[Previously in sequence:\xa0Epistemic Learned Helplessness,\xa0Book Review: The Secret Of Our Success,\xa0List Of Passages I Highlighted In My Copy Of The Secret Of Our Success,\xa0Asymmetric Weapons Gone Bad]
When I wrote\xa0Reactionary Philosophy In An Enormous Planet-Sized Nutshell, my attempt to explain reactionary philosophy, many people complained that it missed the key insight. At the time I had an excuse: I didn\u2019t get the key insight. Now I think I might understand it and have the vocabulary to explain, so I want to belatedly add it in.
The whole thing revolves around this rather dubious redefinition:
RIGHT-WING: Policies and systems selected by cultural evolution
LEFT-WING: Policies and systems selected by the marketplace of ideas
The second line is ambiguous: which marketplace of ideas, exactly? Maybe better than \u201cthe marketplace of ideas\u201d would be \u201cmemetic evolution\u201d. Policies and systems that are so catchy and convincing that lots of people believe in them and want to fight for them.
Under this definition, lots of conventionally right-wing movements get defined as left-wing. For example, Nazism and Trumpism both arose after a charismatic leader convinced the populace to implement them. They won because people liked them more than the alternatives. But \u201cleft-wing\u201d is not equivalent to \u201cpopulist\u201d. An idea that spreads by convincing intellectuals and building an academic consensus around itself is still left-wing, because it relies on convincing people. Even ideas like neoliberalism and technocracy are left-wing ideas, if they sound good to intellectuals and they spread by convincing those intellectuals.