(The following is taken from The
Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical Assault on America’s Future, by
David Horowitz
(1998).
In a speech to a meeting of "Democratic
Russia," delivered in Moscow on June 1, 1991, a year after the dissolution
of the Soviet Union, Boris
Yeltsin described the catastrophe that had befallen his nation:
"Our country has not been
lucky. It was decided to carry out this Marxist experiment on us. It has
simply pushed us off the path the world’s civilized countries have taken....In
the end, we proved that there is no place for this idea."
For the Left outside the former Soviet
Union, this verdict is still inconceivable. To embrace it, would be to
make peace with the enemy -- the democracies of the West. It would mean
the dissolution of its own identity as a Left. Indeed, what is troubling
to the community of the Left is not the catastrophe of Soviet socialism,
so much as the idea that this history should culminate in disenchantment
with the utopian project. What the Left cannot face is the prospect that
an understanding of this century of revolutionary grief should lead, finally,
to conservative conclusions: to reconciliation to the finite parameters
of the human condition; the unavoidable conflicts and inevitable insufficiencies
that make up ordinary social unhappiness. In other words: Acceptance of
who and what we are.
What troubles the radical heart, finally,
is the sense of limits that such understanding provokes. For to be a revolutionary
is to live with a sense of social horizons that are literally without end.
To be sure, large contingents of the
Left are now prepared to concede a great deal that previously would have
been unthinkable to them: the failure of Marxism, the evils of Communism,
even the taint that socialism has incurred by its genetic involvement with
both. But even leftists who concede as much still do not want to give up
the noble ambitions behind the tarnished hope. They will give up the socialist
past, but not the socialist future; they will distance themselves from
the totalitarian temptation, while continuing to embrace the radical cause.
In fact, it is not giving up
the socialist idea that haunts today’s progressives so much as it is conceding
the argument to their lifelong opponents. It is the thought of becoming
one of them that is repellent, not just a chastened missionary of
the radical cause but a counter-revolutionary of the Right. This
is the term of surrender that sticks in their throats, the nightmare vision
that troubles their sleep and keeps their broken faith intact. To abandon
a lifetime’s loyalties, to become a conservative; where is the romance
in that? What would remain of their progressive hopes, their desire for
justice, their sense of themselves as a chosen vanguard, if they were to
take this unthinkable step?
What remains then of the division between
Left and Right that has so defined our political lives? The terms are more
than just a vestigial homage to 1789. They identify historical attitudes
and traditions -- the parties who have contended over the fate of modernity
ever since. They recall the scars of battles won and lost, of aspirations
realized and deferred. It is through them that we locate our historical
forebears in the struggles for justice and human freedom, and it is through
their causes that we assess our humanity and measure who we are.
Or have, until now. For with the fall
of Communism we have reached a turning point in our collective lives. The
history of revolutionary modernity -- this narrative through which we have
traditionally located our social selves -- has finally come to a close.
The tearing down of the Berlin Wall marked the end of the modern epoch
as surely as the fall of the Bastille marked its beginning two centuries
ago. Like all endings, this changes our understanding of what went before.
It is now impossible to console ourselves
any longer with the illusion that socialism might have worked if only this
path or that panacea had been tried. In our lifetime, the revolutions of
the Left have created despotisms and oppressions that dwarf all others
on human record. Yet, to the diehards of the radical culture, "Left" still
evokes the idealism of a "progressive" cause, while "Right" remains synonymous
with social reaction. It is time for a change in our understanding of the
terms themselves.
In what sense can a bankrupt idea be
called "progressive"? For two centuries the socialist idea -- the future
promise that justifies the present sacrifice -- has functioned as a blank
check for the violence and injustice associated with efforts to achieve
it. The "experiments" may have failed – so go the apologies for the Left
-- but the intentions that launched them were idealistic and noble. But
it is no longer really possible to hold up the socialist fantasy to justify
the destructive assaults on existing societies which, whatever their faults,
were less oppressive than the revolutionary "solutions" that followed their
demise. The failed "experiments" of the Left and its divisive crusades
must be seen now for what they are: bloody exercises in civil nihilism;
violent pursuits of empty hopes; revolutionary
actes gratuites that
were doomed to fail from the start.
