In a master/slave world there is no right or wrong. There are the strong and the weak (the rich and the poor). Socialism sees the world through the prism of master/slave. From this vantage point "truth" is synonymous with "power." Socialists claim to be able to use that power, by making the state the locus of authority, to bring about justice and peace. To borrow a phrase appropriate to the occasion, let's descend to this "low but solid ground" and take socialism seriously. There is a way, using the master/slave logic of the left, to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate political power.
These two positions are the pillars of leftist thinking:
(1) an "objective" or fair government, and
(2) justice through full equality.
The second pillar (justice) can be split into a complimentary pair of concepts:
2a) Equality before the law, and
2b) (approximate) economic equivalence.
If a leftist thinking person is sincere in his or her support of these aims, notice how much this person shares with conservatism. Conservatives also want (1) an objective, accountable, government and they demand (2a) equality before the law.
The difference between a sincere socialist and a genuine conservative is that the socialist's goals depends upon the existence of
(1) an objectively ruled and judicially unbiased state
(2a) to establish and enforce legal equality, and
(2b) to ensure economic equivalence -- i.e., to "spread the wealth."
The conservative position on (2b) is that economics is not a zero sum game; wealth is not shared -- it is created and then voluntarily transferred. Government intervention will almost always favor the benefactors of the persons currently in power. Conservatives desire objective or fair legislation and the transparent administration of the law (1) as do all decent people. But, like the Founding Fathers, conservatives are skeptical that this goal can be achieved and sustained.
In order to understand and use the Hegelian/Marxist logic of the left, one must first take these socialist objectives seriously. In fact, one must take socialist aspirations more seriously than many on the left take those goals. Here are current examples of (1) and (2b): First, President Obama's promise of transparency in government was a pledge -- attractive to the left, to moderates, and to conservatives -- for "objective" governing. Clearly, Obama has not kept his principal campaign promise. By no rational measure is "accountability" (1) a characteristic of the Obama administration. Second, Obama's stated (socialist) desire to "spread the wealth" (2b) has not been achieved -- at least not in a fashion that satisfies the aims of the left. If anything, Obama has continued the policy of the presidents who preceded him -- to spread the wealth to his well-heeled political supporters not to the poor and the middle-class.
The reason for the disagreement between the socialist and the conservative is the socialist's acceptance of a master/slave world. Power in this world is wealth-based or economic. According to the socialist, in the modern world the masters and slaves are, respectively, the rich and the poor. An economy based on capital is, from a socialist's view, the struggle between the haves and the have-nots. (Thus, the OWS's protests and claims to be members of the "99.")...
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by RollingWave
