Skip to main content

Stuck in the Middle with You

I don't imagine I have too many readers who would describe themselves as very leftist. Maybe I do and they are very quiet. In any case, I have made passing comment a few times that I see no signifigant difference between Communism and Nazism. This has resulted in serious confusion from some corners. I'm going to try and explain where I'm coming from a bit, and to explain that I'm not condeming all of the left, nor giving the right a blank cheque. Scott Campbell takes up the subject at The Conservative Philosopher:
there is no difference that makes a moral difference between a movement that calls for genocide –- the extermination of Jews and non-Aryans generally –- and a movement that calls for ‘classicide,’ the extermination of an entire class of people, the bourgeoisie. Extermination is extermination: you are equally dead if you are murdered for belonging to an ethnic group or to a socioeconomic class... The Communist project was not one of “common brotherhood” but of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – a notion that expresses a desire for domination just as surely as Nazi racism does.
Dead is dead; the ideology that did it matters nothing. It holds itself and its ends more important than your life and if it does that, it belongs in the dung heap. Both Nazism and Communism are authoritarian and murderous. Campbell concludes:
It is difficult to get lefties to appreciate the moral equivalence of the two totalitarian movements because there is a tendency to think that the Commies had good intentions, while the Nazis did not. But this is false: both had good intentions. Both wanted to build a better world by eliminating the evil elements that made progress impossible. Both thought they had located the root of evil, and that the eradication of this root would usher in a perfect world. It is just that they located the root of evil in different places. Nazis really believed that Judentum ist Verbrechertum, as one of their slogans had it, that Jewry is criminality. They saw the extermination of Jews and other Untermenschen as an awful, but necessary, task on the road to a better world. Similarly with the Commie extermination of class enemies.
In a nutshell, I'm with Campbell. That does not mean I think all of the Left is evil. I don't. It does not mean I think the right - Liberty uber alles - is on the side of the angels. I have been pretty consistently critical of social atomization, and this I see as the flaw of Liberalism taken too far. Since Liberalism is an almost meaningless word, I need to specify that I'm using Liberalism in it's classic usage: freedom from the church and from the state, and not in the modern sense of liberty from everything under and including the sun. Now that this modern sense of "Liberal" might give way to "Progressive," perhaps the confusion will subside a bit. Because human nature is flawed, there are threats on all sides, all of the time. There is no political structure that can overcome this. Will it shock anyone if I admit that there are threats from the church? It shouldn't. They are human too. The best response, I think, is the one most people favour, and most people cluster in the middle of the political spectrum. That means nothing should be done to extremes, and that ought to eliminate killing people to serve political ends above all. It also means that things will be messy, just as they have always been messy. People will need help and we'll struggle to find an effective and moral way to give it. Religious belief is a great help in reminding us that we have limitations and as a result, trusting to God is perhaps the best way to ensure we do not murder and enslave one another in a effort to do good - or to think that we do not need one another in any way.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi