Why are the so-called “political fringes” so popular? Because the so-called “middle” has established itself in lies and the denial of burning questions.
“Take care of it yourself, otherwise I’ll take care of it for you!” Variations would be: “If you fight about the ice cream, then there is no ice cream.” Or: “Clean up the toys, otherwise they will be gone!”
I call it the subsidiarity principle of upbringing – problems that children can solve themselves, they should solve themselves. (No, watching the occasional, uh, lively debates among the children doesn’t really help me – a quick arbitration would really be easier – but it teaches the children important skills like negotiation, the ability to compromise or, if you want, game theory.)
“Take care of yourself or I’ll take care of you!” – there is a threat in it, no doubt, an announcement of the consequences that will result if the actors involved do not fix the matter themselves. Some problems don’t go away if you ignore them long enough – which brings us to the news.
Refuse any syllable
As if one wanted to finally prove that any history lesson is completely pointless, the old ideas of socialism are breaking out again in places today.
We are currently struck by the words of our Prime Minister Trudeau. Let’s consider his sentence:
Capitalism is incapable of distributing the world’s wealth fairly.
Of course, you instinctively want to reject the sentence. In the last hundred years nothing has brought so much suffering and misery to the world, cost so many human lives, as the various attempts at socialism (which repeatedly failed and will fail over the same problem: socialism goes against human nature, whereupon the rulers try to enforce it by force despite increasingly brutal violence).
Everything in me wants to reject every syllable that a member of that disgusting Liberal Party spits out, but since I am not a leftist, I do not let my judgment be guided first or even solely by feeling. I think it is urgently important to take a closer look at the sentence.
Justice and its gaps
The sentence “Capitalism is not able to distribute the wealth in the world fairly” is of course a left, populist sentence, and as such is filled with a number of blanks.
A blank: what exactly is “capitalism” supposed to mean here? It would be the task of states, be they market-oriented democracies, monarchies or one-party states, to bring about “justice.” Where is this “capitalism” that is supposed to distribute? – Well, in his own words, he seems to be calling for a kind of “capped capitalism.”
The idea of “justice” is formed by our “ethical drive.” The ethical drive has the same purpose as all other drives: to keep the species alive. But just as it depends on the context and personal history who you find sexually attractive or which actions you perceive as good and which as bad , so justice can and will mean something very different depending on the context (compare, for example, the debate on the death penalty). So when a politician speaks of “justice”, he appeals to a feeling that everyone can interpret differently – and of course should interpret differently.
Finally, there is the tell-tale word “distribute”. It is a verb that implies a distributor – some see it as the “invisible hand of the market,” while others want to distribute through committees made up of the Liberal-NDP alliance. The thesis that capitalism is not in a position to distribute the wealth in the world equitably should of course be followed with: “… but with my new, this time definitely functioning variant of socialism it will work.”
However, despite all these gaps in the sentence of the Prime Minister, we suspect that that sentence indicates a real existing imbalance – and it would be very advisable to do what the author of that sentence avoided as much as possible: identify it specifically.
The first suspected cause of the generally unsatisfied feeling of justice is its subjective difference due to context and socialization: some feel their sense of justice seriously injured if every person on this planet is not brought into the Canadian social system and cared for there. Others, meanwhile, feel their sense of justice hurt when the government destroys all the work they have put into the country for the business of welfare corporations and the immigration industry.
On the other hand, to take an American example: If Jeff Bezos gets a month’s income richer every second (!) according to businessinsider.com, while in the same US society that made him so rich, congenital diabetes or an appendectomy operation can mean economic ruin – or death, if you can’t afford the insulin, then the decent should ask the question of justice before the questionable not only ask this question but also find (even more) approval with their solutions.
We all complain of a painful lack of justice – and not of an accompanying, tolerable lack of justice that will always resonate in a society. We are all unhappy about a non-trivial lack of justice, but each of us means something very different under certain circumstances (apart from the fact that hardly anyone has really formulated and thought through beforehand what justice is for them).
Is it fair if entrepreneurs allow themselves to be subsidized by the state and taxpayers, but still own the companies privately?
Similarly: Is it democratic when corporations and international actors go to political office holders in Ottawa, past all democratic processes, and only months later can you find their signature in laws and decisions?
Is it fair if politicians and entrepreneurs get richer and richer, while the one takes half of the already measly wages from the citizen and keeps thinking up new taxes to squeeze them out until the tax burden at some point violates the Charter?
Is it fair when powerful men behind high walls fantasize about a world without borders, while the little bourgeois defenselessly wonders whether it is still a good idea to bring children into a world that is becoming more dangerous every day?
And that’s before we even start with the many questions of justice around COVID-19 …
Nobody, not even really optimistic fellow citizens, will see their sense of justice satisfied these days – and it is a real problem that those who raise it are regularly those who, for various reasons, are placed on the fringes of the political spectrum by various participants in the debate.
Loophole in my warning
It’s not good the way it is today. I know, I know – you could always say that not everything is good , but today we fear that it will get worse (again) quickly.
Corporations and their helpers in politics and editorial offices persuade citizens that it is moral and the highest virtue to endure the deeds of politics (propaganda word: “tolerate”). What used to be a self-evident political position is now being declared by propaganda as “populist.” “extreme” or “fascist.” – And the other way around: What used to be only represented and practiced by extremists, demagogues and their blind followers, namely the derivation of political decisions from the unreflected gut feeling of the moment, is now quite a matter of course “mainstream.”
Anyone who really wants to change something today is defamed as “radical” (unless, of course, it is a change that is in the interests of certain actors, for example currently the weakening of Canadian industry in the name of alleged “environmental protection”).
This is a time when the political fringes dangerously often tell more truth than those who declare their “truth of the day” via propaganda for the one permissible truth.
The so-called political fringes are getting stronger and must be fought in an ever more undemocratic way because the so-called political center has established itself in lies and denial of reality.
“Take care of it,” I say to my children, if they don’t want to tidy up their toys, “otherwise I’ll take care of it.” – I mean: If you want to continue building your Lego buildings tomorrow, pick them up from the ground and put them on the Lego shelf, otherwise I’ll just pour them into the Lego box.
The children understood that I was serious about the announcement. For the reassurance of readers, however, it should be said that our smart children immediately spotted a logical loophole in my warning: If they only put on the shelves and tidied up those buildings that were important to them, I would clean up the remaining buildings and Lego bricks for them, just like I had “threatened.”
“Take care of it,” say the socialists, “or we’ll take care of it.” – The socialists think: If democracy and the market economy fail to give the citizens the well-founded and verifiable feeling that politics is on their side, not on the side of higher, unscrupulous, more-democratic powers, then the socialists will start another of their inhuman attempts – and some say that the latest socialist “experiment” is long on its way.
First pour it together
“Take care of yourself,” say the socialists, “or we’ll take care of you.”
What will the next ten years look like? – It’s an almost ridiculous question. We hardly know what the next ten weeks or ten months will look like.
But one thing can be said for sure: If we don’t care, people will take care of it for us, they will first pour the Lego bricks together, and little of what we have built will remain. Here and there the pouring seems to have already begun – and we still hope to be able to put on the shelf in time what we would like to save from the big heap.
“Take care of it,” say the socialists, “or we’ll take care of it for you.” – Too many, however, smile and shrug their shoulders as if to say: “Haha, the socialists don’t mean it!”