I've yet to dig my way through it, but I'd argue that's just an extension of Leftist Inevitability Doctrine.
It's like saying that Atheism should be criminalized by the government to prevent Leftism. But I can point to you that the Catholic Church has been dominated by Leftists using Liberation Theology. Part of the problem is that using government force to create a hierarchy of power within the government, creates a keystone position of power that the Left will always, and I mean always, attempt to seize.
Gate-keeping does not have to be done by the state. It has to be done by the people. The authoritarian mind only argues that social order must be imposed by an authoritarian, but that's simply not the case. In fact, it's rarely the case. Order is an emergent property. It does not have to be imposed by anyone. Individuals will self-order. The question is whether or not your care enough about the order you create to smash it to pieces at the first sign of Communist agitation.
As an Atheist, I do not seek to kill your God for you, there just isn't one. I do not seek to replace him with a Communist, I'd like you to be mature enough to adopt your own moral code & philosophy. If you are so weak as to appeal to a Communist when you lose your faith, that seems more like your failing rather than mine. The Communist can subvert God, only because God was a crutch to you.
I take that same point with Libertarianism. Government is a weapon. It is not salvation, and it can't actually help you. It should be treated like one.
Leftists seize corporations because the government institutionalize corporate power. Generally, Leftist ideas are shit and are fairly unpopular because they depend on a wealth paternalist to protect others.
If you keep the government from interfering in the free market, you deny Leftism the means to seize power through their traditional methods.
It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.
Academic Agent had a good series on how libertarian deterritorialization can only serve socialist reterritorialization: part 1, part 2, part 3.
I've yet to dig my way through it, but I'd argue that's just an extension of Leftist Inevitability Doctrine.
It's like saying that Atheism should be criminalized by the government to prevent Leftism. But I can point to you that the Catholic Church has been dominated by Leftists using Liberation Theology. Part of the problem is that using government force to create a hierarchy of power within the government, creates a keystone position of power that the Left will always, and I mean always, attempt to seize.
Gate-keeping does not have to be done by the state. It has to be done by the people. The authoritarian mind only argues that social order must be imposed by an authoritarian, but that's simply not the case. In fact, it's rarely the case. Order is an emergent property. It does not have to be imposed by anyone. Individuals will self-order. The question is whether or not your care enough about the order you create to smash it to pieces at the first sign of Communist agitation.
As an Atheist, I do not seek to kill your God for you, there just isn't one. I do not seek to replace him with a Communist, I'd like you to be mature enough to adopt your own moral code & philosophy. If you are so weak as to appeal to a Communist when you lose your faith, that seems more like your failing rather than mine. The Communist can subvert God, only because God was a crutch to you.
I take that same point with Libertarianism. Government is a weapon. It is not salvation, and it can't actually help you. It should be treated like one.
And don't hand it to a Communist.
Leftists seize corporations because the government institutionalize corporate power. Generally, Leftist ideas are shit and are fairly unpopular because they depend on a wealth paternalist to protect others.
If you keep the government from interfering in the free market, you deny Leftism the means to seize power through their traditional methods.
It isn't Whig history. It is a critique of liberalism, in that libertarianism is to socialism as republicans are to democrats. They are both facets of liberalism.
I don't agree with that assessment at a fundamental level. Something that is purely illiberal can't be Liberal in philosophy.
That's my whole rant about the idea of Leftism as a philosophy of War. Leftism simply uses Liberal values as a mechanism when it suits them. They also use religiosity as a weapon of war, but I'm not saying that Socialism is an extension of Theocracy. Leftists have used nationalism and isolationism as well.
To a Leftist, at best, principles are simply tools to attack your enemies with using moral force. At worst, they are intentional weak points to be exploited by stupid people who don't understand how to use power to win. To a Leftist, if you hold to a principle, then you are a conservative/reactionary when the time has come to adjust the Left's currently asserted principles. Principles are a tactical vulnerability that should only be used when necessary.
I would not even say that Socialism is some sort of shadow-realm Liberalism. It is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of Liberal philosophy. Leftism is a philosophy of War, like I've pointed out in other comments War isn't a philosophy. The entire approach of the Left is wrong. It's not a set of foundational beliefs or ideas at all, just series of stratagems to take power. It is equally an extension of Liberalism as it is an extension of Islamism, or Monarchism, or Capitalism, or Zoroastrianism.
The only reason the Left chooses to identify a history with Marx is because it suits a current narrative and nothing else. It has a tactical value now. If, and frankly when, the Left finds that it should associate itself with something else, it will immediately do that. Every book will be re-written and anyone who claims Leftism stems from Marx will be identified as a reactionary fascist. "Progress was made, comrade. You wouldn't want to look at everything with old and debunked ideas, would you?"
There's nothing of ideological substance to the Left.