Leftist Psychology: Equality

You can find the other essays in this series here: Tabula rasa, Oversocialization, Neoteny, Status, Science

Even for the most casual observer of the contemporary political climate, barely a day goes by without some event or other which brings to life the seeming derangement of the left. Much has been written and commented upon regarding the plentiful contradictions in leftist thinking, and yet the situation still seems senseless. For this reason, I think it important to consider not just what the left does, but why it does it. Likewise, in my mind, it is more significant to know why the left thinks as it does than it is to pick apart the contradictions of leftist thought. In short, every man is sensible in his own eyes. If we can see the world through his eyes, we can make sense of him.

As I touched upon in my essay on therapy, the primary method for achieving psychological understanding is introspection. And while many people dare not, or have no cause to, look into their own inner sordidness to glean the secrets therein, human darkness has always fascinated me. As such, I would say that I have gone to some extent to unearth my own hideousness, and I think I have some grasp on the darker side of the human spirit. It is my hope, then, to try to make sense of some of the modern madness, as I think I have done successfully before.

To this end, I intend to write a few short essays on leftist psychology. I have not planned how many, or what they will be about, or in what order they will come. But I have no doubt that I will be given ample reason to return to the topic time and time again, and will bring forth whatever wisdom I can find as it hits me. The topic for this essay will be equality and the relation that the left has to it.

Equality has been a staple value in leftist ideology going back all the way to the Enlightenment and earlier in various forms of proto-leftism. In practice this has encompassed everything from liberal ideas such as voting rights and equality before the law to the “classless society” promised by communism. Today it mostly takes the form of social justice, intended to remedy any number of more or less real historical disparities between the majority group and the minority groups the left takes as clients.

It is not hard to understand why equality would appeal to some people. The difficulties of navigating human hierarchies and of gaining the tangible benefits of being at a high position in a hierarchy can easily drive people to reject the hierarchy itself. Implicit in the idea of equality is that my position will increase relative to yours if we become equal; if it doesn’t, why would I be so concerned with equality? So we see here the central role that feelings of resentment and inferiority play in the yearning for equality.

There is a more sinister side to this, however. It is important to understand that the meaning of a thing depends on our relationship to it. Two people, fundamentally different and with fundamentally different relationships to a thing, will see it differently and interact with it differently. This is especially the case with abstract language constructs, such as justice or equality.

Thus we can see two fundamentally different ways of approaching the notion of equality depending on the degree to which resentment and inferiority are central to motivation. For individuals where feelings of inferiority are not central, equality takes the meaning of reciprocity in the broadest sense - what I take, I give in return. Here notions of fairness, honesty and respect become the key features. Where things become sinister is in the attitude of the resentful and inferior individual. For this person, equality becomes a weapon – “I’ll show you for thinking you’re better than me”. Here the point becomes to pull others down to their level, to see them lose their status, dignity or position. The key features are punishment and revenge.

When the left pushes its various egalitarian doctrines, the first group may accept them under the premise of them being about fairness and reciprocity.  The second group, however, will see in them an opportunity for revenge, for a kind of predation on the first group that satisfies their will to power. For the first group, the doctrine is merely something that is passively accepted. For the second group, it is something that is actively pursued in order to extend the range of their vindictive striving for power.

As the left actively fosters resentment through narratives of oppression, the proportion of the doctrinal believers shifts toward the resentful group. This in turn causes the emotional valence to shift more towards punishment and revenge, thereby attracting (and rewarding) more resentment. Meanwhile, the non-resentful group becomes more intimidated by the doctrinal change, which they attempt to calm through appeasement and deference. This dynamic creates a kind of death spiral for the society that adopts the doctrine and that cedes its power to the left. We can see this development clearly with the civil rights movement, having developed from being about the non-discrimination of blacks to full-on genocidal rhetoric directed against whites (“abolish whiteness”) being broadcasted in media and the universities.

Understanding this perspective means understanding why the left’s talk of equality or justice always leads to institutionally backed revenge fantasies. Equality, justice, etc. are just weapons for the left, the tools for turning their hunger for revenge into reality. It is for this reason important to reject wholesale the left’s claims to equality and justice, and to refuse them the opportunity to play either victim or savior. The left does not seek to abolish oppression; it seeks to perpetrate it against the groups that it hates.

This perspective also helps to explain why, when convenient, the left strongly supports regime-sanctioned authority figures. Ultimately, it’s not about the social structure, but about the need for revenge. If the authority figure is harming a hated group, it does not matter what differences there are in the relative status or power between the authority and the leftist rabble. The vindictive climax is achieved nonetheless. This joining of leftist egalitarians with institutional authority is therefore to be expected. The man who demands equality differs only from the man who demands authority in whether he thinks himself above or below you.