Why do you say that the major corporations and lesser capitalist enterprises like "gender clinics" are leftists making/taking money? Since when are major corporations leftists?
I do not know you, so I am about to make an assumption from which, naturally, you are free to disabuse me if I am wrong. My assumption is that you have generally been on the political left, but have recently become disillusioned due to their departure into the Mountains of Madness on the trans issue, and because of the disdain and rapidity with which they cast aside women and people in the LGB-but-not-T community, in their haste to take the route they have taken vis-a-vis the trans issue. If my assumption is correct, then it seems likely that we have, until recently, lived in different informational universes. And thus you may be unaware (since it is far more discussed in conservative and libertarian alternative-media circles than elsewhere) that in the last ten years, virtually all major corporations have shifted left or hard left. Some do so out of fear of the DEI/ESG mafia; but many others have done so because of a genuine shift in culture at the board and C-suite level. Corporations cannot in any measurable way be associated with "the right" anymore.
That being said—and this gets us into some heady territory, in terms of history and political theory—corporations never really were a "right-wing" phenomenon.
First, in terms of defense of them……Conservatives and libertarians (a.k.a. classical liberals, writ large) have largely defended corporations not so much as a phenomenon in and of themselves, but because we defend the free economic market that allows them to function. Obviously that is a simplification, but it is a useful one for now.
Second, corporations themselves aren't conservative or libertarian in their behavior or attitudes. They will happily do engage in anti-competitive, anti-free-market behaviors if it benefits them. They will happily get into bed with big government if it suits them, as they began to do in the 19th century and then did in earnest under the New Deal. None of those are in any way things of which most libertarians or limited-government conservatives would approve.
Jun 13, 2023·edited Jun 13, 2023Liked by Christopher Cook
You are correct that I have considered myself left-of-center until recently, and my sources of information have no doubt been very different from yours. Now I have come to think that right and left are not good ways to sort people. I really do not understand how right and left can be defined. What is meant by saying that major corporations have shifted left or hard left? What does "left" mean? And what does "right" mean?
I do not expect you to take the time to discuss this at length. I have always understood that corporations almost always seek profit-maximization and monopoly power. I have always understood that free enterprise is good and so are free markets. I am retired now, but I was a small business owner.
But could you give me a reasonably concise answer as to what you mean by "left"?
What is it that corporations are now doing such that they could be called "left"?
I also just commented at length on your piece on Why the Left is So Insane on the Trans Issue. As you will see in that comment, I am a lesbian radical feminist activist who has been working to protect women's sex-based rights and to get other lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to understand that LGB has been hijacked by TQ+ and that gender identity politics is harmful to the rights of people who are homosexual.
BTW, I have been working with Republicans, including Republican legislators in Oregon, to stop legislation which would greatly increase harm to confused children by mandating that all medical insurers including Oregon's Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan) pay for any "gender-affirming" medical services, and not require any parental notice or consent. There are also Republicans in the group I am in that has been protesting men being placed in women's prisons in Washington state, just across the river from Oregon. It is very clear to me that what we are facing is not a partisan issue at all, even though the leaders of the Democratic Party would like people to think that.
"What does "left" mean? And what does "right" mean? I do not expect you to take the time to discuss this at length."
I wish you could see the smile on my face. I just finished writing an entire book on that very subject. So yes, I could easily discuss it at length…but I will try to keep my reply somewhat contained :-)
Left and right can easily be categorized into three different definitional areas, possibly four: ideological/philosophical, historical, and political. And then the fourth would be something like a perceptual definition (what each is perceived as, rightly or wrongly).
The left, properly understood, is the political and historical phenomenon that arose with the French Revolution. This was the moment that the Enlightenment took a left turn and the modern left was born. Leftism then moved through the utopian socialists to Marx and then split, roughly speaking, into its revolutionary and incrementalist branches. Ideologically and philosophically, we can identify specific characteristics:
Distributive objective: To engineer a pattern of distribution that equalizes outcomes
Distributive premise: That the collective has a claim upon the property of the individual. (Your stuff belongs to 'the group')
Delivery mechanism: Large/powerful government using force
Power premise: Power is a desirable good, to achieve the aims of those who wield it.
Unit of social concern: The group/collective
Limiting principle: None (no internal principle that says when government gets too large)
The left, generally speaking, is well understood and properly identified. We know when an entity/individual is aligned politically with the political phenomenon of the left, and when they are deploying leftist ideas.
The right, for a variety of reasons too complex to discuss properly here, is far more mischaracterized. Properly understood, the right is a classical liberal phenomenon that rose to prominence philosophically in the 17th and 18th centuries and to political dominance for most of the 19th. Philosophically, it is the opposite on all those same characteristics:
Distributive objective: To allow distribution to unfold naturally, to maintain a condition of equality of opportunity
Distributive premise: That the property of the individual belongs to the individual (Your stuff is yours.)
Delivery mechanism: Limited government whose primary purpose is to protect life and property (Or purely private institutions that serve those functions, as in the case of anarcho-libertarianism)
Power premise: Power is a necessary evil, to be deployed only to protect rights
Unit of social concern: The individual
Limiting principle: To find the sweet spot at which enjoyment of individual rights is maximized and disruption thereto is minimized.
