I saw a Jacobin article recently that summarized the thinking of the left. It basically said: when people ask us where we will get the money to pay for Medicare for All and more social programs, they are just trying to distract us and demoralize us. The important thing is to win power and then we will deal with those questions later. These leftists don't want to ask about what the power consists in and what it's used for. They don't want to ask why so many people are completely destroyed and unable to afford basic healthcare. They don't want to ask what kind of economy needs massive social programs (hint: one that presupposes massive poverty). They don't want to clarify anything about the state and its basis. They don't want to think about the blackmail power of the capitalists that the whole system is based on. It's just like: "we will tax the hell out of them!" But then you have to ask: what will you do so that they invest? Without investment, no jobs and no tax revenue. And isn't the whole way work is organized the very basis upon which the power of the capitalist class is based on? Isn't that the reason for the ever-decried wealth disparities? If you just ask these very basic questions, which are well-known to any business student moron, they will freak out. For them, this is just a moral question. They think these questions just reveals some conservative ideology, and has nothing to do with the real interests of capitalists. It would seem the obvious answer would be to take away the power of extortion of the capitalists and to reorganize the economy so it becomes about meeting needs and not the profit interests of business. Instead these leftists have this fantasy of using the state and economy for good because they are so realistic and don't want to get too far away from the "possible". One is tempted to raise again the old Situationist slogan -- one of the few they had that made any sense -- against the myopic pragmatism of the left: "be realistic: demand the impossible!"
Everyone is familiar with the refrain that there is a right to resist tyranny. If a government is tyrannical, then the people have the right to resist it or overthrow it. The doctrine of the "right to resistance/overthrow" contains a contradiction that is worth thinking about. The rights that people are never squeamish about praising as "natural" actually have to be conferred upon the people by the sanction of a public law granted by a state. However, if the state then turns around and says, "well, this is really tentative upon the whims of the people we rule over", then this completely undermines the basis of law. In other words, the most authoritative legislation (a constitution) would contain within itself a denial of its own supremacy and sovereignty if the right to resistance were actually enshrined and taken seriously, not just as a sop to popular stupidity. It's a basic tenet of liberalism -- and doubtlessly many other ideologies -- that...
Comments
Post a Comment