Historical perspective imposes on us
a new standard of judgment. Because they were doomed from their origin
and destructive by design, these revolutionary gestures now stand condemned
by morality and justice in their conception and not merely in their
result. If there was a "party of humanity" in the civil wars that the Left’s
ambitions provoked in the past, it was on the other side of the political
barricades. In these battles, the enlightened parties were those who defended
democratic process and civil order against the greater barbarism that,
as we now know for certain, the radical future entailed.
The term "counter-revolutionary," that
leftists find so difficult to digest, is really a litmus of their failure
to understand the history they have lived. In our time, a hundred million
people have been slaughtered in the revolutions of the Left with no positive
result, while millions more have been buried alive. Beyond the iron curtains
of the socialist empires, whole cultures were desecrated, civilizations
destroyed and generations deprived of the barest essentials of a tolerable
life. Yet the epithet "counter-revolutionary" still strikes progressives,
who supported these empires, as a term of political opprobrium and moral
disgrace. What this history shows, however, is that "counter-revolution"
is a name for moral sanity and human decency, a term for resistance to
the epic depredations of dreamers like them.
The very word "counter-revolutionary"
was invented by the virtuous terrorists of the French Revolution to stigmatize
their opponents on the way to the guillotine. The first "counter-revolutionaries"
were in fact the very people in whose name the revolution had triumphed,
the Catholic peasants of the Vendee. A quarter of a million such enemies
of the radical future were slaughtered in the Jacobin Terror of the revolutionary
Year II. The peasants of the Vendee were not opposed to the changes of
1789 -- the constitutional reforms of the Monarchy, the Declaration of
the Rights of Man, the enfranchisement of the Third Estate -- but to the
revolutionary dictatorship that followed. It was the new liberated order,
the Republic of Virtue and the Cult of Reason (and the Reign of Terror
required to make its citizens reasonable and virtuous) that inspired their
resistance and made them counter-revolutionary.
Abroad, the chief apostle of the counter-revolution
-- the English liberal Edmund Burke -- was also not an opponent of political
reform or the establishment of a republic, but of the radical attempt to
transform society after these reforms, to recreate it de novo. It
is this
totalitarian
ambition -- to reject the past and remake humanity
-- that has triggered the opposition of counter-revolutionaries ever since.
The Leninist creators of the Soviet
Union were self-conscious heirs of the Jacobin vanguard who saw in their
revolutionary conquest an effort to complete the transformation that Robespierre
had only begun. In exterminating the "enemies of the people," the Leninists
found the term counter-revolutionary an indispensable weapon. They
used it first to discredit the liberals who opposed their October coup
against the democracy that had replaced the Czarist regime. They applied
it then to their Menshevik rivals -- to anarchists, Kronstadters, Oppositionists,
Trotskyists, Bukharinites, even anti-Stalin Stalinists -- and, ultimately,
to every recalcitrant soul who stood in the path of their revolutionary
dreams. Like their Jacobin heroes, the Leninists also created an empire
that was Napoleonic in scope. But seventy years after the creation, its
subjects rose en masse -- in the largest counter-revolution in human
history -- to put an end to the Marxist epoch.
Nearly two hundred years earlier, the
reactionary philosopher Joseph
de Maistre quarreled with the term the Jacobins
had applied to their political opponents. "The re-establishment of the
monarchy, which is called Counter-revolution," he wrote in 1797,
"will not be a contrary revolution, but the contrary of the Revolution."[1]
Reactionaries like Maistre, were not
supporters of 1789, but royalist defenders of the ancien regime.
They were not proponents of a different kind of revolution (a "counter
revolution"). They were contary to the revolution against the absolute
monarch, supporters of the status quo ante -- the old order as it
was before the flood.
Bearing this in mind, look again at
the pivotal events of 1989 and 1990. The mass upheavals in the Soviet satellites
and the dramatic finale in Moscow itself were not the contrary of the revolution
of 1917, but a true counter-revolution. They aspired not to the
restoration of the old Czarist regime, but to a new democratic order. The
future they invoked was an antithesis of the one the Leninists had imposed,
and this antithesis was precisely that revolutionary future -- bourgeois
and democratic, capitalist and individualist -- whose paradigm Burke himself
had defended when it was established in America in 1776.
Looking back on the two hundred year
history now past, we can see that it is not simply a unitary conflict between
revolution and ancien regime (the paradigm in which counter-revolution
would
be synonymous with reaction, revolution with social progress). It is the
conflict of two distinct revolutionary traditions. The struggle that has
shaped our age has not been between the old order and the new revolution,
but between two revolutionary paths to the modern world -- two different
paradigms of the European Enlightenment that took root, respectively, in
America and France.
The Cold War is often presented as a
power struggle with no particular historical dimension. But it is more
accurately seen as the climactic phase of the conflict between these contending
traditions. The radical ethos of the French Revolution became the wellspring
of a socialist revolt against bourgeois order that culminated in the establishment
of the Soviet empire. On the other hand, the libertarian ethos of the American
Revolution inspired the conservative opponents of the Soviet tyranny, a
counter
revolution based on individual rights, free markets and democratic constitutions.
The revolutionary societies that followed this path formed an alliance
of free nations confronting the Soviet empire, whose triumph in the Cold
War has now brought the totalitarian era to a close.
Those on the Left who do not want to
face the implications of their historic defeat prefer to be puzzled by
what are otherwise straightforward events. The triumph of the Right in
this riptide of freedom is so unthinkable to them, that they speak of the
counter-revolutions in the Eastern bloc as though they were an enigma impenetrable
to understanding. Because the democrats in the Soviet Union are called
"radicals" and the Communists are called "conservatives," because the advocates
of capitalism in Eastern Europe are called "Left" and the die-hard socialists
"Right," they conclude that we have arrived at a new "end of ideology."
In their persepctive, the very concepts of Left and Right have lost their
meaning, and a new political vocabulary is required to name the alternatives
we face.
But is it? Only if one insists on viewing
this history through the political prism of the radical tradition. Only
if one wants to avoid a reckoning with the socialist defeat, to preserve
the ideological framework of the political Left. Only if one wants to preserve
the traditional sense of a radical past in the hope of one day reviving
the sense of a radical future.
If we reject this reasoning, however,
and recognize the existence of two traditions in conflict the difficulty
vanishes. When these two traditions confront each other across the Iron
Curtain created by their historic conflict, Left and Right become inverse
images. Within the Soviet bloc, "Left" signifies
counter revolution
-- capitalism, liberalism, democracy; "Right" means the contrary
of the revolution -- defense of the conservative status quo (the Marxist
dictatorship, communism, socialism). In the West, it is just the opposite:
The status quo of the revolution, defended by "conservatives" of the Right,
is liberal, democratic and free.
In short, once we leave the swamps of
the leftist world view, the confusion of terminologies becomes clarity
itself. To be conservative within a revolutionary tradition simply means
to conserve the paradigm peculiar to that revolution. To be conservative
in the context of the democratic West means to preserve the liberal, individualist
and free-market framework that is its historic achievement and to act on
the non-utopian premises that are its philosophical foundation.
What does it mean in this post-Communist
era to be Left within the liberal framework of the West? That is the real
question posed by this historic upheaval and its political crossroads.
For two hundred years the leftist counter-revolution against liberal democracy
has meant permanent war against bourgeois society -- against the culture
of individual rights and political pluralism, against the private property
foundations of the liberal state. To have been on the left is to have been
at war with the only democratic and free societies the world has ever known.
It has been a war conducted in the name of ideals that cannot be implemented
and a future that cannot work, and has brought misery and oppression of
incalculable dimensions to uncountable millions.
Leftists will object. They do not want
to be put in the same political bed with Leninists and Marxists and other
totalitarians -- especially now that the world has repudiated them. Now
these leftists will stress that they are democratic socialists (making
the assumption that there is a real world meaning to this self-validating
phrase).[2]
Or they will call themselves "populists"
and "egalitarians" (as though there were some other way than socialist
diktat
to legislate equality).
It is true, of course, that since the
collapse of the Soviet economies, many "democratic socialists" are eager
to concede that markets cannot be so easily discarded, without incurring
consequences that are unacceptable. On occasion, they even allow themselves
to express the thought (previously unthinkable) that perhaps, in the end,
"socialism" can only be a term for a more humane form of the capitalist
enterprise. Sometimes of late, they have seemed willing to claim any reform
-- the establishment of unions, of a minimum wage -- as victories for socialist
ideas. The very minimalism of the position is revealing. There remains
something so visceral in their identification with the socialist cause,
so passionate in their belief in a re-made world, that they are unable
to take the honorable course -- to admit they were wrong, to give up the
radical ghost, and to redefine themselves as advocates of capitalist reform.
Instead they insist (and with the same old smugness) that socialism remains
the name of their desire.
In the end, the concessions these leftists
are ready to make now seem less a gesture of self-understanding than a
strategy for avoiding further defeat. Consider the new name they have adopted
to signal their willingness to modify the old ideal of a general plan:
market
socialism. Whole libraries have been written by social democrats to
prove that market economy is the root of our afflictions -- a reifying,
alienating, dehumanizing incubus on the social life of mankind. Yet, on
the basis virtually of a single chapter in a solitary book on the economics
of "feasible socialism,"[3] they have rushed
to enlist the market as a remedy for the ills of socialism, now that its
bankruptcy is apparent to all. How readily they now appropriate an institution
they condemned when the life chances of millions hung in the balance.
These democratic socialists are willing
to make concessions if only they do not have to give up anything that really
matters. They are ready, now, to acknowledge the necessity of the market
as the minimal price they must pay to remain part of any rational discourse.
But their contrition does not appear to go further than that. Otherwise,
why continue to call themselves "socialists"? Why cling to an identity
and attitude so thoroughly disgraced? Why remain in the political company
of unrepentant radicals who are still "marxists" and still recklessly committed
to agendas about which they, themselves, claim to have had second thoughts?
The answer can only lie in the beliefs they have not given up, which
they still share in common with their erstwhile comrades, and which are
at the heart of the tradition they still call their own. These are the
passions that even now thrill their blood, the faith in which they will
always feel at home.
What does it mean to hold on to this
faith, to be radically Left within the political tradition of the liberal
West? This Left, whose project has culminated in human calamity beyond
comprehension, began with the famous passage in Rousseau’s Discourse
on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality in which he first articulated
the radical myth of social creation:
The first man, who after
enclosing a piece of ground, took it into his head to say, this is mine,
and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of
civil society.
To which Rousseau
exclaims, in words that reverberate through the tragedies of our time:
"How many crimes, how many
wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would that man
have saved the human species, who pulling up the stakes or filling up the
ditches should have cried to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor;
you are lost, if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong equally
to us all, and the earth itself to nobody!"
For the next two centuries, this idea served
as inspiration for the radical onslaught against liberal democracy in the
West. Indeed, the charge that private property corrupted humanity became
the basic proposition of all political Lefts, that is of all attempts to
construct a radical future in which "socially created" evils, like inequality
and injustice, would be relegated to the museum of human antiquities.
Two centuries later, the relentless
unraveling of these socialist schemes has shifted the onus of Rousseau’s
question.
Now we must ask:
How many crimes, how many
wars, how many murders, how many misfortunes and horrors, would the human
species have been spared, had the world not listened to this radical impostor,
when he assaulted private property -- the very foundation of liberty --
while invoking the unlimited powers of the state to make men virtuous and
equal?
It is this question and this
recognition that mark the dividing line between Left and Right.
For Rousseau, as for the radicals who
followed him -- "democratic" and otherwise -- "Society" is the root of
human oppression: "Man was born free, yet is everywhere in chains." The
radical’s goal everywhere is a transformation of society that will liberate
the "authentic" human self and bring about the recovery of natural innocence.
That will restore the harmonious human community allegedly lost -- that
was first corrupted and then suppressed by private property and its state.
But the history of socialism has now shown (as for two hundred years conservatives
warned it would) that humanity liberated from the claims of property and
from the disciplines of the market, from religious constraint and from
the rule of law -- humanity governed by its general will -- is a monster
of barbarism and atavistic evil.
For the counter revolution of the Right,
the truth revealed about humanity in society is exactly the opposite of
the Rousseauian claim: Man is not born free, but helpless and dependent,
and then a slave to his unruly passions. Society is not nature’s
corrupter, but a civilizing, humanizing force. "What is government," an
American founder wrote, "but a reflection on human nature?" And: "If men
were angels, there would be no need for government." It is only the civilizing
limits of the social contract that can liberate the anti-social creatures
of nature into the constitutive orders of productive and communal life.
This is the pragmatic realism that informs
the American paradigm and creates the conservative attitude. Its argument
is summarized in Madison’s celebrated discussion of political factions
in Federalist
#10. The social problems that egalitarians of the Left propose to eradicate
are finally the problems of Madisonian "faction," the Eighteenth Century
rubric for race, class and other social divisions.
In devising a counter-solution to these
problems, therefore, Federalist #10 also defines a conservative
paradigm:
-- There are two methods of
curing the mischiefs of faction:
the one by removing its
causes;
the other, by controlling its effects.
-- There are again two methods of removing
the causes of faction:
the one, by destroying the
liberty which is essential to its existence; the other by giving
to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
In this passage, the history of the last
two centuries -- the struggle between Left and Right over the future of
the liberal state -- is distilled in two propositions.
Of the two methods for curing the mischiefs
of faction, the conservative takes the path of realism and chooses to control
its effects. By contrast, the radical chooses the removal of causes, the
very method eschewed by the American founders because it leads, inexorably,
to the destruction of liberty.
Throughout the modern era, the radical
has himself defined by his determination to remove the root causes
of human faction, and by doing so to eliminate suffering and oppression.
By contrast, the conservative recognizes the impossibility of such a quest,
and is content, instead, to manage the conflicts, to contain the effects
of evils that are integral to our humanity. Such accommodation to reality
is anathema to the radical.
In the radical impulse to redeem
humanity, the conservative recognizes a primal threat to human liberty.
The determination to eradicate the causes of social conflict, to make society
one and indivisible is nothing less than the totalitarian ambition. It
is the ambition to change human nature by political means, the promise
(in Rousseau’s revealing formulation) "to force men to be free."
Writing before the French Revolution
and the advent of the modern Left, Madison was skeptical that any social
faction would actually attempt to control the consciousness of others in
order to create a unity of interest and equality of condition among all.
To Madison such a program was self-evidently impractical. The diversity
of human opinion was a fact of nature. As long as humanity was free, its
opinions would never be unified. Human faculties and talents, themselves,
were diverse and different from birth. From these differences flowed inequalities
that were inevitable, including the inequality of property in which human
energies and talents were ultimately invested. In protecting the efforts
of the individuals in whom they are vested, property rights are the foundation
of human rights, the indispensable shield of human diversity.
It is the rights of property -- and
(behind them) the rights of diverse and unequal individuals -- that form
the insuperable obstacle to the socialist desires: equality, unity, the
harmony of human interests. As Madison expressed these ideas:
From the protection of different and
unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees
and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these
on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a division
of the society into different interests and parties.
But unity of interest and equality of
condition,, the objectives that were for Madison impossible to achieve
(and, for that reason, threats to liberty) -- these are the all-consuming
goal sof the modern Left. To suppress human nature and human difference
is, in essence, the Left’s utopian ambition. And it is an ambition that
requires a totalitarian state.
Ever since the French Revolution, radical
"equality" and conservative "liberty" have opposed each other as the defining
agendas of Left and Right. For radicals, freedom is the power to
redefine human destiny and has invariably meant, the surrender of individual
autonomy to the radical project, to collective truth and the "progressive"
idea. For conservatives, in contrast, liberty is relief for the
individual from collective power. It is secured by "negative rights," by
limits
to government. Liberty is made possible by the civilizing bonds of social
order, and restraints on the coercive power of civil authority.
The conservative goal is democratic,
but it is also circumspect and modest (and so, deeply unsatisfying to the
radical soul). Better to live with some injustices than, by seeking perfect
justice, create a world with none. This is the political caution that has
been etched in blood on the historical ledger of the last 200 years. It
is the lesson the Left refuses to learn. It is this refusal that makes
radicals the dangerous reactionaries of the post-modern world.
This very denial of history, however,
also creates the political mask that allows leftists to appear as social
reformers. Refusing to acknowledge any connection
to the destructive consequences of their radical faith, the Left has been
able to hijack the vocabulary of political discourse, to appropriate the
terms "democratic" and "progressive," and now even "liberal" and "market,"
and to frame its agendas in the misleading imagery of "social justice."
[4]
The Left flies under permanently false
colors. It is neither liberal nor progressive, and the justice it promises
is achievable only through political coercion and totalitarian terror.
Despite the Left’s surface adjustment
to historical realities in the post-Communist era, the character of its
project remains stubbornly the same. This project, as before, is antithetic
to the American paradigm and the stoic realism in which its liberties are
grounded. The opposition is so fundamental that even those left-wing revisionists
who have accepted a part of the democratic achievement, and call themselves
"democratic socialists," reveal a profound and dedicated hostility to the
American founding and its political truths.
This deep-seated enmity to the American
framework is nowhere better illustrated than in the last work of Michael
Harrington, America’s most articulate spokesman for a "democratic"
Left. Harrington wrestled all his life with the perplexing legacies of
his political commitment, and his works record a dogged if doomed effort
to rescue radical theory from its anti-democratic course. The last chapter
in this effort, completed in 1989, while the author was ill with cancer,
appeared posthumously under the title
Socialism: Past and Future.
Written in the shadow of Communist collapse,
it was an attempt to re-assert the socialist claim to be "the hope for
human freedom and justice."
Like generations of socialists before
him, Harrington’s ideological point of departure was the French Revolution.[5]
Like them, he regarded the Revolution
as a compromised triumph because it had achieved equality only in the political
sphere. To "complete" the Revolution by extending the principle of equality
into the economic realm was the socialist task. Until this was accomplished
humanity would not be free.
...The [bourgeois revolution] opened
up possibilities of freedom and justice, not inevitabilities. After
all, the rulers of the system were, more often than not, horrified by the
unintended potential of their own magnificent accomplishment. They were
terrified that civil rights for the people....would mean an end of property
rights for the elite.[6]
To protect their privilege, these ruling
classes contrived to thwart the popular will, to prevent the people from
acting on their common interests. According to Harrington, the very pinnacle
of this cynicism was reached by the Founding Fathers when they devised
the keystone of the American paradigm. "All this was theorized," he wrote,
"with stunning clarity in the Tenth Federalist Paper of James Madison,
in one of the greatest defenses of human manipulation in the history of
political theory."
In other words, the truly revolutionary
formulation of Federalist #10, the division of powers implemented
in the Constitution and, ever since, the great bulwark of American freedom,
is the principle condemned by Harrington as a cynically contrived obstacle
to freedom, to the direct expression of the people’s will. Madison’s central
premise that economic inequality originates in human nature and cannot
be eliminated without abolishing liberty itself is, thus, cavalierly dismissed.
For Harrington, American democracy is
only "bourgeois democracy," the half-way democracy allowed by the ruling
class to protect its wealth. For Harrington, the task of the "democratic"
socialist revolution is, still, to destroy this obstacle to radical leveling,
and along with it, the property rights that are freedom’s most fundamental
guarantee. The final word of America’s most flexible social democrat, in
short, is only the latest radical declaration of war on the American idea,
on its Madisonian framework and its liberal conception of human freedom.
So consistent, through all these two hundred years of revolutionary tragedy,
has the radical assault remained.
In understanding the passionate depths
of the radical assault, it is instructive to confront Harrington’s intellectual
inertia with the second thoughts of ex-Communists in Eastern Europe. Unlike
Harrington, their hands-on experience with socialist economy caused them
to abandon the false Marxist consciousness that condemned markets as instruments
of alienation and exploitation. Instead, they recognized private property
and the market as the irreplaceable engines of material prosperity and
technical progress for the whole of society, a development as important
for human welfare as the invention of civilization itself.
By contrast, Harrington’s views remain,
to the end, mired in the vulgar simplicities of the Marxist model. Despite
his grudging recognition of the market’s capacity "to coordinate an extraordinary
range of human desires," it was for him as "pernicious" as for Marx himself
-- "a mechanism for maximizing profits rather than human needs." As though
"desire" and "need" were discrete, and human satisfactions were not promoted
and served by efficient production for consumer markets. In insinuating
that production for profit is antithetical to production for need, socialists
like Harrington reinforce the very Marxist formulas that created the endless
poverty and boundless tyranny of the Soviet world. It is this above all,
and despite their disavowals, that makes them complicit in the tragedies
of the socialist epoch that is now past, and dangerous guides to the social
future.
To be a Leftist, then, is to be at
war with the two most profoundly liberating achievements of modern history:
the liberal state and the liberal economy. These are the twin pillars of
what Hayek called the Great Society, which he described as a spontaneous,
"extended order of human cooperation."[7]
Such a society is not the product of
vanguard schemes like the socialist design, but of a long process of adjustments
to reality that eventually lead to more productive and humane institutions
and rules. Capitalist democracy (a system as flawed as humanity is flawed)
is, in this view, the highest stage of social evolution.
