Rafał Woś and Janusz Korwin-Mikke say together: PiS is left! But if we actually consider the Law and Justice to be left, then the prophets of the Left might as well be Roman Dmowski, General Franco or Oswald Spengler. The fact that the Kaczyński Formation has a strong social wing does not find anything yet, as politics cannot be reduced to economics alone. If we consider otherwise, the full thought diada "right-left" loses any sense, and all our political concepts can be thrown into the basket.
In the podcast "Two Left Hands" of 2 noble social democrats, Jakub Dymek and Marcin Gielzak, hosted the 3rd noble social Democrat, Rafał Wosia, who repeated the thesis loud and popular: The Law and Justice is actually a left-wing party! The thought is not new, although in the past it was preached mainly by free marketplace advocates from Leszek Balcerowicz to Janusz Korwin-Mikke. Relatively, akin ideas fell on the left side of the political scene. In another words, not many leftist people themselves wanted to join 1 camp with Jarosław Kaczyński. Rafał Woś seems to be standing in the vanguard.
In the case of liberals, the writing of PiS to the left-wing household was understandable – they were raised under the considerable influence of right-wing neoliberals specified as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman, from whom they took over the tendency to give economics primacy over politics and to perceive economical freedom as the eventual criterion of left-wing and right-wing. Rafał Woś, although it comes from a different tradition, de facto took over the optics of the Liberals with the 1 difference that he turned their "vector of moral evaluation" the another way. While the slogan “PiS is simply a left” was an insult to Balcerowicz, for the Vice-President of “Solidarity” it is simply a nobilitation. In both cases, however, it is the economy that is crucial to effort to identify Kaczyński's party's perfect identity.
The SLD, while inactive in power, failed many of its constituents in this respect, and after the colap of the organization in 2005, its electorate was managed by the Law and Justice. In turn, if individual wanted to liberalise the worldview, he had a choice of the Civic Platform, whose ranks were not formed by any of the most conservative, conservative activists who perceived LGBT environments as a fugitive of freaks.
"The Bad Times of Liberalism"
Besides, let us think – the left is very briefly pro-social, but why should the right be automatically pro-market? Yes, many conservative or right-wing writers and politicians have free marketplace inclinations, but it is not a requirement. After all, no sign of my right hand was revealed, where in the first place it would be written: “You will love the free marketplace as yourself.” The right is not a uniform doctrine or ideology, like socialism or conservatism, but alternatively an highly broad conglomerate of various "right-to-right" environments from the centre. Here we have a place for both the liberal right (freedom), the people's right (PiS, nationalists), and the conventional right, and so the "extreme" in a truly descriptive alternatively than pejorative sense of the word (traditionalists, counter-revolutionarys).
There's a beautiful scene in DollsWhen Baron Krzeszowski is dueling Wokulski, he complains about what the planet stands for: “The wicked times of liberalism. My father would have had specified a brawl rehearsed to his dogs, and I must give him satisfaction [...]. Let this stupid social revolution come once, and it will kill either us or the liberals..." – sighs the baron, whom Julian Ochocki, a man of the times of positivism, counted among "people who eat well and do little.”
Many decades after the barbaria guillotined Louis XVI, aristocrats and royalists, doubling their silk stockings and correcting their leather gloves, mourning the lost fructured, slandering the capitalist flood, and sighing in the idyllic image while the peasants were smiling on those who “eat well and do little.”
Was Dmowski a lefty?
The problem is much wider and is not limited to Law and Justice. Let's take a closer look – if the economy is the key here, how should we treat a full scope of thinkers and activists who we instinctively view as emblematic to the right (and frequently "outside")? Take the environment of the “young” national camp under the microscope. After all, people like Adam Doboszyński, Jan Mosdorf or half of the ideologists of ONR should present build the “national” wing of the organization Together. I'm certain the alleged professorial faction was more nuanced, but it's besides inappropriate to make addeks of any extremist free marketers. 1 Adam Heydel, nevertheless fascinating he was, was a curious figure alternatively than a norm in the Endeck ranks and could not be considered a valid example.
The question besides arises whether Roman Dmowski himself, a fundamental figure for the Polish right, should not be thrown into 1 bag with Kaczyński and Marx? The leader of the advention wrote small about the economy, but at the beginning of his road, inactive in the 19th century, remained critical of the free market, and in the 1930s he began writing about the collapse of capitalism. Neither Prime Minister Morawiecki nor president Kaczyński preached specified things. It's just the tip of the iceberg! In his message that he was close, and that Dmowski would be 1 of the fathers of Polish socialism, he is simply a certain amount of publicist exaggeration, but on the another hand it was Mr. Roman who co-authored the manifesto beginning the first issue of the "Socialistic Review", and at private parties he supposedly sang Red flag.
In its early days, the national and socialist camp truly did not divide much, and Dmowski himself was a revolutionary no little than Piłsudski. However, it is possible that even greater, due to the fact that while Piłsudski had a typically conservative weakness for the erstwhile world, which had already passed away, Dmowski on the contrary – he wanted not only to make a political revolution, but, above all, a social, intellectual and ethical revolution.
Mises more “right” than General Franco
But let us not limit ourselves to the Polish scene. That's the approach. de facto forces us to recognise that almost the full German right-wing scene, which we can identify with the alleged conservative revolution, are representatives of the left! This is Oswald Spengler with his imagination of Prussian socialism loses in pre-runs with the “ultra-right” Ludwig von Mises (what if by the way completely anarchist?). Ernst Jünger? Just a left at von Hayek. And what should I do with a character like General Franco, who, over the years in the economy, has taken a reasonably permanent approach to then bet on more free marketplace solutions? Was he a left-wing man for a while to then become a right-wing man? Now that we're in hot Spain, what about corporate Falanga? Let us reflect to the close France and Switzerland – what is the substance with the father of conservatism, the real foundation of traditionalist thought: Joseph de Maistre, who did not simply compose on economical issues due to the fact that they did not interest him? Does this mean that on the right - the left orbits somewhere in the mediate as a revolutionary center or utmost symmetry? akin absurdities can be multiplied here.
Suddenly, the Marine Le Pen National Unity turns out to be a more "left" formation than the Donald Tusk Civic Platform. Economics isn't everything. Policies include civilian rights, community rights, axiology, tradition, religion – all of this must be taken into account. Rafał Woś, like Janusz Korwin-Mikke, uses perfect monocausism, in which the concentration of “left-wing” determines only the economy.
It seems to me that this is even insulting to the thought left-wing (as well as right-wing) that their perfect identity is shallow to combat social inequality.The fact that in the social dimension the most pro-social proposal in the past of the 3rd Polish Republic had the Law and Justice, does not yet indicate the left-wingness of the Law and Justice, but the terrible weakness of the Polish Left, which has been on the Liberal belt for 30 years.
Of course, the question of economics is of any importance to all right-wing representatives, but it is limited to recognising private property and rejecting communism and socialism. Furthermore, within the meaning of the very right of ownership by liberals and conservatives, frequently placing force on its collective (family, national) character and guided by Catholic social science, there are considerable discrepancies. Conservatives, yes, defend him, but they don't absolutize. Furthermore, the designation of private property as a value in itself is so broad that it contains various mutations of the right hand. Including Law and Justice.
What does the right mean?
But what does right in the 21st century mean? What does it mean to be a conservative today? Let's look at history, and the answer will come to us. celebrated Brazilian author and philosopher Plinio Corraa de Oliveirain his loud work Revolution and Counterrevolution listed the 3 coups that changed the face of the West:
1. Protestantism
2. French Revolution
3. Communism
Thought de Oliveira presented at work Revolution and Counterrevolution is much deeper than the 1 above, which does not mean that it is not open to discussion – just this three-partition will let us to specify the concept of the modern right more easily.
The right - or what we can identify with the right - due to the fact that it is hard to talk strictly of the right in the 16th century - always stood against these 3 revolutionary currents. She first advocated a Catholic Europe and united at the metapolitical level, then defended the ancien régime and fought against liberals and nationalists guillotining erstwhile masters (Europe of nations vs Europe of kings); she yet defended private property against the temptations of totalitarian collective-atheistic currents.
In each subsequent revolution, the old ones went dark, and so in the 20th century the right-winger could have been an atheist and a Democrat, which in erstwhile centuries would have been unimaginable. Similarly, in the 21st century, a conservative can be a individual who does not necessarily condemn Marx and the perfect of social justice.
It is actual that we are besides seeing powerful economical changes today, but it is impossible to talk about an attack on private property itself. I do not underestimate many economical worrying trends that are moving towards the pauperization of the masses, but from the mentioned 3 revolutions the economical subject weighs just the least for defining the notions of right - left. Rather, it is simply a decline in the 20th century and a simple division of the Cold War into the free planet of the capitalist West and a real socialism of the collectivist East.
Fourth Revolution
Described by de OliveiraThe overthrows were crucial to the definition of perfect divisions during its course, not a fewer centuries later. We are now facing fresh currents, fresh threats, and the characters of Luther, Robespierre or Marx are becoming little and little influential. Assigning them besides crucial a function (cultural Marxism!) is simply a dead end and most likely the effect of re-intellectualizing any problems.
Today we are facing a phenomenon that we can call "the 4th revolution" on a regular basis, which no longer applies to religion, nor to politics, nor to the economy. It has an anthropological character – we enter an era where humanity itself (abortion) is questioned and even the limits of what it means to be human (transhumanism) are blurred. So we have a camp that looks with hope at the anticipation of redefining concepts specified as humanity, household and nation, which, in a method overturn, sees opportunities to overcome death, as well as beginning gates for permisivism and extremist individualism, leading to social atomization.
This revolt does not have 1 thinker or leading figure, there is not even a set of rules due to the fact that it has a decentralised structure. Writers and philosophers tend to cling to this stream, trying to describe it alternatively than creating it. The political component of this revolution is the call for European integration and the elimination of national states, or even the phenomenon of sovereignty itself. However, it is only a component, 1 of many aspects of this emerging current. Another is to blur all permanent identities: national, family, spiritual – you can be what you want, not what you should be. You can do whatever you want, no substance what your duty. You can be 1 of the seventy sexes, you can be a “mother” with a penis, you can take a “marriage” with a colleague and adopt a child. And that's all right due to the fact that this "traditional" household is the origin of oppression.
I am not saying that this set of pathologies is simply a definition of the modern left, but it is simply a image of what the right wing of the 21st century is rebelling against. Not against progressive taxes and state support for multi-children families.
Economic views are secondary to the fundamental position on political anthropology.
So the main point of opposition of the right is this barricade. In turn, the main affirmative denominator is the affirmation of life and the thought of man as a social being existing in the "traditional" communities – household and nation, as well as the thought of the common good and the rule of the primacy of the spirit over matter. Let each of us answer the question whether in Polish conditions the greater opponent of the “Fourth Revolution” is PiS, PO or the “freedom” right hand of Mentzen and Leszek Balcerowicz.
photo: wikipedia.commos
