“THE POLITICAL LEFT” AND “THE POLITICAL
RIGHT” – WORSE THAN USELESS ANTI-CONCEPTS
Some leading Objectivists (e.g. Harry
Binswanger, Craig Biddle) have argued that the members of the Objectivist
movement should invest some of their time, effort and credibility in the
daunting task of “reclaiming” the concepts “the political right” and “the
political left”. These leading Objectivists have suggested that grassroots
Objectivists should fight an intellectual battle to convince the public that
the concepts “political right” and “political left” really refer to
capitalism and statism respectively. So that the advocates of capitalism would
constitute the political right, and everybody else (Communists, socialists,
welfare statists, conservatives, libertarians, fascists) would constitute the
political left in daily political discourse.
Now, is the above proposal a good or a
bad idea? And is it justified by the facts of reality?
Let us begin by considering some facts
of reality.
THE ORIGIN OF THE TWIN CONCEPTS
The twin concepts “political right” and
“political left” were originally created shortly after the French Revolution.
In France towards the end of the 18th century there was a “National
Assembly” (i.e. a French version of a parliament). It just so happened that in
the chamber of the National Assembly, all of the representatives of the
revolution were seated on the left side of the chamber and all of the
representatives of the “Ancien Régime” (i.e. the old system of
feudalism/aristocracy) were seated on the right side of the chamber. For these
reasons political commentators in Europe at the time adopted the convention of
referring to the revolutionaries as “the political left” and the
representatives of the Ancien Régime as “the political right”.
Now - how in the world can this state of
affairs be taken as meaning that “the political right” refers to capitalism
whereas “the political left” refers to statism? The representatives of the
Ancien Régime were advocates of a form of extreme statism! They were in no
way whatsoever radicals for liberty! They were advocates of something along the
lines of reactionary feudalism.
As for the concept "political left", the French revolutionaries certainly were statists (the French Revolution quickly developed into the bloody tyranny of the "Terror" of Robespierre) - just like the representatives of the Ancien Régime - only they constituted a different variety of statism.
So, the facts of reality do not support the assertion of some Objectivists that the concepts "political right" refers to capitalism, in contradistinction to the concept "political left". Both of the concepts political right and the political left, historically, originated as referring to variants of statism.
“THE POLITCAL RIGHT” AND “THE POLITICAL
LEFT” ARE ANTI-CONCEPTS
An anti-concept is a useless and invalid
concept which is intended to obliterate a legitimate concept. The anti-concept
is formed by means elevating a non-essential characteristic of the referents to
the status of fundamental and essential characteristic.
Well, the purpose of the twin concepts
“political right” and “political left” is to obliterate the distinction between
capitalism and statism. According to the political right/political left
dichotomy all political systems/ideologies are statist. And so, we are left
with the unpleasant task of choosing which form of statism is the best, or at least the least bad.
This is how it works:
When the concepts “political left” and
“political right” were originally formed at the end of the 18th
century, they referred to two somewhat different forms of statism. The
political left were champions of an allegedly “new” and “progressive” statism – whereas the
political right were the champions of the old-fashioned, reactionary statism.
So, the distinction between the political right and the political left was made
according to a non-essential characteristic: the issue of, not liberty versus
statism, but of egalitarianism versus “anti-egalitarianism”. The political
left consisted of the egalitarian statists, who were perceived as wishing to
promote the interests of the “weak” (i.e. the lower classes, the poor) at the
expense of the “strong” (i.e. the upper classes, the rich). The political right
on the other hand consisted of the “anti-egalitarian” statists, who were
perceived as wishing to promote the interests of the “strong” (i.e. the upper
classes, the rich) at the expense of the “weak” (i.e. the lower classes, the
poor).
Of course, the fundamental issue in
politics is the issue of liberty versus tyranny. So, the two fundamental
alternatives in politics are capitalism and statism. The issue of
egalitarianism versus “anti-egalitarianism” is merely a distraction, a source
of confusion.
