The reflection that ‘behind all fascism stands the failed revolution“ Walter Benjamin is credited. I myself appealed to him at least 10 times. It seems to be an apparent expression by which the present conservative populism (not only Trumpian) can be explained: here hegemonic liberal democracy has escaped the dissatisfaction of the silent majority of the working class, which does not along the way with the themes of multiculturalism, voicism and identity policy. Neophasist populists filled this gap, presenting themselves as a voice utilized by the liberal elite working class.
And yet this does not explain the key issue, namely, why the revolution failed, i.e. why it was not the left, but the fresh right hand that succeeded in the anger and rage of many alleged average people? Recently, he frequently blames himself for this explanation (philosophy), which has not presented a meaningful political agenda that would mobilize the people. In its otherwise very clear analysis The philosopher Otto Paans points out:
"It cannot be expected that academics working in an ideological framework on usually pre-imposed investigation subjects, focusing on multiculturalism, the laity version of Enlightenment Atheism, and the restricted egalitarianism, will present mature political alternatives to modern challenges. It is no wonder that due to the simplified enlightened reasoning of liberals, and especially professional academic thinkers, they remained with their hand in the proverbial potty after the Trump election – meaning moving back to the neofascist dictatorshipWhich they never considered at all. [...] Professional academic doctrine is morally committed to extremist change of direction, because the deficiency of a true, serious doctrine to zero actually reduces the chances of a real political change or the ability to defy intellectual dictatorship from a subspecies of political correctness or neofascism."
Simple and convincing at the same time. But isn't Paans's request a constant motive for the extremist left? Paans refers to what Adorno and Horkheimer wrote as large authorities. Do they give any more coherent answers?
In 1 of his later texts to the question “what now?” Adorno gives a clear answer: “I don’t know”. Isn't it the same with Paans? Paans maintains that “professional academic philosophy” should present a circumstantial program, but gives no indication of how specified a program would look like. In the end, we face 2 possibilities: a "realist" pragmatism of the liberal-left 3rd road and the rehabilitation of "really existing socialism", referred to in the circles related to the 3rd World, which leads to a new, affirmative view not only of Mao but besides of Stalin.
According to this approach, the first sin of Western Marxism was the failure of communication with revolutionary movements outside developed capitalist states. I stand in the other position: Western Marxism was right that it rejected any connection to “real socialism” which proved to be a giant failure – economically only erstwhile it incorporated certain elements of capitalism. The only realistic option is so to full recognise the deficiency of a real alternate – to admit that we are in a wedge. 1 of my young friends from Japan (known online as the Cabin) made a seductive expression of this statement:
"Have you noticed fresh elections to the nipponese Council House? The utmost right-wing political organization (参政 党) gained an unprecedented triumph in them, collecting 14 tickets. According to statistics, the majority of voters are young people. Among them, the utmost right gained large support, publishing many rumors on foreigners and another issues on social media, utilizing a mass of paid people. At the same time, on the streets of Kyoto they talk and advance their ideas to the sincere left, although a small older men and women, seventy- and eighty-year-olds. They talk of rising heat waves, though it is the voice of the 1 crying in the wilderness.
What do you think? Did the planet grow old? As young people, how should we approach this situation? What should we do? Has this always happened before in history? To be honest, I barely believe that the planet can be changed anymore. I feel that people in today's capitalist society are haughty, and as a consequence they are fragile, shortsighted and extreme, yet become mothers of the far right. I feel that those left-wing people on the streets of Kyoto who sincerely believe that they can change the planet are much younger than me. For the next fewer years, I will survey and live in Japan. erstwhile I turn to the right, I feel helpless – where can I go? There is no land left for us anymore.”
We must full agree with this conclusion: there is no place left to flee, no fresh land. erstwhile in a movie Munich: Faced with War (2021) individual tries to convince a German diplomat planning to assassinate Hitler that opposition to force does not work, that 1 should alternatively constantly negociate to sustain hope, that 1 answers that hope is waiting for individual else to do the right thing. That you're better off erstwhile there's no hope.
That's what I meant by choosing the title of my book (taken from Giorgio Agamben's text): Courage in Hopeless Times. Truly extremist politics match hell at Dante's, where the inscription “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” appears at the gates (usually translated as “leave all hope, you [here] enter”)). It makes no sense to blame the hopeless doctrine of universities – it is the situation itself and the way we experience it does not offer any prospects. A extremist change is absolutely essential and absolutely impossible in our reality.
After returning to Stalinism, the communist revolutions were rooted in a clear imagination of historical reality ("scientific socialism"), its principles and tendencies, and therefore, despite their unpredictable effects, the revolution itself was full part of the process of historical reality – it was said that socialism should be built in each country in accordance with the circumstantial conditions in it, though according to the general laws of history.
