Outcomes of societal disequilibrium: Far Left, Far Centre, and Far Right

In a situation of societal disequilibrium such as that which preceded the regimes of Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar, the political centre ceased to enjoy the respect of the people in such wise as to drain it of vitality by migration to various ideological extremes. These strident extremes proposed themselves as solutions to a perceived abnegation or absence of moral authority in the centre which one might understand in Chinese terms as losing the Mandate of Heaven. The various proposals -- such as the Far Right, the Far Centre, and the Far Left -- variously smelled the blood of the centre in the water and knew with absolute certainty that they had best exert themselves or lose out to another proposal, with approximately the same consequences as often befell competitors for a kingdom's throne: losing it all, up to and including their heads. 

The array of Far Right, Far Centre, and Far Left may be understood as a sort of tripod with adjustable legs which necessarily differs from disequilibrium to disequilibrium; such that a given system such as that of pre-Revolutionary Portugal may enjoy a preponderance of zealous migration from the abnegated centre to the Far Centre, which fruits in the Hard Centre; as for instance the Estado Novo, reign of the noble António de Oliveira Salazar. Otherwise stated, the Estado Novo which emerged from Portugal's societal disequilibrium benefitted the most from general dissatisfaction with and recognition of the impotence of the abnegated and abandoned centre; being at the expense of the Far Right, which fruits in the Hard Right, and the Far Left, which fruits in the Hard Left.

You are looking at someone whom one can genuinely and without any mockery refer to as "His excellency", which is the title by which Wikipedia address him. He -- and the gentleman and gentlemen who confided the Empire of Portugal into his power -- exercised a restraint in the conduct of their duty almost unprecedented in the history of absolute power's exercise. His noble leadership deserves the respect and scrutiny of the world, which can learn much from his firm magnanimity. But more profitably than focusing on a person, even a noble one, is understanding that he is about the best you can expect of the category identified above as the Far Centre, which fruits in the Hard Center. Other examples of this ideological extreme include the 20th century military dictatorship of Brazil and also that of Greece. The Far-Hard Centre represents the best possible outcome to societal disequilibrium after a return to equilibrium, a resumption of moral authority and societal approval by the embattled and drained political centre.

Naturally a return to equilibrium may occur -- and indeed did occur --- in other nations during the same ideologically polarised rapids of history as refracted through varying national conditions and distributions of polarisation. Examples of returns to equilibrium include the continuance in power of the same system of government in nations such as the United States ('labour wars') and the UK ('street battles') which experienced similar outbreaks of serious ideologically polarised violence. These street battles and fraught polarisations occurred indeed across much of the world, with even New Zealand experiencing two serious shocks to the social order in 1932 and 1951 the outcome of which was a return to societal equilibrium and renewed confidence in the political centre as well by default as the system of government in place. 

You are looking into a window in time, into something called the Angry Autumn. New Zealand, 1932: the country came possibly the closest that it ever has -- excepting perhaps the Waterfront Dispute of 1951 and certain other events one will not go into great detail about -- to becoming a different socioeconomic system as a result of loss of confidence in the political centre and obtaining system and consequent migration to extremes; and not only to extremes but to extremes of expression and vitriol. As NZhistory.org says, "The dispute took place in a climate of Cold War suspicion. The opposing sides denounced each other as Nazis, Commies, traitors and terrorists. It polarised politics and split the union movement, leaving a bitter legacy that lingers to this day". As in the lead-up to the American Civil War, one of the prime markers of societal disequilibrium with attendant loss of confidence in the social order is a profound drop in civility even in legislatures, let alone elsewhere; with representatives in legislatures not only calling one another vicious names but even assaulting one another physically.

"Illustration of Judge David S. Terry stabbing S.A. Hopkins of the Vigilance Committee in 1856" (newrepublic.com).

Everyone already knows about various representatives of the Hard Right (Hitler, Mussolini) and the Hard Left (Lenin, Mao), so one will not go into great detail about either ideological extreme at this time. The pole most profitable to consider has been examined, without exhausting it. So one would like to emphasise at this time that this model is to be useful and not a dogma, a tool and not a straitjacket. People must examine local conditions in order to establish the contents of a given state of societal disequilibrium, not just blindly apply this tool without modification. For example, one would not cram the regime of Franco into any of the three ideological extremes one mentioned; which would constitute the refusal of an opportunity to learn more. One would rather emphasise that Franco's Spain migrated from a flirtation with the Hard Right (specifically Hitler and Mussolini) towards a flirtation with the Hard Centre (specifically the excellent influence of his admired friend and fellow dictator Salazar). 

One would also note that other variables such as foreign war, civil war, and insurrectionary-foreign war complicate the societal disequilibrium in ways which must be taken into account, again according to local conditions. Everyone already knows the identity of the foreign and civil wars, so one will skip directly to insurrectionary-foreign war; this potential confounding variable involves the simultaneous incidence of foreign war and insurrectionary war at one and the same time. This situation obtained at approximately the moment that Wilhelmine Germany was simultaneously engaged in a losing foreign war and facing a domestic revolution; this exact same situation obtained in Tsarist Russia, which faced the same insurrectionary-foreign problem as the nation which defeated it, and was then likewise defeated in its turn.

One surely does not need to point out that we are presently in a state of societal disequilibrium, and that these considerations matter very much even as they must not be understood to exhaust the perfect storm of circumstances upon us. The present situation involves variables ranging from automation to idleness, overpopulation, geometric growth, resource scarcity, and decline in energy returned on energy invested; each of which variables may be unpacked still further to their dynamic components and potentials (as for instance the possible existence of novel extraction technologies and new sources of energy, or the emergence of an unexpected drop in the birth rate).  But one would particularly draw everyone's attention to a particularly important yet singularly unremarked characteristic of these extraordinary times: the inability of the former directive class, which we know of as managers in Capitalist-Western countries and apparatchiks in Marxist-Leninist countries, to understand and consequently manage the rapidity and complexity of this riveting situation. 

This man is the little-known historian Boris Mouravieff, a member of the same exceptionally able Mouravieff family as the first New Church missionary to Russia, General Alexander Mouravieff; on account of whose influence the Writings exerted a large effect on the ideas and development of the man pictured above, who is best known as an associate of Ouspensky and Gurdjieff, effectively constituting the overtly Christian wing of a system known as the 4th Way. Quite a few people have been impacted by both systems -- those of New Church and 4th Way, such as thegodguy.wordpress.com -- and this comes as no surprise given the likelihood if not the certainty that the Writings influenced all three of these men. In any case, one did not bring Boris Mouravieff up in order to explore the New Church angle as such, which one mentions in passing for its topical interest. 

Rather, one wishes to draw your attention to a model which he constructed to explore what he saw as an inevitable and future crisis of automation and idleness; which would simultaneously render money and the old ideological competitors such as the Capitalist-Western and Marxist-Leninist managers and apparatchiks obsolete at a stroke. He compared this hypothetical moment in history to the phasing out of the Medieval knights due to new demands on the directive class which they were unable either to comprehend or to handle. As we know, the directive class which emerged out of this necessity for a new variety thereof could both comprehend and manage the exigency of industrial civilisation's initial development. Up to now these people have managed, for instance, corporations, thinktanks, NGOs, foundations, universities, and SOEs (State-Owned Enterprises). Now, however, these people whom we (mainly due to inertia) think capable of running the planet neither understand nor consequently are capable of managing the new exigencies of contemporary civilisation. The proof of this insufficiency lies one contends in why they simultaneously seem to fear AI and embrace AI, as though they know no other response to a situation thus complex than to envisage a clearer capacity to handle the situation than they themselves possess. Quite!