Dodaj do ulubionych

dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych...

04.02.05, 15:10
...zainteresowanych dyskusja o lewicy i prawicy

The end of left and right


Is Osama bin Laden left-wing or right-wing? How about Robert Mugabe? Who has
a more left-wing approach to women’s sexuality: Pope John Paul or Hustler
magazine? Consider Fidel Castro. He persecutes homosexuals, crushes trade
unions, forbids democratic elections, executes opponents and criminals, is a
billionaire in a country of very poor people and has decreed that a member of
his family shall succeed him in power. Is Castro left-wing or right-wing?
Explain your answer.

The great intellectual curse of the French Revolution, which has crippled
political thought for more than two centuries, was the reduction of all
discourse into ‘left’ and ‘right’. From the beginning it was an infantile
notion that replaced rational argument with a playground division into two
gangs who understood nothing clearly except how much they hated each other.
Despite the fact that nobody has ever been able to define the beliefs
of ‘left’ and ‘right’ or the differences between them, this has not stopped
political humanity joining these sides and facing each other with all the
fury of Lilliput and Blefuscu fighting over whether to break eggs at the big
end or small end. The resulting feuding has been sterile and idiotic. It has
stymied political philosophy. It must end if we are to progress with rational
politics, and I believe the only way this can happen is if some major actor
enters the world stage with such gigantic contradictions that he throws
political analysis into confusion and breaks the moulds of ‘left’
and ‘right’. I believe this saviour has now arrived.

Before announcing him, I should like to spend a paragraph or two grinding out
the illogic of ‘left’ and ‘right’. Take the notions of privilege and
equality. Is rule by a privileged elite right-wing? If so, communism, which
always results in rule by a tiny governing group that has exclusive power and
privilege quite unknown to the rulers in capitalist countries, must be very
right-wing. Is the proletariat more left-wing than the aristocracy and
bourgeoisie? For example, are the views of a London taxi-driver on
immigration and homosexual marriage more left-wing than those of Prince
Charles?

What is the meaning of ‘He is to the right of Attila the Hun’? Was Attila
right-wing because he was violent and cruel? Lenin was more violent and
cruel. Is Lenin to the right of Attila the Hun?

Some owl, from the Economist, I think, wrote, ‘The right believe in economic
freedom, the left in personal freedom.’ Very well, a key economic freedom is
free movement of labour and a key personal freedom is the right to own a
firearm. So, does a right-wing Englishman believe people from Africa should
have unlimited right to enter Britain looking for work, and does a left-wing
Englishman believe all Britons should have the right to carry revolvers?

What about the free market and state control? Are regimes left-wing or right-
wing when the economy is heavily controlled by the state, such as the Soviet
Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba and apartheid South Africa? Is it left-
wing or right-wing to believe in free trade, like Adam Smith and Karl Marx?
When the movement of citizens within a country is controlled by internal
passports, such as in the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa, is this a
measure of the left or the right? Is it left-wing or right-wing to hate
capitalism, like Hitler, Lenin and the fathers of apartheid?

Is internationalism more right-wing than nationalism? Internationalist people
and organisations include Adam Smith, Coca Cola, Karl Marx, McDonald’s,
Trotsky, Microsoft, the United Nations, Toyota and the World Trade
Organisation. Those opposed to internationalism include Hitler, the anti-
globalisation demonstrators, Verwoerd, Stalin and Naomi Klein. I was in
England for the 1975 referendum on whether Britain should stay in Europe. On
the No side were Enoch Powell, Tony Benn, Ian Paisley, Michael Foot, the
Communist party and the National Front. On the Yes side were Harold Wilson,
Edward Heath and grandees from the Labour and Conservative parties. Which was
the left-wing side?

How about attitudes towards the weak and the strong? Does the left or the
right protect the strong but not the weak? Take the extreme examples of each —
an unborn baby and an adult murderer. Is it very right-wing to allow the
killing of the innocent baby but not the killing of the guilty adult?

