Antisemitism from the right has always been easier to define and recognize and criticize. Antisemitism from the left has always been much more difficult to characterize and explain. I thought this first essay was very interesting and I’m looking forward to the rest. Like a commenter above, I did not completely understand your conception of universalism’s ’negative face’ and thought your response to his comment stated it more clearly
“philosophy of history that rests upon the belief that the existing order derives neither its legitimacy nor its permanence from tradition, but from contingent historical circumstances that can, and ought, to be overturned.”
And thus, you nail the entire political function of Marxists historical determinism to the door.
Excellent beginning. Defining terms before drawing conclusions is rarer than it should be. I’m very interested to see where this framework leads, particularly when you turn to the Jewish question and Israel. That’s where a historical framework has the opportunity to demonstrate its explanatory power.
A very intelligent essay. To me, though, your two faces of universalism are really two different philosophies, not two aspects of one idea. Kantian, Enlightenment universalism requires a common denominator like "everyone has a free will". (Utilitarianism is also universalist in this sense.) You cannot, logically, posit an "Other" in a universalist system. You seem to feel that universalism posits as Other those who oppose the universalist project. That would indicate a self-contradictory "universalism". The Kantian "kingdom of ends" already exists as a moral principle, and as such, everyone is already in this kingdom; we do not need to eliminate all those who oppose it; they simply do not realize that this is the form of morality. The Marxist or revolutionary ideal embraces this kind of universalism as a practical goal for a future in which classless society is ubiquitous and self-perpetuating, rather than a Platonic moral principle. Until then there is nothing universal about it: the logical position of the Other in this philosophy is that of an obstacle to the revolutionary change in property relations. In this sense, socialism is communitarian, not universalist: it seeks unity on the basis of a non-universal characteristic, membership in the working class or recognition of the interests of this class. Two sides of an idea only in the sense that one is the alleged pre-condition to achieve the other.
Thanks for the comment. My argument is not that universalism defines its opponents as the Other, nor that this follows logically from universalism as a philosophical doctrine. If that were my claim, I would agree that it would be difficult to reconcile with kantian universalism. I'm making a historical argument about the operation of universalist political traditions, where universalist projects have repeatedly identified certain groups as standing outside the universal itself - not because they reject universalism, but because they are understood to embody some defect, obstacle, or false form of humanity. They are presented as not yet fully emancipated, excessively particularistic, representatives of a false universalism, or otherwise failing to meet the conditions of the universal community. The Jewish Question illustrates this especially clearly. This is just part one of a 5 part series, I am only laying the foundations in this essay. More to come, hope you subscribe and follow along. Be well
Yes Marxism cannot define the Left, because Marxism was always intended to be a critique of socialism (and thus the Left). It influences the Left in and through its critique of the Left, more than its critique of capitalism. The insistence on economism is either way extremely reductionist way of understanding Marxism. This is good work you’ve done here, people have really lost sight of this history, and in this moment of “post-leftism” in the so-called socialists of today, its also important. I often return to Kolakowski’s essay “The concept of the Left” and recommend taking it into consideration as you move forward in the series. It’s clearly a response to the conservatism of Stalinism as opportunism after 1956, it defines the Left from within the legacy you mention, but also from within the problem of the right-wing nature of Stalinism. Fundamentally the Left is not sociological category, it is always relative to the status quo, and is always defined from within. I am also a founder of Platypus, if that disclosure matters, and we’ve done interesting series of panels on the concept of left and right available on our website, which I think you should check-out, not because we organized them, but because it actually has DIFFERENT perspectives on the question.
Samuel, thank you so much for working on this project. "The Left" is a very important subject and I am looking to read the future installments with great interest. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.
I want to respectfully disagree with your definition and critique it. I think that the idea of the Left -- at least in its late XIX and XX century version -- must go back to Karl Marx and his understanding of human development. Marx -- an emancipated and non-religious German Jew -- believed that economy ("base") fully determines politics, culture, and religion ("superstructure"). Accordingly, the "axis" along which the Right-Left division happens is economic. The "Left" are those who favor a broad economic redistribution from the rich to the poor, while the "Right" wish to maintain the system in which the poor remain poor and the rich keep getting richer. This is, of course, a simplification, but so is the whole idea of "Left" and "Right".
In the early XX century, the idea of economic redistribution went hand in hand with the idea of social liberalization, secularization, emancipation of women and minorities (including Jews), and yes, universalism. This is why millions of European and American Jews were involved in the Leftist parties and organizations (Martov, Liber, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev in Russia; Bernstein in Germany; Emma Goldman in America, etc.). Amusingly, in a Soviet satirical novel "The Twelve Chairs", during a meeting of a putative anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary underground, a monarchist says about a Jewish merchant "He is a Leftist -- all Jews are Leftist!". The founders of the State of Israel (Ben Gurion, Golda Meir) obviously were the people of the Left. Shimon Peres was a member of the Socialist International in the 1970s -- although he did have frictions with other members about the "Palestine Question".
