Left vs. Right and the Question of Rationality

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Cartman says:

    That shed some light on the problem. Definitely agree with the Christian ground inherent in Marxist eschatology and commune ideals. The rejection of intellect is also a trait in the right-wing ( these terms left and right are inadequate as you point out). One aspect of the leftist rhetoric is liberation or the promise of it. That is seductive even when it is nebulous. The right maybe lacks the vagueness which allows for the projection of personal fantasy. Its goal is too concrete and exclusive.
    It is a perplexing issue. Thanks for having a crack at it.

  2. Kyle says:

    The question your reader raises is a very good one, and as you point out Branko, it hasn’t been seriously addressed. Whether it’s Heidegger supporting the Nazis and giving up his colleagues to the gestapo, or Sartre supporting Mao, the trend in philosophy courses is to gloss over all of this and strictly focus on the ideas. I have also found this baffling to the point of frustration. But for me, the truly devious and baffling case of a philosopher who’s political positions are ignored and his views expounded as the height of intellectual brilliance is Foucault. I get cosmically incensed when I hear professors talk about Foucault’s ideas and ignore his support for Khomeini’s Iranian revolution. There is a glaringly obvious contradiction between the presentation of Foucault at an academic level, and the reality of his stance regarding the Iranian revolution. I think this highlights just how truly intellectually bankrupt the postmodern position is, not just bankrupt but fraudulent at its core. Sorry for the slight tangent away from Sartre but I think it fits well with your presentation in this podcast.

  3. Cabral says:

    Communism is materialism end of history, it’s the natural way of history although nobody knows exactly what it is. Like a monkey became a man, patriarcal society will become communist anyway. Enlighted people are just trying to help us to get there. Of course there were mistakes, but it was only some hidden conservative side in Stalin and Mao. Everyone against the natural way can be only evil. I think it’s why right must be always ashamed.

  4. Michał says:

    Branko, please do your research. Polish cavalry (not husars) didnt charge armour with lances. It’s dumb meme born as german propaganda. They had Bofors 37mm anti tank guns, tankettes and arguably best anti tank rifles in the world at that time.

    • Malić says:

      Ah, kurwa … I had a feeling I should skip that one, but that’s the problem with unscripted podcasts.

      Not a military historian, so I’m afraid I won’t be able to do that kind of research. It was just an illustration of a point. Consider it corrected by your comment.

      Btw. as children we used to learn about it as a testament to Polish courage.

      I hope you won’t proceed to tell me that Longinus Podbipjenda never actually took three Tartar heads with one swing of the sword?

      That would be devastating.

      • Michał says:

        Yes, I also remember that story from tv and school, and I belived in it. Quite ironic – polish school propagating german war propaganda. I must give credit to Goebbels where it’s due. I suspect it was done to show “backwardness” of 2nd republic.

        Anyway, that was interesting podcast. I think that problem of right vs left wing deserve more light, as there is semantic confusion. In fact, what most people today call “right wing” is only other side of progressivism. Few years ago I would call e.g. Ron Paul a rightwinger, without second tought. What we should call “real right wing” are reactionary forces, that reject enlightenment absolutly – from assumptions to it’s fruits. I consider first chapter of Revolt Against the Modern World as very approachable help to clarify that confusion. Brackets guy signing out.

        • Han Fei says:

          Polish cavalry did not charge head on german armored formations and machine gun posts. Instead the dastardly mounted Poles made use of woodland cover to run down startled German soldiers, frequently taking many of them prisoner!

          However Russian cavalry did so, over and over again, as is attested in the memoirs of Wehrmacht soldiers and officers.

          • Ante says:

            A few years ago when clicking random blue links on Wikipedia I ran into a minor event during German Stalingrad offensive that was supposed to be one of the very few instances in ww2 of cavalry successfully charging prepared positions. Funnily enough, it was Italians charging Russians.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Izbushensky

            Anyhow, back to the point, I doubt the technological gap between Germans and Poles was all that large. Maybe in the air. I think the stories of spacemen Germans swooping over Poland like Martians from War of the Worlds is a bit of a face saving attempt by both Poles and especially the western allies. You know, there was nothing we could do. Honest. In reality it was a spectacular but rather hard fought victory, with German casualties not that much lower than in the later Battle of France. It doesn’t however negate the point about technological and modernist nature of national socialism and fascism.

        • Mihai says:

          Michal, perhaps this is also false information spread because of propaganda, but I’ve read in the memorials of Wehrmacht General Hans Guderian that this cavalry vs tank thing was an isolated event where a few Polish cavalry advanced the theory that many of the multitude of German tank divisions which they saw were actually tin dummies, designed to fool them into thinking that they had so many tanks. So they decided to prove this theory in the field and regretted it instantly.

          I don’t consider it beyond plausibility, since this was a new warfare method, not witnessed until that time.

          Guderian might also be reproducing a mere rumour born of propaganda, of course, however, he states it was an isolated event, born of a mistaken assumption. Probably Goebels took that and generalized it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *