Left is Right?

Ok, that was a deliberate play on words. The notion of the Left is, in and of itself, a ridiculously simplistic one. People who seek change in social institutions and social conventions are often collapsed into this singular category, although some versions of conservatism (loosely defined, as is the usual case) also involve a commitment to changing social institutions and/or conventions, although this may be of the atavistic variety, trying to restore imagined institutions or conventions from the past. In any event, the phrase "Left is Right" is meant to have multiple meanings. On the one hand, to point out that change in institutions and conventions is a necessity, even an inevitability, and it is best to try to make those changes such that the world becomes a better place, with less oppression and exploitation, which is on the agenda for at least a subset of the Left. Thus, they're right in pursuing that mission. On the other hand, the phrase also means to imply that the differences between the Left and the Right are not as clear cut as might sometimes appear to be the case. Over the years I've discovered that many of those who identify themselves as part of the Left are quite conservative, sharing many foundational beliefs with their so-called conservative brethren, particularly when it comes to ontological and epistemological issues. In addition, many Leftists share the racist world views of their conservative counterparts, albeit cloaked in a different set of objectives, and can be just as self-centered and narrow minded (which should not be surprising, since many of these humans come from the same cultural stew that produces their conservative counterparts). And so what are we left with (if you'll pardon the deliberate pun)? Not quite as much in the way of choices or differences as one might like. Join this party or that party or this organization or that organization and the core differences are simply not likely to be as diverse as needs to be the case to generate more potential for social transformation of a positive kind. It isn't that surprising that the victory of the Bolsheviks resulted in some perverse type of society in which exploitation and oppression continued, but with a new ideological cloak, given that the humans who made up what became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) were products of Russian, Georgian, etc. culture and tended to fall back upon beliefs and methods that had long been part of the cultural fabric (or concrete) of what they called "the New Society." Ironically, this tendency towards conservative, even reactionary, developments seems to happen a lot when Leftists take power, even though the ruling parties tend to do a good deal of p.r. to mask the similarities between their social activism and that of their so-called conservative opponents. Of course, the Right isn't an alternative, since they tend to be better at this sort of thing, not needing to obfuscate quite as much, and tend to kill and torture on a grander scale, both through direct and indirect methods. So what then? Am I criticizing "the Left"? Well, no, because I don't really buy into the label in the first place. The Left doesn't really exist. Nor does the Right. These are categories that oversimplify in all cases. We need to engage on the basis of our complex and varying ideas, without these labels. Stop pretending that saying "I'm a progressive" or "I'm a conservative" really means anything at all. There is no Left precisely because there are no set of ideas or beliefs that are shared in toto by all of those so labeled. So why not drop the label. The Left is Right. The Right is Left. It is time we attack the very process of stereotyping and push for real engagement. Argue. Fight it out on the intellectual plane (and hopefully not on the physical). Learn from each other. It's not always going to work. Religion (including that version of religious faith that argues in favor of a transcendental notion of race or gender) will always block genuine conversation on some topics. But I suspect if we don't stop abusing each other, time will eventually run out for the entire species, homo sapien sapiens. I suppose it is a value judgment on my part to think that would be a bad outcome, but I do believe if we want to survive (in this larger sense), we'd better learn to talk to each other, stop acting as if the world is made up of strictly delineated groupings, whether we call them blacks and whites, reds and browns, liberals or conservatives, lefties or righties. We need to stop calling each other names and start listening and talking and listening some more. IMHO.

Iraq and Terrorists

I just heard a commentator on MSNBC describe Iraq as a "magnet for terrorists." Assuming the term "terrorist" has any real definitional meaning, I am quite sure that it is not so much a "magnet" as a training site for terrorists. The idea that it is a magnet presumes that there are these "terrorists" lurking out there in the world and then certain places or events attracts them. This misses the fact that a person who takes up arms in this anarchic (terrorist) manner is, most likely, someone who was not so inclined until certain events occurred in their life or in the lives of those they care about, at which time they seek out some means of expressing their anger, desire for revenge, etc. What Iraq has provided is both a catalyst for this conversion to anarchic violence and retribution (or the seeking to overturn an order of power that is believed to be evil or the source of injustice) and a training ground the converted, so that they might get better at what they do or seek to do. The tragedy of Iraq (or, better said, one of the tragedies of Iraq) is that it will serve to make the planet a bit more violent than it was prior to our occupation of that land.