![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusI came across a rather interesting comment discussion thread on this very topic. A person who is presumably-left-leaning asserted in the thread that one can be a "Leftist" and Traditionalist (in the spiritual/religious sense) and at the same time. And of course the replies challenging this assertion came pouring in right away. Below, I shall highlight the reply I found to be the most insightful. But first things first:
I must say that over the years I've become less and less interested in whatever "-ism" or ideological orientation people claim to be affiliated with. The reason why is because what a person professes to be ideologically or religiously often has very little to do with how they behave in mundane, everyday life. By this, a person's stated ideological or religious affiliation becomes little more than an act of flag-waving; or shall we say "virtue-signalling" in today's internet culture parlance. So my best guess regarding the motivations of the above commenter, is that he might be suffering from a sense of conflicted identity, which is quite normal for young people (yeah, I'm guessing he's young). Here is the comment, MB states:
I believe that MB's primary thinking error here is conflating opposition to modern capitalism with support of leftism. In other words, the mere belief that modern capitalism is problematic does not automatically make that person a leftist. This is a sort of, "Great, you don't like X, therefore you are in our Y-camp!" fallacy. When in fact, most Traditionalists do indeed realize the shortcomings of modern capitalism and the sort of nihilism and cultural degeneracy it breeds. This leads me to believe MB is likely not very well read on the authors he is claiming to be compatible to whatever his own pre-existing ideological beliefs are. He goes on:
I think this might actually clue us into an inherent weakness in the Perennialist ideology I'm about to get at below. What I mean is that including Abrahamic religions and thus the inherently-egalitarian tendencies of Christianity and Islam, might undermine the premise that these religions are perfect expressions of some notion of eternal spiritual tradition. BTW, I think MB is wrong here about Buddhism, as in its most orthodox form, it's a religion for renunciate monks; the scriptures say very little on the topic of social structures; historically, Buddhists have never been in the business of undermining established social hierarchies, much less devoting much attention to those topics.
But yes, I must state that this whole thread I'm bringing up makes reference to the Rene Guenon brand of Traditionalism, which is the most well known modern-day take on the Perennial Philosophy. This is the small cultist intellectual circle that calls itself "The Traditionalist School" and is centered around Guenon and the other intellectuals of his time period who followed his lead; authors like Julius Evola and Frithjof Schuon. And I must state that I do not buy into Guenon's criteria of what constitutes and does not constitute a proper religious tradition. But that's something for a different post, or shall I say series of posts. Anyway, here's the response from JR:
The takeaway here is that egalitarian presuppositions about human nature (and thus how to properly order society) are utterly incompatible with the world's deep religious traditions. And I can't think of a single world tradition that considers progress-for-the-sake-of-progress (progress here meaning forward motion change) to be an inherently-positive value. Any honest Leftist who knows their stuff will unequivocally declare religious traditions to be a reactionary force and at odds with the sort of materialist utopian aspirations which underpin all forms of Leftist thought.
And I'd say the grand takeaway here is that people should spend more time acquiring knowledge and having internal dialogues about what they learn, before going around and loudly declaring themselves to be proponents/allies/supporters of this-or-that big idea.
I must say that over the years I've become less and less interested in whatever "-ism" or ideological orientation people claim to be affiliated with. The reason why is because what a person professes to be ideologically or religiously often has very little to do with how they behave in mundane, everyday life. By this, a person's stated ideological or religious affiliation becomes little more than an act of flag-waving; or shall we say "virtue-signalling" in today's internet culture parlance. So my best guess regarding the motivations of the above commenter, is that he might be suffering from a sense of conflicted identity, which is quite normal for young people (yeah, I'm guessing he's young). Here is the comment, MB states:
I disagree with those on this thread who argue that leftism and traditionalism are necessarily opposed. I would cite in this regard the works of Erich Fromm and Fritz Schumacher, who both challenged capitalism. Fromm did so from a traditional Jewish perspective on the grounds that capitalism is a form of idolatry, because capitalists worship the dead product of labour and do not appreciate living, creative labour itself.
Although he was Catholic, Schumacher’s critique comes from a Buddhist perspective as he too argues that the value of labour can be massively increased by focussing on the experience and conditions of the worker rather than narrowly on the end product.
I believe that MB's primary thinking error here is conflating opposition to modern capitalism with support of leftism. In other words, the mere belief that modern capitalism is problematic does not automatically make that person a leftist. This is a sort of, "Great, you don't like X, therefore you are in our Y-camp!" fallacy. When in fact, most Traditionalists do indeed realize the shortcomings of modern capitalism and the sort of nihilism and cultural degeneracy it breeds. This leads me to believe MB is likely not very well read on the authors he is claiming to be compatible to whatever his own pre-existing ideological beliefs are. He goes on:
I think there can be ‘right’ and ‘left’ views of traditionalism just as there are ‘right’ and ‘left’ views of modernism. Leftist traditionalism would typically emphasise the egalitarianism of the religions and their breaking down of previous hierarchies. Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam all have strong narratives in this regard. (Brahminism less so, but it is important to remember many other egalitarian movements within the Hindu fold, and many Indian spiritual teachers who saw past caste).
I think this might actually clue us into an inherent weakness in the Perennialist ideology I'm about to get at below. What I mean is that including Abrahamic religions and thus the inherently-egalitarian tendencies of Christianity and Islam, might undermine the premise that these religions are perfect expressions of some notion of eternal spiritual tradition. BTW, I think MB is wrong here about Buddhism, as in its most orthodox form, it's a religion for renunciate monks; the scriptures say very little on the topic of social structures; historically, Buddhists have never been in the business of undermining established social hierarchies, much less devoting much attention to those topics.
But yes, I must state that this whole thread I'm bringing up makes reference to the Rene Guenon brand of Traditionalism, which is the most well known modern-day take on the Perennial Philosophy. This is the small cultist intellectual circle that calls itself "The Traditionalist School" and is centered around Guenon and the other intellectuals of his time period who followed his lead; authors like Julius Evola and Frithjof Schuon. And I must state that I do not buy into Guenon's criteria of what constitutes and does not constitute a proper religious tradition. But that's something for a different post, or shall I say series of posts. Anyway, here's the response from JR:
Sorry, but you literally, and I mean literally, a priori, cannot have leftist traditionalism. And this can't, in principle, be up for debate. It is a contradiction in terms. It is like saying "liquid ice" or "a married bachelor." This isn't a rightist claim to Traditionalism, this is simply the definition and formulation of Traditionalism given by Guenon and Evola. It is an absolute mistake - one that reveals a trenchant modernism - to think that any critique of capitalism must come from the left, and if you don't believe me, I simply direct you to the aforementioned authors. Capitalism is the civilization of the Third Estate, of liberal democracy, the civilization of the merchant, by the merchant, and for the merchant. Traditionalism opposes this not from the base, irrationalist proletarian side, but from above, restoring to society the proper dominance of the warrior-aristocratic ideal and the sacred above that. Traditionalist critiques don't degrade the worker; they lament the enslavement of the worker to the materialist ends of capitalist society and bemoan the subsequent loss of his dignity (they don't support a workers' state, of course, since it is not in the worker's nature to rule). Any Traditionalist agrees to the subhuman nature of consumerism/capitalism.
There can be "right" and "left" views of Tradition, yes. The rightist views of Tradition will cohere it to the extent that "right-wing" doesn't merely mean the bourgeois capitalist "conservatism" of today. The left-wing, by definition the forces of progress and change, cannot even in theory comport with an ounce of positive Traditionalist doctrine. This isn't to say they can't agree with Traditionalists about an abstract fact like "capitalism is degrading," but that their metaphysical presuppositions absolutely preclude any possibility whatsoever that they could agree as regards how to solve the problems or society or what an ideal society even looks like. Progress, mass society, egalitarianism, class conflict, humanism, democracy, etc. are all fundamentally opposed to Tradition.
The takeaway here is that egalitarian presuppositions about human nature (and thus how to properly order society) are utterly incompatible with the world's deep religious traditions. And I can't think of a single world tradition that considers progress-for-the-sake-of-progress (progress here meaning forward motion change) to be an inherently-positive value. Any honest Leftist who knows their stuff will unequivocally declare religious traditions to be a reactionary force and at odds with the sort of materialist utopian aspirations which underpin all forms of Leftist thought.
And I'd say the grand takeaway here is that people should spend more time acquiring knowledge and having internal dialogues about what they learn, before going around and loudly declaring themselves to be proponents/allies/supporters of this-or-that big idea.