But everyone today (almost) takes
statism for granted and believes that the basic question in politics really is:
Should the government sacrifice the weak for the sake of the strong (fascism, conservatism - i.e. the political right) - or should the government instead
sacrifice the strong for the sake of the weak (communism, socialism,
welfare statism - i.e. the political left). The non-essential, non-fundamental issue
of egalitarianism versus "anti-egalitarianism" has come to “crowd out” the truly
crucial issue of liberty versus statism. The political right/political left
dichotomy presupposes that the government must sacrifice somebody for the sake
of somebody else, and that the only question is “Who gets sacrificed to whom?” Thus, the concept of “a society without sacrifice" (i.e. a society of individual
rights) had been obliterated by the twin anti-concepts political left and political right.
Notice that the political systems which
are said to be most extremely on the right and most extremely on the left respectively are the
very ones which are perceived to be most extremely “anti-egalitarian” and most egalitarian respectively. Fascism is said to be the most extreme form of
right-wing politics, conservatism is said to be less extremely right-wing and
classical liberalism is said to be somewhat right-wing. And on the left,
Communism is said to be the most extreme form of left-wing type of politics,
socialism is said to be less extremely left-wing and the Social Democrat
welfare statists are said to be somewhat left-wing. Evidently, more extreme
egalitarianism equates with more extreme “leftism” and more extreme
“anti-egalitarianism” equates with allegedly being more extremely right-wing (the classical liberals were relatively consistent advocates of liberty - but they are mistakenly perceived as being advocates of privilege for the rich).
Now, most members of the public will
tell you that capitalism is a political system which is located on the
“political right”. But they tell you that for the wrong reasons. Most members of the public today take it for granted
that the reason capitalism belongs on the political right is that capitalism
entails the strong preying on the weak. According to the conventional view,
“the rich and powerful” receive all sorts of unfair privileges from the
government at the expense of the “man on the street” in a capitalist society.
The government is allegedly allied with the rich in a capitalist society.
Now, surely the world´s genuine advocates of capitalism should not chime in and say, “Oh yes, we agree – capitalism is located on the `political right´!”
Now, surely the world´s genuine advocates of capitalism should not chime in and say, “Oh yes, we agree – capitalism is located on the `political right´!”
This bad state of affairs is what the influence of the
anti-concepts “political right” and “political left” have accomplished
(together with the influence of modern philosophy in general, of course).
Now, should the world´s Objectivists
embark on a crusade to “reclaim” and “rehabilitate” the anti-concept “the
political right”? Should they fight to make “political right” synonymous with
“capitalism”?
Why, oh why?
Why, oh why?
RAND´S RAZOR
Here we need Rand´s Razor. “Concepts are
not to be multiplied beyond necessity” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
Well, are the concepts “political right” and “political left” necessary?
No! For we already have the concepts
capitalism and statism. Why refer to capitalism in a “roundabout” way by saying
“political right” whenever we really mean “capitalism”? Why not just say what we mean – namely “capitalism”? That is much simpler and
makes everything more crystal clear! And why refer to statism in a “roundabout”
way by saying “political left” whenever we really mean “statism”? Why not just say “statism”? Why beat around the bush and
talk about “right” versus “left” when we really mean liberty versus tyranny?
The obvious application of Rand´s Razor
here is that using two concepts (capitalism and statism) to refer to two things
in reality - that is more economical and rational than instead using four
concepts (capitalism and political
right - and statism and political left) to refer to the
same two things!
WHAT TO DO
So, my advice to all advocates of
capitalism is: don´t use the terms “political right” and “political left”.
Identify yourself as “a radical for capitalism”. And identify the so-called
leftists as “statists – who are therefore enemies of liberty”. True advocates
of capitalism should patiently explain to whichever members of the public are
willing to listen that “the political right” and “the political left” are in
fact anti-concepts which are worse than useless - since they bring on confusion
by conflating capitalism with various flavours of statism (e.g. conservatism
and even fascism) and since they smuggle the idea into the culture that the
government must sacrifice somebody to somebody else.
Genuine advocates of capitalism should
fight to have the anti-concepts “political right” and “political left” purged from all political discourse.
For - who needs anti-concepts?!
No comments:
Post a Comment