In theory, the revolution was thus deprived of the dimension of subjectivity, of the extremist incorporation of what is real, into an invoice of "objective reality"—as opposed to the French Revolution, whose most extremist characters perceived it as an open process, without any support in any higher Connection. In 1794 Saint-Just wrote: "Those who carry out revolutions are akin to the first navigator, known only by their own boldness." Today, even more than in Lenin's time, we navigate in unknown lands, without a cognitive map of the planet – and what if this deficiency of cognitive pathways allows us to avoid totalitarian closure?
It is clear what the situation requires of us. The non-negotiable component of any left is universalism, for example, due to the fact that the modern "late-Capital" society (often utilized the prefix "later-" means nothing in itself, signals only our ignorance) is simply a global network of connections on an unprecedented scale. To avoid any further exchange of the apparent (the global threat to the environment, the impact of artificial intelligence, the possible of social chaos and armed self-destruction) it is adequate to mention that even what erstwhile was subject to the state's monopoly is now part of global trade.
Trump has repeatedly mentioned American prisoners who would be punished outside the state – now dangerThat the people who were accused of destroying Tesla's salons will send to Ecuador. It turns out that you can service time for something in a country where it does not even constitute a criminal act!
What, then, should we do in this worldwide mess? I'll take my chances and present below what I call, due to the fact that I can't resist, my realistic utopia. regular life is best managed by average conservatives – pragmatic adequate to avoid excessive risk, always ready to take into account that even the best projects can burn down. In a word, they know that a political entity must take full responsibility, that a real politician will never say "I wanted to do well, and it came out as it did, through an unfortunate coincidence."
However, specified an approach will not work in the face of inevitable cataclysms falling on all mankind – that is why something like this is needed new Leninian elite – a group whose main task is not so much to hone the old-fashioned communist aspirations, but to prepare all people for the impending disasters, that is, to make certain that we are aware that a world-wide emergency is coming.
My utopia so consists in a quiet coalition between average conservatives (managing everyday) and the Leninian elite (preparing us for the coming collapse) – although I am aware that these 2 forces are now disappearing from the political stage. average conservatives from the board are swept by Trump populists, while the survivors of the extremist left throw themselves into a trap of false peaceful utopia.
Even if this crazy thought is besides utopian, what can we do? I would urge clear principles of pragmatism: focus on the central objectives of our survival, with all the moves allowed in their implementation – democracy where democracy works; authoritarian state, if necessary; mobilisation of the people and even a certain level of murderism erstwhile the situation becomes truly desperate.
This is simply a fresh example. The media reported the emergence of fresh political parties. Elon Musk announced that he was setting up a fresh organization after a fewer weeks earlier he had had a dramatic fight with Donald Trump: “On his platform X billionaire announced that he had founded America Party, stating that this is simply a challenge posed to the Republican and Democratic Party's duo. However, it is unclear whether the organization was formally registered on the United States Election Commission. Born outside the U.S., Musk cannot search presidentship, but does not indicate who would be the leader of the fresh party."
This is sad news, due to the fact that one more time the right did what the left was expected to do – the left wing of the democrats (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) should separate themselves from the rotting corpse and form a fresh group. Is the UK good news, then, where Zarah Sultan and Jeremy Corbyn announced that a fresh organization was formed on the British left? For now it's a organization without a name – due to the fact that it's not going to be an uprising (Arise) or the Collective (The Collective). It is said that Corbyn likes the word ‘True Change’, but not necessarily as a group name.
The thought is to Mobilise a large pool of left-wing voters excluded or expelled from the Labour organization by Keira Starmer. The task looks promising – according to any polls, about half of Labour voters are ready to vote for the fresh left-wing party, but the situation is inactive uncertain. In principle, there is no answer – sometimes a large ruling organization needs to be taken over, another must be divorced. This is why news of the fresh parties being formed is sad: it is more effective to do as Trump, who has taken possession of the Republican Party, or as Corbyn, who took over the British Labour organization a fewer years ago, shaken the positions of the full ruling establishment.
In his own Notes to the definition of culture The large Conservative T.S. Eliot made the message frequently quoted later that there are moments erstwhile 1 has a choice only between heresy and disbelief, erstwhile the only way to keep religion is by schism, detaching from the core of religion. Lenin did this to conventional Marxism, Mao in his own way, Deng in relation to Mao, all with different results. Today's left has not yet done so – Trump went into heresy and detachment from the global hegemony of neoliberalism. And again, there's nothing to inform you: we should take over from the enemy topics specified as patriotism, defending our lifestyle, including household life. So we request heresy, but heresy effective, 1 that has the chance to become hegemonic, not another game arrogant of telling the fact in the eyes, although no 1 listens to these truths, and which, at the occasion of all election, trembles about whether it will stay in parliament.
**
From English she translated Catherine the Formers.
