Marxism and liberalism have much more in common than usually thought. Their views on religion, secularism, gender and race equality, sexual freedoms, family relations and even ‘globalisation’ or internationalism display enormous similarities. However, their approach to dealing with these issues differ greatly, as they extremely oppose each other in a fundamental principle: individualism. Pluralism, a result of individualism, is thus not a real option, or as they would say, “solution”, for leftists. Hence, though when being in opposition they strongly advocate political freedoms and rights, once in power, the first thing they sacrifice are the same freedoms and rights they had claimed (for themselves!) as an opposition group.
The opposition to individualism makes Marxists to look rather backwards in their search for social “solutions”, and to have a critical stance towards modernity. The “ancient” societies where everything belonged to the “community” and the individual had to follow solely the community’s interests are the leftist ideal of an egalitarian and equal society, from which the word communism derives (see e.g. Friedrich Engels’ in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 1884). For Marxists, modernity with capitalism as its main manifestation is the source for extreme poverty and economic injustice. In contrast, liberals see the accumulation of capital and the (sub)division of labour in the capitalist production system as resulting to more wealth for all societies of the world and their individuals (see e.g. Adam Smith in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776).
Despite all the hostilities between Marxism and liberalism, their similarities made Karl Marx to applaud capitalism. Here is an excerpt from his Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848, Chapter 1):
“The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which reactionaries so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
.
Everything has an end,
Only the sausage has two …
(A German saying; „Alles hat ein Ende, nur die Wurst hat zwei“.)
.
Critical thinking, criticism and discussion are the foundations of a vibrant democracy, and have a long history in Western cultures. However, in everyday life we rarely see people getting involved in political discussions and arguing against each other’s views. It seems that in Western cultures, criticism and discussion are regarded as belonging to the professional realm of politicians and journalists. Even at universities, where critical thinking should be promoted, there is not much discussion going on. During my studies at different universities in the UK and Germany, I never witnessed students getting involved in proper discussions with each other or with the lecturers, though seminars in social sciences, which make half of the study program, are designed for this purpose.
Astonishingly, in the last two years after Brexit, I have never met anyone in person in favour of Brexit. At university, at workplace, in pubs and social meetings all people I have met disapproved of Brexit. I ask myself where the 52% are gone who had voted for Brexit! This is a revealing example of people’s fear of getting involved in discussions around controversial topics. They rather pretend than express their real views. This condition may be regarded by some groups as a sign of their victory over their political opponents, but it is rather a consequence of their silencing methods than winning the battle through better arguments.
The promotion of criticism at ‘professional’ level and its simultaneous suppression in everyday life is a paradox which is also mirrored in the language. The word ‘critical’ has both a positive and negative meaning. It can refer to critical thinking (e.g. a critical analysis/evaluation) or to disaster (a critical condition/situation). Sadly, even in the 21st century, expressing criticism in Western societies may still lead to critical consequences for critics.
.
You often have to make a choice between stupidity and cruelty. You can’t choose between bad and worse?! No problem … Accept the consequences. (Fuck!)
.
Isle of Man – what a discriminatory name!
Come on, don’t suggest that the name should be changed to Isle of Woman, because
(1) this idea is the same discriminatory shit, only the other way round,
and (2) an island with this name already exists! (‘Isla Mujeres’, Spanish for ‘Women Island’, a Mexican island in the Caribbean Sea.)
To solve the problem, perhaps the two should marry! (Don’t tell me that they may be gay or lesbian!)
.
Nationalism has many different faces. It can occur as a very aggressive and destructive ideology, but in its milder forms also as a source for equality. Nationalism can enable people in a society to overthrow borders that divide them based on their belonging to different ethnic or religious groups, social classes, castes, etc. It can enable citizens of a nation-state to regard other citizens as part of their own community and evoke a feeling of solidarity between them. It can transform social enemies in a society to brothers and sisters. Nationalism makes it possible that all citizens enjoy the same rights based on their citizenship and not on their social or economic position.
Some may argue that even milder forms of nationalism propagate hostility and violence towards other nations while at the same time advocating solidarity between their own people. But historically, nationalisms that have been aggressive towards other nations, have also been violent towards their own citizens by not tolerating any political or cultural diversity and freedoms. Vice versa, nationalisms that have aimed to reach equality between their citizens, have also sought friendly relations with other nations. Nazi-Germany is a good example for the first case, India for the second.
However, it cannot be denied that even milder forms of nationalism put their own nation first, and potentially regard other nations as enemies. In a crisis, milder forms of nationalism can suddenly (and easily) transform themselves into aggressive ones, like for example in former Yugoslavia. Despite this tendency, nationalism can be a step forward towards global solidarity. If we do not learn how to respect people of our own nation, how could we be able to respect ‘foreigners’?
The death of nationalism would mean the death of the nation-state. It is ideal to live in a world where there are no borders, but how realistic is this vision today, and what are the alternatives to nation-states in the current world?
.
Many commentators regard the British government’s decision to cut the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals (FOBTs) from £100 to only £2 with skepticism. In arguing against this decision, they quote The Association of British Bookmakers’ warning that a stake cut would cause 21,000 people to lose their jobs. The loss of job is a tragic event in many people’s lives, but according to a report by the Gambling Commission, 430,000 British over-16s are “problem gamblers” and suffer from severe addiction. The report defines problem gambling as a serious condition that “compromises, disrupts or damages family, personal or recreational pursuits”. The effects of problem gambling on one’s life are not less harmful than losing a job.
Even in the ‘economic’ world of numbers, 430,000 weighs much more than 21,000. That is why the opponents of a stake cut try to decorate the British Bookmakers’ warning with further arguments. Alistair Osborne, for instance, writes in The Times that a stake cut on FOBTs would not solve the problem. The FOBTs addicts could switch to online roulette “on their phone standing in a betting shop”. “Gambling addiction is more complicated than one product”, she states (Source: The Week, 26 May 2018, Issue 1177). This argument is like claiming that a ban on hard drugs such as heroin (or setting limitations to their use) would not solve the drug addiction problem. Hard drug users could switch to other drugs – become alcoholics for example.
Many of us know that the consequences of addiction differ between poor and rich. A heroin addict who can afford to eat properly, to sleep properly and to enjoy comfort, lives on average a much longer and less fragile life than a low-paid or unemployed heroin addict. Taking the side of the British Bookmakers, who would lose a considerable amount of revenue because of the stake cut, means ignoring the problems and needs of those who suffer most from a gambling addiction. In justifying the government’s decision to cut the maximum stake on FOBTs, Matt Hancock, the secretary of state for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, said: “These machines are a social blight and prey on some of the most vulnerable in society, and we are determined to put a stop to it and build a fairer society for all.”
.