It is likely that the "Left"-"Right" axis started to change in the last quarter of the XX century, when the world politics began to include the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia. Soviet Union used the Leftist rhetoric to justify its bureaucratic totalitarian state, and China did the same. Many dictators in Asia, Africa, and South America chose to call themselves Communists and Socialists, and many young people in the West flocked to their banners. Of course, the level of poverty, sickness, and premature death in those Communist and Socialist countries is no better than in their "capitalist" or "feudal" neighbors, and often even worse. Still, in many places, "Left" began to be associated with "pro-Soviet" and the "Right" with "anti-Soviet". (Fortunately, in the USA, this was not the case, as the Democrats and the labor unions rejected most of their pro-Soviet factions).
Still, in the 1980s and 1990s, I classified political leaders along two axes:
(Left-Right): More redistributionist (higher taxes, more generous welfare) vs. more laissez-faire;
(Down-Up): More libertarian (state does not legislate morality and religion) vs. more traditionalist conservative.
All four quadrants on this plane were fully occupied -- you could find adherents of any combination in the US Senate, for example.
Universalism was always implied in the "polite society", given that the US Declaration of Independence stated that "All Men are created equal..." This was easy before the globalization, as the implication was that it only refers to US citizens (or British, German, or Belgian citizens, depending on the country you lived in). Obviously, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, George H. W. and George W. Bush were all "universalist" while being clearly the men of the Right. Ditto Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl, and other European leaders.
Today, there is a concerted effort to equate "The Left" with antizionism. I don't know if Samuel subscribes to this view. To me, it is incorrect at least insofar as the pre-2010 Left is concerned. The pro-Israel/anti-Israel axis is "orthogonal" to the economic axis, and one can easily imagine a pro-Israel Left-wing politician in Europe who is "universalist" in terms of demanding political and economic equality for all citizens of his country while accepting the differences between societies. It is important to decouple those axes and return to the old days where each problem was addressed individually.
Antisemitism from the right has always been easier to define and recognize and criticize. Antisemitism from the left has always been much more difficult to characterize and explain. I thought this first essay was very interesting and I’m looking forward to the rest. Like a commenter above, I did not completely understand your conception of universalism’s ’negative face’ and thought your response to his comment stated it more clearly
“philosophy of history that rests upon the belief that the existing order derives neither its legitimacy nor its permanence from tradition, but from contingent historical circumstances that can, and ought, to be overturned.”
And thus, you nail the entire political function of Marxists historical determinism to the door.
Excellent beginning. Defining terms before drawing conclusions is rarer than it should be. I’m very interested to see where this framework leads, particularly when you turn to the Jewish question and Israel. That’s where a historical framework has the opportunity to demonstrate its explanatory power.
A very intelligent essay. To me, though, your two faces of universalism are really two different philosophies, not two aspects of one idea. Kantian, Enlightenment universalism requires a common denominator like "everyone has a free will". (Utilitarianism is also universalist in this sense.) You cannot, logically, posit an "Other" in a universalist system. You seem to feel that universalism posits as Other those who oppose the universalist project. That would indicate a self-contradictory "universalism". The Kantian "kingdom of ends" already exists as a moral principle, and as such, everyone is already in this kingdom; we do not need to eliminate all those who oppose it; they simply do not realize that this is the form of morality. The Marxist or revolutionary ideal embraces this kind of universalism as a practical goal for a future in which classless society is ubiquitous and self-perpetuating, rather than a Platonic moral principle. Until then there is nothing universal about it: the logical position of the Other in this philosophy is that of an obstacle to the revolutionary change in property relations. In this sense, socialism is communitarian, not universalist: it seeks unity on the basis of a non-universal characteristic, membership in the working class or recognition of the interests of this class. Two sides of an idea only in the sense that one is the alleged pre-condition to achieve the other.
Thanks for the comment. My argument is not that universalism defines its opponents as the Other, nor that this follows logically from universalism as a philosophical doctrine. If that were my claim, I would agree that it would be difficult to reconcile with kantian universalism. I'm making a historical argument about the operation of universalist political traditions, where universalist projects have repeatedly identified certain groups as standing outside the universal itself - not because they reject universalism, but because they are understood to embody some defect, obstacle, or false form of humanity. They are presented as not yet fully emancipated, excessively particularistic, representatives of a false universalism, or otherwise failing to meet the conditions of the universal community. The Jewish Question illustrates this especially clearly. This is just part one of a 5 part series, I am only laying the foundations in this essay. More to come, hope you subscribe and follow along. Be well
I just don't think you can coherently define the Left across time. It's a signifier whose substance has changed too much with time.