Would you classify as left or right the Englishman in the last century who
urged a massive increase in public spending and made the most radical
proposal for a national health scheme that Britain had ever seen? I refer, of
course, to Oswald Mosley, the fascist leader.

Is racism left-wing or right-wing? Pol Pot established an extreme version of
communism in Cambodia and proceeded to slaughter the minority races,
including the Vietnamese. His genocide was proportionally on a par with
Hitler’s. Was he an extreme left-winger? Was Hitler too? Is it left-wing or
right-wing to legislate to reduce the representation of a minority race in
the professions, as was done by Hitler in Germany against the Jews and by the
ANC in South Africa against the whites? The 1922 slogan of the Communist
party in South Africa was ‘Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White
South Africa!’ Was this a left-wing slogan?

When the forces of radical change meet the forces of ancient privilege, which
side is left and which side is right? The most revolutionary British prime
minister of the 20th century was Margaret Thatcher, who brought sweeping
changes and confronted forces of tradition, the trade unions, that had
privileges going back to the Middle Ages. Who was left-wing — Thatcher or the
unions?

Is it left-wing or right-wing to rebel against imperialism? Was Paul Kruger,
who led the most serious armed rebellion against the British empire, a left-
winger? Consider personal habits. Is it left-wing or right-wing to be a
vegetarian, teetotaller and animal lover (Hitler)? To enjoy boxing and
shooting animals (Nelson Mandela)? What about authority versus
permissiveness? Nazis and communists love ‘discipline’. Is this an attitude
of the right or the left? What about censorship versus free speech? Is it
left-wing or right-wing to believe strongly in censorship; say, wanting to
prevent publication of a report that suggests that certain races have higher
IQs than others?

I could go on and on. The fact is that the terms ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’
are meaningless. When people fail to define these terms, they sometimes
resort to the foolish argument, ‘You cannot define an elephant but you know
one when you see one.’ Of course you can define an elephant: an elephant is a
mammal with a trunk and an average adult weight of over three tons. People
can neither define ‘left’ and ‘right’ nor recognise left-wing or right-wing
philosophies when they see them, because they never see them. They do not
exist.

All that exists is a bogus division into two groups who lay aside the effort
of thought for the lazy indulgence of hatred. The terms of abuse each side
hurls at the other are the same, and so are the terms of affection each side
reserves for itself. ‘I’m a right-wing bastard’ means exactly the same
as ‘I’m a left-wing bastard’. It means, ‘I’m an adorable brute.’

There seems to be some inherent flaw in the human brain that encourages
people to fissure into two groups who loathe each other. Almost a
Obserwuj wątek
    • manny_ramirez Re: cd artykulu 04.02.05, 15:12
      There seems to be some inherent flaw in the human brain that encourages people
      to fissure into two groups who loathe each other. Almost any argument in
      politics, religion or science soon results in two warring parties accusing each
      other of heresy, apostasy, false belief, treachery and being rotters. This is
      destructive to progress and knowledge. There are practical reasons why physical
      organisations such as political parties might have to separate into mutually
      hostile groups, but there is no reason why thought and philosophy should do the
      same. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ must end, and I believe the agent of their demise has
      arrived.

      He is, of course, George Bush. President Bush the Second is so magnificently
      paradoxical that he could smash the silly consensus of political division. He
      stands for limited government but has greatly increased government spending.
      His party favours free trade but he has introduced firm protectionist measures
      for American steel and agriculture. His tradition is a balanced budget and
      honest money but under him the American deficit has increased enormously and
      the dollar is sinking like a stone. Above all, his absurd war in Iraq cuts
      right across political philosophies.

      It was clear from the start that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass
      destruction, had nothing to do with September 11 and posed no direct threat to
      America or its treaty allies. The war was for one reason only: to do good in
      the world. This is an extremely dangerous and unsound reason for going to war.
      It belongs to thinkers such as Leon Trotsky and J.F. Kennedy, who until now
      were thought of as belonging to quite different camps from Bush. The war has
      caused ‘left’ and ‘right’ to be both for it and against it.