There is obviously much more that can be said, but that is a start.
Corporations seek profits. That is natural. Trees absorbing light from the sun, chickens eating bugs off the ground, people moving into a bigger house when they can afford it—we're all seeking to thrive in one way or another. So long as it is not done in a way that initiates coercive force against another, it is fine and good.
Monopolies are more complex, and my understanding of the nuances of this subject is limited. The main point, however, is that monopolies are almost impossible to form without government protections and special treatment. The right, properly understood, opposes such protections and special treatment.
If a corporation actively seeks such a relationship with government and we are looking for a way to characterize such behavior politically, the closest analogue is fascist corporatism. Fascism was a 20th century outgrowth of historical and ideological socialism that made two main adjustments: a national rather than international focus and a pragmatic switch from government OWNERSHIP of the means of production to government MANAGEMENT of them. The greater the degree to which modern corporations seek special relationships to government, the closer it becomes to classic fascist corporatism. This too is a very complex topic!
Today, most big corporations have moved left in that they tend to support the agenda items of the political left (on trans issues, e.g., or by censoring conservatives, funding BLM, etc.).
I think it is wonderful that you are working with Republicans on those issues. The ideology of the left has always produced failure, madness, and destruction (and a nine-digit body count in the 20th century alone), but here in the West, its incrementalist branch is now reaching peak insanity. People must stand up against it—against what is being done to women, to children, to all of us.
If we are referring to the rank-and-file, normal people, etc., then yeah, this is less of a partisan issue. Sane human beings from across the political spectrum are now reacting against it. Women and LGB people are now also realizing that the left, as an aggregated political egregore, does not care about them. They have moved on to the next shiny object. (I have contended for years that the left does not care about any of its client cohorts. Each is just a vehicle to power and resource acquisition for them.)
But politically, it is very partisan. When votes and political actions are taken, it is overwhelmingly always the Democrats (or their left counterparts in other countries) voting for them, and the right voting against them. I do not agree with everything that the mainstream right does, but we cannot deny the correlation. At the level of political power, only the left supports support this madness.
I see that you commented on the other post, and I am looking forward to reading and replying there. I am very glad to have you here, and I thank you most humbly for your interest and your decision to support me in my efforts.
I am staunchly anti-leftist, as you will discover. But if you ever think I have gone too far in my rhetoric or assertions, feel free to challenge me, and I will endeavor either to justify my view or concede your point!
Why do you say that the major corporations and lesser capitalist enterprises like "gender clinics" are leftists making/taking money? Since when are major corporations leftists?
I do not know you, so I am about to make an assumption from which, naturally, you are free to disabuse me if I am wrong. My assumption is that you have generally been on the political left, but have recently become disillusioned due to their departure into the Mountains of Madness on the trans issue, and because of the disdain and rapidity with which they cast aside women and people in the LGB-but-not-T community, in their haste to take the route they have taken vis-a-vis the trans issue. If my assumption is correct, then it seems likely that we have, until recently, lived in different informational universes. And thus you may be unaware (since it is far more discussed in conservative and libertarian alternative-media circles than elsewhere) that in the last ten years, virtually all major corporations have shifted left or hard left. Some do so out of fear of the DEI/ESG mafia; but many others have done so because of a genuine shift in culture at the board and C-suite level. Corporations cannot in any measurable way be associated with "the right" anymore.
That being said—and this gets us into some heady territory, in terms of history and political theory—corporations never really were a "right-wing" phenomenon.
First, in terms of defense of them……Conservatives and libertarians (a.k.a. classical liberals, writ large) have largely defended corporations not so much as a phenomenon in and of themselves, but because we defend the free economic market that allows them to function. Obviously that is a simplification, but it is a useful one for now.
Second, corporations themselves aren't conservative or libertarian in their behavior or attitudes. They will happily do engage in anti-competitive, anti-free-market behaviors if it benefits them. They will happily get into bed with big government if it suits them, as they began to do in the 19th century and then did in earnest under the New Deal. None of those are in any way things of which most libertarians or limited-government conservatives would approve.
I hope that approaches an acceptable answer.
You are correct that I have considered myself left-of-center until recently, and my sources of information have no doubt been very different from yours. Now I have come to think that right and left are not good ways to sort people. I really do not understand how right and left can be defined. What is meant by saying that major corporations have shifted left or hard left? What does "left" mean? And what does "right" mean?
I do not expect you to take the time to discuss this at length. I have always understood that corporations almost always seek profit-maximization and monopoly power. I have always understood that free enterprise is good and so are free markets. I am retired now, but I was a small business owner.
But could you give me a reasonably concise answer as to what you mean by "left"?
What is it that corporations are now doing such that they could be called "left"?
I also just commented at length on your piece on Why the Left is So Insane on the Trans Issue. As you will see in that comment, I am a lesbian radical feminist activist who has been working to protect women's sex-based rights and to get other lesbians, bisexuals and gay men to understand that LGB has been hijacked by TQ+ and that gender identity politics is harmful to the rights of people who are homosexual.
