Last time, I wrote here about the tragedy of the left. It is a phenomenon in which a combination of passionate concern for the oppressed, various logical fallacies, and imprecise thinking ultimately leads the left to wage war against the working classes and systematically destroy the conditions necessary for tolerable lives.
Today I will add a sequel. I criticize the free-market right and naïve conservatism here often enough, so it is only fair not to leave the left out.
Political struggle is always about some group trying to enact some measure. Perhaps it wants to change the distribution of the tax burden. Or introduce Islamic sharia law. Or outlaw Islam. Or pursue a particular kind of industrial policy. Or abolish compulsory schooling. Or anything else. To accomplish this, the group in question must concentrate enough political power to carry out its plans while also being able to prevent political action by anyone who might resist them. This can take the form of murderous violence, civilized debate, or anything in between. But the basic principle remains the same. We seek to concentrate enough power to put our program into effect.
Sometimes this process includes a sudden revolutionary wave that sweeps away the existing ruling group, altering the balance of power and making it possible to implement a particular political program. Far more often, however, change is less dramatic. One group simply becomes stronger, or a new coalition of power emerges, and something that was previously impossible becomes possible.
The problem arises when someone loses the ability to distinguish between ends and means. Revolution and regime change cease to be understood as one possible route toward implementing a program and instead become ends in themselves. Combine this with an inability to distinguish precisely between those aspects of modern Western society that are unjust and destructive and those that are, on the contrary, remarkable achievements, and the result is a disaster.
And so the search begins for a revolutionary—a liberator. The latest candidate is BRICS, and it does not work. Just as the “Third World” did not work before it, and the working class disappointed at the very beginning. The reason is simple: BRICS is a grouping of countries that defend their own interests. They have an interest in weakening the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and they also have an interest in ending or limiting certain American activities, but that is about as far as it goes. Beyond that, each has interests of its own, often pulling in opposite directions. They are capable of waging wars against one another. They are capable of supporting the Americans against a neighbor because that neighbor causes them more trouble. They are capable of betraying one another. India and Central African states supporting the war against Iran are only a small part of the picture. Even the Muslim world is riven by internal disputes.
For now, one can still explain all this by claiming that one side or the other in each of these smaller conflicts is controlled from America. But the more realistic answer is that everyone is simply defending narrow interests of their own.
The conclusion and lesson are straightforward: the small Czech Republic does not exist to defend American or European hegemony. But neither does it exist to fight against it. And we, as citizens, should not invest our emotions in either cause. What matters is understanding the dynamics at work and knowing how, within that environment, to defend ourselves, our lives, and our interests. That is the point.