will you come to the right?

Many of today's conservatives were leftists in their youth. The reasons for the “recovery” are quite banal: with age, a person begins to give greater preference to individual values ​​rather than “bright ideals.” Does this mean that any leftist ideology can be labeled “utopia”? The idea of ​​universal social protection, for example, does not look utopian at all, if only because it is implemented in “welfare states.” The ideas of anti-globalism also do not look utopian (although they are often tried to be presented as such). Even anarchism does not look like a utopia - if we are talking about the rejection not of any hierarchy, but only of the state hierarchy: any informal community is anarchic precisely because of its informality.

Why, then, do you want to identify “left” with “youthful,” “radical,” “utopian”? To understand this, it is necessary to take a closer look at those leftist ideas that are one way or another implemented at the state level. First of all, this is the idea of ​​universal social protection . I have already pointed out that the meaning of this protection is not at all in mercy, but in the prevention of rebellion... It turns out that social protection ensures state stability, which, obviously, is of value primarily from the point of view of the right, and not at all from the left. Anti-globalist slogans can be reformulated, removing narrow economic rhetoric from them and leaving anti-globalism in its pure form. Then these slogans will sound something like this: “Let's preserve traditional values!” This, of course, is a criticism of capitalism, only not from the left, but from the right! The idea of ​​nationalization of the economy (a softened version - the idea of ​​​​expanding state presence in the economy) - supposedly to guarantee a more even distribution of resources - when implemented, leads to ensuring state sovereignty. Can the Third Reich be considered a state that embodied leftist values? Rather, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation can be considered a right-wing party that uses left-wing rhetoric.

Another leftist value - mass character - was also embodied in the Third Reich. This value relates more to the spheres of art than politics: power is elitist by its nature and cannot be mass. Apparently, this is the objective reason why left-wing ideas, when embodied at the state level, turn out to be right-wing ideas. The idea of ​​anarchism, fully embodied at the non-state level, if transferred to state spheres would look ridiculous and suicidal. Anarchism is probably a leftist idea in its purest, refined form: anarchism is based on negation. This is a non-judgmental statement. There are significantly more entities in the world worthy of denial than entities worthy of affirmation. But regardless of any attitude towards a particular system, it would be naive to expect that anti-systemic ideas can be embodied within the framework of this system.

What happens? Nothing new. The authentic embodiment of leftist ideas is a rebellion, from a strike to a revolution, from nudist actions of the “Down with Shame!” society. before terrorist attacks. Compromises are impossible here, actions within the framework of legality are incompatible with the denial of legality, and recognition of legality is incompatible with leftist ideas. A “left state,” therefore, is impossible for the same reasons that a Christian state is impossible. At the same time, if “left-wing state” is an awkward phrase, then “left-wing party” is a completely familiar phrase, but no less absurd for that. The system does not allow itself to be destroyed by positioning all uncompromising leftists as eccentrics and/or criminals, and turning all “compromising” ones into rightists.

Kirill Yakimets