      In the short term, Bush has caused more polarisation than ever, with two groups
      of voters in America being moved mainly by how much they dislike each other.
      Personally, I should have voted for Kerry but I must admit that the sight of
      Michael Moore’s unctuous face might have driven me towards Bush. However, when
      the people of America and the world really look at Bush and what he is doing,
      it surely must break up the existing political consensus and existing political
      divisions.

      It would be so fruitful if we could scrap phoney political divisions and look
      at real ones. The most important real one is between those who believe in a lot
      of state control and those who believe in a little. An accurate term for the
      former is ‘socialist’. On one socialist extreme are the communists and National
      Socialists (Tweedledum and Tweedledee). On the other are the Social Democrats,
      such as the British Labour party. An accurate term for those who believe in
      minimal state control is ‘liberal’. Liberals put liberty as the highest
      political good and believe in equal opportunities and limited government.
      Liberals are suspicious of power; socialists admire it. (In America, ‘liberal’
      means ‘socialist’.) The term ‘conservative’ is much more complicated and
      deserves thoughtful investigation.

      Differences between people are many and various and seldom mutually inclusive.
      Personally I support capitalism, reject socialism, like cats, dislike dogs,
      love quiet and hate pounding pop music. I should rather live next to a
      socialist with a cat than a capitalist with a dog; and much, much rather a
      socialist with a dog who was silent than a capitalist with a cat who played rap
      music. As for whether either called himself ‘left’ or ‘right’, I could not give
      a row of beans.
      • ghotir do manny_ramirez 04.02.05, 15:55
        czyzbys szukal dodatkowych watkow do jakiejs pracy naukowej?
        masz racje, ze podzial na left i right jest niewlasciwy. co jednak myslisz o
        podziale na elitaryzm i egalitaryzm? Nie uprosciloby Ci to sprawy?
        • manny_ramirez Re: do manny_ramirez 04.02.05, 16:01
          1. zeby bylo jasne i zeby nie wygladalo ze plagiatuje== artykul jest ze
          Spectatora
          2. Co mnie interesuje to wlasnie jak zrozumiec podzial na lewice i prawice. Dla
          mnie np. NSDAP i hitleryzm to czysta lewica jakby uzasadniac to teoretycznie (
          i na razie nie bede szczegolowo tego tu uzasadnial ale moge), ale z powodu
          asociacji z nacjonalizmem kwalifikuje sie go jako prawice. Dyskusyjne
          3. elitaryzm i egalitaryzm=nie wiem czyby uproscilo

          jeden szybki przyklad

          komunisci w teorii byli egalitarystami, a w praktyce elitystami, takich roznic
          w dochodach jak miedzy komunistyczna elita i reszta spoleczenstwa panstwa
          kapitalistyczne jeszcze sie nie dorobily do dzisiaj. Wiec jak kwalifikujemy
          komunistow; jako centrum???
          • ghotir Re: do manny_ramirez 07.02.05, 02:51
            nie bardzo moglem odpowiedziec na Twoja poczte bo probowalem trzymac wnuki z
            daleka od mojego studia. wlasnie sobie pojechaly wiec mam troche czasu
            (dodatkowo przypilony Twoja poczta do mnie na innym forum).
            ja widze podzial na lewice i prawice jako umowny, wynikajacy z pozycji siedzenia
            (doslownie) partii politycznych w parlamencie. poza tym, prawica i lewica maja
            te same korzenie (macpherson) wiec podzial rzeczywiscie wydaje sie umowny.
            elitaryzm i egalitaryzm nie uprosci podzialu na prawice i lewice tak dlugo jak
            pozostajemy w korzeniach komunizmu i liberalizmu. ja proponuje zastapienie tego
            podzialu podzialem na elitaryzm i egalitaryzm z nawiazaniem do oswiecenia tak
            samo jak do praktyki ostatnich 200 lat, ktora wynikla z tegoz oswiecenia;
            konkretnie, do faktu ze regimy lewicowe okazaly sie takze elitystyczne. Mamy
            przyklady tego nie tylko w europejskiej praktyce lewicowej, ale takze w chinach,
            wietnamie i na kubie, m.in.
            dla mojego wlasnego uzytku przeksztalcilem podzial lewica/prawica w podzial
            elitaryzm/egalitaryzm. tak jak w pierwszym przypadku, nie jest to podzial
            eksluzywny, jednak istnieje dosc duza roznica miedzy rzadami w wenezueli i w
            argentynie dokladnie dlatego, ze jeden probuje zadbac (troche) o interesy
            najbiedniejszych kiedy drugi dba prawie ekskluzynie o interesy najbogatszych. to
            samo moglibysmy powiedziec o roznicy miedzy rzadami chin pod wladza mao i teraz,
            jakkolwiek oba wciaz nazywaja sie lewicowe.
            jednak nie dajmy sie zasugerowac propaganda liberalna: naprawde myslisz ze
            roznice dochodow miedzy polskim aparatczykiem a reszta ludnosci byly
            porownywalne do roznic dochodow miedzy amerykanskimi CEO i tzw. 'middle class'?
            mozna nie lubic komunizmu sowieckiego i nie wierzyc statystyce, ale zeby az do
            takiego stopnia?
            to co powyzej wciaz brzmi chaotycznie (wciaz jestem pod wrazeniem wnukow).
            obiecuje, ze sie wlacze na to forun za kilka dni. jezeli ten watek nie przetrwa
            to Cie znajde przez poczte wyborczej, OK?
            na marginesie, wyglada na to ze ten watek wygenerowal troche wiecej niz wzajemne
            obelgi na forum, ktorego istnienia zdawales sie bronic. troche obawiam sie ze
            ten watek moze nie przetrwac, w przeciwienstwie do tamtego (internetowy znak
            usmiechu, ktorego nie udalo mi sie nauczyc). Pozdrowienia.
        • manny_ramirez Re: do ghotir 04.02.05, 17:18
          weekarzu odpisz jakbys mial czas bo ciekawy twych spostrzen jestem w tej sprawie
    • another.senor Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:20
      ciekawe pytania, ale jak chcesz, zeby tomson wzial w tym udzial i watek dobrze
      sie podbijal, to przetlumacz, przynajmniej glowne tezy, na polski.

      with the best greatings para todos loros
      • manny_ramirez Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:23
        Niech sie tomson sam potrudzi, Na zdrowie mu wyjdzie , Mniej o chwalebnej
        historii UB bedzie mial czasu myslec

        a czemuz to tak papuzki witasz?
        • another.senor Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:30
          alez skad, witam tylko wiekszosc milych uczestnikow tego forum...

          PS. kurcze, dostalem sie w koncu na tkzw. "liste wildsteina".

          to taki ladny wierszyk - zamiast komentarza:

          jak sie czemus dziwisz, to nie mow.
          jak juz musisz powiedziec, to przynajmniej nie pisz.
          jak juz musisz napisac, to sie nie podpisuj.
          a jak sie podpiszesz, to potem sie nie dziw.
          • manny_ramirez Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:31
            GRATULACJE
            • manny_ramirez Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:32
              Za awans na liste oczywiscie
              a wierszyk jakzesz prawdziwy.....
              • another.senor Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 15:35
                pospieszyles sie!
                w zyciu, podpisalem tylko jedna rzecz! - umowe malzenska.
                i tez o jeden podpis za duzo.
                • abigeil4 Re: dla tocqueville'a, guevary, i innych... 04.02.05, 17:22
                  mowisz o rozdzielnosci majatkowej?To dobra rzecz,docenisz po latach
Inne wątki na temat:

Nie masz jeszcze konta? Zarejestruj się


Nakarm Pajacyka