BTW, I have been working with Republicans, including Republican legislators in Oregon, to stop legislation which would greatly increase harm to confused children by mandating that all medical insurers including Oregon's Medicaid (Oregon Health Plan) pay for any "gender-affirming" medical services, and not require any parental notice or consent. There are also Republicans in the group I am in that has been protesting men being placed in women's prisons in Washington state, just across the river from Oregon. It is very clear to me that what we are facing is not a partisan issue at all, even though the leaders of the Democratic Party would like people to think that.
"What does "left" mean? And what does "right" mean? I do not expect you to take the time to discuss this at length."
I wish you could see the smile on my face. I just finished writing an entire book on that very subject. So yes, I could easily discuss it at length…but I will try to keep my reply somewhat contained :-)
Left and right can easily be categorized into three different definitional areas, possibly four: ideological/philosophical, historical, and political. And then the fourth would be something like a perceptual definition (what each is perceived as, rightly or wrongly).
The left, properly understood, is the political and historical phenomenon that arose with the French Revolution. This was the moment that the Enlightenment took a left turn and the modern left was born. Leftism then moved through the utopian socialists to Marx and then split, roughly speaking, into its revolutionary and incrementalist branches. Ideologically and philosophically, we can identify specific characteristics:
Distributive objective: To engineer a pattern of distribution that equalizes outcomes
Distributive premise: That the collective has a claim upon the property of the individual. (Your stuff belongs to 'the group')
Delivery mechanism: Large/powerful government using force
Power premise: Power is a desirable good, to achieve the aims of those who wield it.
Unit of social concern: The group/collective
Limiting principle: None (no internal principle that says when government gets too large)
I discuss these at a little more length here: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/transitioning-children-is-another
The left, generally speaking, is well understood and properly identified. We know when an entity/individual is aligned politically with the political phenomenon of the left, and when they are deploying leftist ideas.
The right, for a variety of reasons too complex to discuss properly here, is far more mischaracterized. Properly understood, the right is a classical liberal phenomenon that rose to prominence philosophically in the 17th and 18th centuries and to political dominance for most of the 19th. Philosophically, it is the opposite on all those same characteristics:
Distributive objective: To allow distribution to unfold naturally, to maintain a condition of equality of opportunity
Distributive premise: That the property of the individual belongs to the individual (Your stuff is yours.)
Delivery mechanism: Limited government whose primary purpose is to protect life and property (Or purely private institutions that serve those functions, as in the case of anarcho-libertarianism)
Power premise: Power is a necessary evil, to be deployed only to protect rights
Unit of social concern: The individual
Limiting principle: To find the sweet spot at which enjoyment of individual rights is maximized and disruption thereto is minimized.
There is obviously much more that can be said, but that is a start.
Corporations seek profits. That is natural. Trees absorbing light from the sun, chickens eating bugs off the ground, people moving into a bigger house when they can afford it—we're all seeking to thrive in one way or another. So long as it is not done in a way that initiates coercive force against another, it is fine and good.
Monopolies are more complex, and my understanding of the nuances of this subject is limited. The main point, however, is that monopolies are almost impossible to form without government protections and special treatment. The right, properly understood, opposes such protections and special treatment.
If a corporation actively seeks such a relationship with government and we are looking for a way to characterize such behavior politically, the closest analogue is fascist corporatism. Fascism was a 20th century outgrowth of historical and ideological socialism that made two main adjustments: a national rather than international focus and a pragmatic switch from government OWNERSHIP of the means of production to government MANAGEMENT of them. The greater the degree to which modern corporations seek special relationships to government, the closer it becomes to classic fascist corporatism. This too is a very complex topic!
Today, most big corporations have moved left in that they tend to support the agenda items of the political left (on trans issues, e.g., or by censoring conservatives, funding BLM, etc.).
I think it is wonderful that you are working with Republicans on those issues. The ideology of the left has always produced failure, madness, and destruction (and a nine-digit body count in the 20th century alone), but here in the West, its incrementalist branch is now reaching peak insanity. People must stand up against it—against what is being done to women, to children, to all of us.
If we are referring to the rank-and-file, normal people, etc., then yeah, this is less of a partisan issue. Sane human beings from across the political spectrum are now reacting against it. Women and LGB people are now also realizing that the left, as an aggregated political egregore, does not care about them. They have moved on to the next shiny object. (I have contended for years that the left does not care about any of its client cohorts. Each is just a vehicle to power and resource acquisition for them.)
But politically, it is very partisan. When votes and political actions are taken, it is overwhelmingly always the Democrats (or their left counterparts in other countries) voting for them, and the right voting against them. I do not agree with everything that the mainstream right does, but we cannot deny the correlation. At the level of political power, only the left supports support this madness.
I see that you commented on the other post, and I am looking forward to reading and replying there. I am very glad to have you here, and I thank you most humbly for your interest and your decision to support me in my efforts.
I am staunchly anti-leftist, as you will discover. But if you ever think I have gone too far in my rhetoric or assertions, feel free to challenge me, and I will endeavor either to justify my view or concede your point!