~ Manifesto ~
What if the left-right divide were an illusion?
✦
Don’t you too find that mass media today convey narratives that are far too homogeneous and far too similar to those of authorities that remain all too often unquestioned? This phenomenon, unfortunately, is becoming widespread, leaving little room for debate or citizen testimonies, which are easily « canceled » by an establishment that, by controlling these media (or have they become complicit?),—whether social or otherwise—controls the overarching narrative.
Conditioned by these seemingly diverse media, people dismiss certain sources outright, branding them as « communist » (sic) or associating them with « far-right extremism »—all manner of distortions and scapegoating are allowed.
For example, in a totalitarian state that espouses traditionally « left-wing » ideals—a contradiction in itself, since the pendulum of liberty swings beyond the straight lines drawn in our imagination—such a regime, whether covert or overt but obediently echoed by mass media, can easily denounce any objection as « obviously right-wing » and thus dismissible. After all, no dissent is permitted—or sometimes even acknowledged—within totalitarianism, whether it leans left or right. And thus, such objections are automatically deemed false. And vice versa.
Hannah Arendt popularized the term « totalitarianism. » In The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), she described it as follows:
« [T]he word totalitarianism expresses the idea that dictatorship is exercised not only in the political sphere but in all spheres, including the private and intimate ones, systematically controlling all of society and the entire territory, imposing on all citizens an obligatory adherence to an ideology, outside of which they are considered enemies of the community. »
The journal Argument, in its 2018-2019 edition, explains:
« The difference between totalitarian repression and the kinds of limits set by military tyrants was that the latter were only concerned with critics of their regime, whereas totalitarian leaders, like the Nazis and the communists, sought to establish a mode of thought that permeated all domains, including philosophy, literature, and education. »
Wikipedia also reports that:
« According to Hannah Arendt, the difference between a dictatorship and a totalitarian regime does not lie in the scale of arbitrariness, repression, and crimes, but in the extent of power’s control over society: a dictatorship becomes ‘totalitarian’ when it invades every social sphere, even intruding into the private and intimate realms (families, mentalities, individual psyche). »
(Source: The Nature of Totalitarianism)
Totalitarianism is all the more totalitarian as it encroaches upon inherently human domains, threatening, above all, personal integrity, the entirety of our dreams, potential, and influence over the course of the world.
Thus, it is no surprise that the public feels excluded from the exercise of such (totalitarian) power—even when it has been supposedly elected democratically—nor that there is a need to turn to citizen testimonies, nor to sound the alarm to awaken the masses being led by this totalitarian elite disguised in universalist rhetoric—nor, of course, to doubt—of everything—again and again.
All of this will, of course, be cavalierly dismissed as « right-wing populism » by a left-wing values-based totalitarian establishment. And vice versa, as « left-wing populism » by a right-wing values-based totalitarian establishment.
We must acknowledge that such an extreme—whether shamelessly labeled as « communism » or « fascism, » depending on one’s position on the political spectrum—shares the same defining characteristic: totalitarianism. The French language Wikipedia’s representation of the left-right divide (below) suggests such a convergence only imperfectly, in my view, through the curvature of an incomplete circle.
Today, the word « communism » is often used to describe the worst of what has claimed that name—in reality, totalitarian methods that run contrary to the original idea of communism: a self-managed society without a state. To correct this misunderstanding, we must distinguish at least two types of communism. Let us therefore add totalitarian communism, which, though it bears the name, is not truly communist, and in parallel, on the other hemisphere of the spectrum, to do some justice to the ideal, libertarian communism.
Logically, the latter should be placed above a line separating it from its corrupted counterpart. And if that’s the case, why not push fascism below that line as well? This suggests a completely different axis.
Human: for everything above this line is human and can certainly be harmonized—IF we do not fall into the trap of a false dichotomy that pits one human trait against another, hastily and shamefully discrediting it with an infamous label! (One might even wonder if the notions of left and right exist only to sustain enmity.) But what are left and right truly, if not a tangled web of human passions ranging from the individual to the collective—when the intersection of these two realms is precisely what constitutes us as human and as a humanity?
No, this left and this right have ultimately been a massive distraction. Because all of the following are human traits:
- The desire to preserve traditions (a consensus on proven traditions is certainly a solid foundation for experimentation without reckless risk);
- The freedom to innovate within a just framework that establishes our rights (and their limits: ecological, economic, and moral);
- The pursuit of social harmony;
- Finally, the maximization of personal autonomy, responsibly exercised within a common dynamic that prioritizes meeting the needs of all.
One can certainly live―and very well―by drawing inspiration from the best of conservatism, liberalism, socialism, and libertarian communism, for all of these are human.
A vertical axis distinguishing what enables the integrity of both person and society seems far more useful than an axis that needlessly tears us apart—even down to our very core! (e.g., the issue of abortion). Doesn’t this seem obvious to you as well?
Or perhaps this new axis (human / inhuman) is not even a political axis anymore but rather an emancipatory repositioning of humanity itself?
In the confusion of our times, a crucial question to ask ourselves is: Can we free ourselves from the conflicts in which we see only the worst in those at the opposite end of an imaginary spectrum where we ourselves take refuge?
Yes, we must ask whether we attend to both the individual and the collective—these notions are fundamental and useful guides in relation to what constitutes us; but, for heaven’s sake, let us not make them a factor of division: the two go together—or not at all. A real collective is made up of real individuals, that is, people free in their choices and actions. And just as each individual is thus responsible for collective reality, they must consider the impact of their actions on others—and also be able to benefit from collective wealth to continue the human adventure.
Have we been deceived—or have we deceived ourselves?—into believing in this strange left-right dichotomy that divides everyone at every level?
If we reject nothing of what is human, we do not all become the same: we live differently, according to our preferences; there is great diversity. But we universally agree on one thing: human dignity, and by extension, the dignity of life in general. You can live differently—and even elsewhere, with those who share your way of life—but do not harm anyone or threaten the ecosystems essential to life.
By this principle, we could, without regret, throw totalitarian communism, fascism (which closely resembles it), and the looming techno-totalitarianism into the dustbin of history—what history will judge as inhuman, that is, inherently hostile to humanity and the possibility of it.
Above: the home, nature, the universe and its relationships, the active spirit—eco, cosmo, personal. Below: the tool, methods, even ideas—techno, praxis, philosophy.
A possible synthesis: No tool, method, or idea should dictate existence.
Existence comes first. Morally first. Ideas, tools, and practices must serve it—not the other way around. Perhaps this is the very definition of what is truly human.
Furthermore, on an individual level, what is truly human is refusing to abandon human realities for an idea lodged in one’s brain like a program fixed in a robot’s dead memory.
