ideals, points to the complex challenge of balancing diversity of thought with strategic coherence.