In contrast, socialism belongs to the
dark, pre-history of mankind. In the words of Hayek, it is "a re-assertion
of that tribal ethics whose gradual weakening...made an approach to [civilized
market societies] possible."[8]
Socialism belongs to a social stage
based on the simple economy of small groups -- a stage that had to be overcome
in order to realize the great wealth-making potentialities of the market
system. Far from being a progressive conception, the socialist ethic is
atavistic and represents the primitive morality of pre-industrial formations:
the clan and the tribe. This is why its current incarnation takes the form
of "identity politics," the latest revolt against bourgeois individualism
and freedom.
Modern radicalism is the return of the
repressed. Its values -- equality, cooperation, unity -- are the survival
codes of small, vulnerable groups with knowable goals and shared interests.
But the morality of tribal communities is self-defeating and disastrous
when applied to complex economies, dependent on factors of production that
are geographically dispersed and on trade exchanges that are trans-national
in scope. In the context of a modern extended economic order, where goals
are not shared, where market prices encapsulate knowledge beyond the capacity
of a central authority and in situations so complex that no planner can
rationally allocate economic tasks, the socialist agenda and its tribal
ethos produce social atavisms -- the paternalistic politics, fratricidal
nationalisms and economic despotisms, universally characteristic of socialist
states.
Socialist morality is a seductive illusion.
Because it does not rest on real world assumptions, the socialist ethic
-- if put into practice -- would threaten to undermine the life basis of
vast communities of present-day humanity and to impoverish much of the
rest
Far from being progressive, the Left’s
demands for "social justice," if realized, would destroy the very basis
of social wealth (as it has in the former regions of the Soviet bloc).
In the modern world, competition is not the contrary of cooperation, but
the form that cooperation must take in order to coordinate the activities
of millions of people unknown to each other, pursuing goals which are not
common and cannot be shared. The profit motive is the engine of wealth
not only for the rich but for the poor as well. In the real world, the
attempt to plan economic systems produces inefficiency and waste; the attempt
to redistribute wealth diminishes well-being and individual liberty; the
attempt to unify society, crushes its freedom; the ambition to make people
equal, creates new tyrannies and submerges human individuality in totalitarian
designs.
For a long time, the tribal ethos of
socialism was concealed in the universalist membrane of the Marxist movement
and the liberationist impulse of its proletarian myth. But the collapse
of Communism has disintegrated the Marxist idea and fragmented the culture
of the international Left. The result is a proliferation of post-Marxian
theories and identity politics that no longer base themselves on the universalist
category of economic class but on the particularist identities of gender,
ethnicity and race. The class struggle has been replaced by status conflict;
the universalist idea by quasi-fascist doctrines of racial solidarity,
group rights and anti-liberal political agendas.
These agendas are still inspired by
the essential radical theme. They share the Rousseauian desire to redefine
and repossess the world in terms of a collective idea of self, to regenerate
the lost paradise of human beginnings, and to unify alienated society under
the redemptive aegis of a tribal will. "An atavistic longing after the
life of the noble savage," as Hayek has written, "is the main source of
the collectivist tradition."
Thus, the post-Marxian Left has begun
its career by launching an all-out assault on the third great achievement
of modern history, the liberal community itself. This community, whose
paradigm is America, is founded in a universal compact that transcends
tribal identities and the multi-cultural particularisms
of blood and soil. "No nation before ever made diversity itself a source
of national identity and unity," an historian has written, "a nation created
by people of all classes and ethnicities, immigrating from all over the
world." [9]
America is the unique crystallization
of an idea of nationality residing in a shared commitment to universal
principles and pluralistic values. This creed is the culmination of an
evolution that extends backwards in time to Jerusalem, and Athens, and
Rome. It encapsulates lessons that were accumulated through practice and
acquired by faith, that are inscribed in the teachings of sacred tradition
and the institutions of secular law. These traditions (as it happens, Judaeo-Christian
traditions) and these institutions (in fact, bourgeois-democratic institutions)
have led us to the truths that are self-evident, and on which our freedom
finally depends. |