If the distinction makes no difference, it's not distinguishing. All your examples fit on toward totalitarianism and oppression or away.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/robert-anton-wilson-left-and-right-a-non-euclidean-perspective
Yes Marxism cannot define the Left, because Marxism was always intended to be a critique of socialism (and thus the Left). It influences the Left in and through its critique of the Left, more than its critique of capitalism. The insistence on economism is either way extremely reductionist way of understanding Marxism. This is good work you’ve done here, people have really lost sight of this history, and in this moment of “post-leftism” in the so-called socialists of today, its also important. I often return to Kolakowski’s essay “The concept of the Left” and recommend taking it into consideration as you move forward in the series. It’s clearly a response to the conservatism of Stalinism as opportunism after 1956, it defines the Left from within the legacy you mention, but also from within the problem of the right-wing nature of Stalinism. Fundamentally the Left is not sociological category, it is always relative to the status quo, and is always defined from within. I am also a founder of Platypus, if that disclosure matters, and we’ve done interesting series of panels on the concept of left and right available on our website, which I think you should check-out, not because we organized them, but because it actually has DIFFERENT perspectives on the question.
Thanks Laurie. I will check out your suggestions
Samuel, thank you so much for working on this project. "The Left" is a very important subject and I am looking to read the future installments with great interest. I apologize in advance for the length of this comment.
I want to respectfully disagree with your definition and critique it. I think that the idea of the Left -- at least in its late XIX and XX century version -- must go back to Karl Marx and his understanding of human development. Marx -- an emancipated and non-religious German Jew -- believed that economy ("base") fully determines politics, culture, and religion ("superstructure"). Accordingly, the "axis" along which the Right-Left division happens is economic. The "Left" are those who favor a broad economic redistribution from the rich to the poor, while the "Right" wish to maintain the system in which the poor remain poor and the rich keep getting richer. This is, of course, a simplification, but so is the whole idea of "Left" and "Right".
In the early XX century, the idea of economic redistribution went hand in hand with the idea of social liberalization, secularization, emancipation of women and minorities (including Jews), and yes, universalism. This is why millions of European and American Jews were involved in the Leftist parties and organizations (Martov, Liber, Trotsky, Sverdlov, Zinoviev, Kamenev in Russia; Bernstein in Germany; Emma Goldman in America, etc.). Amusingly, in a Soviet satirical novel "The Twelve Chairs", during a meeting of a putative anti-Soviet counter-revolutionary underground, a monarchist says about a Jewish merchant "He is a Leftist -- all Jews are Leftist!". The founders of the State of Israel (Ben Gurion, Golda Meir) obviously were the people of the Left. Shimon Peres was a member of the Socialist International in the 1970s -- although he did have frictions with other members about the "Palestine Question".
It is likely that the "Left"-"Right" axis started to change in the last quarter of the XX century, when the world politics began to include the newly independent countries of Africa and Asia. Soviet Union used the Leftist rhetoric to justify its bureaucratic totalitarian state, and China did the same. Many dictators in Asia, Africa, and South America chose to call themselves Communists and Socialists, and many young people in the West flocked to their banners. Of course, the level of poverty, sickness, and premature death in those Communist and Socialist countries is no better than in their "capitalist" or "feudal" neighbors, and often even worse. Still, in many places, "Left" began to be associated with "pro-Soviet" and the "Right" with "anti-Soviet". (Fortunately, in the USA, this was not the case, as the Democrats and the labor unions rejected most of their pro-Soviet factions).
Still, in the 1980s and 1990s, I classified political leaders along two axes:
(Left-Right): More redistributionist (higher taxes, more generous welfare) vs. more laissez-faire;
(Down-Up): More libertarian (state does not legislate morality and religion) vs. more traditionalist conservative.
All four quadrants on this plane were fully occupied -- you could find adherents of any combination in the US Senate, for example.
Universalism was always implied in the "polite society", given that the US Declaration of Independence stated that "All Men are created equal..." This was easy before the globalization, as the implication was that it only refers to US citizens (or British, German, or Belgian citizens, depending on the country you lived in). Obviously, Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp, George H. W. and George W. Bush were all "universalist" while being clearly the men of the Right. Ditto Angela Merkel, Helmut Kohl, and other European leaders.
Today, there is a concerted effort to equate "The Left" with antizionism. I don't know if Samuel subscribes to this view. To me, it is incorrect at least insofar as the pre-2010 Left is concerned. The pro-Israel/anti-Israel axis is "orthogonal" to the economic axis, and one can easily imagine a pro-Israel Left-wing politician in Europe who is "universalist" in terms of demanding political and economic equality for all citizens of his country while accepting the differences between societies. It is important to decouple those axes and return to the old days where each problem was addressed individually.
I like your two axis classification system of leaders.
loved it