Right and Left in the Postmodern Context
Gadi Taub claims:
Taub’s main criticism of Israeli postmodernism focuses on its “disintegrative” dimension. Postmodern thought generally claims that national frameworks, ideologies , values , and all cultural perceptions that humans have are patterns that are socially and historically created, and have an oppressive dimension (they precede the subject and “structure” it). The main focus of postmodern thought is on the dismantling of discourse structures and “grand narratives ,” since it claims that there is no “high” or “low” culture, and no “better” or “less good” culture. In Israel, this is expressed primarily in the criticism of thinkers who adhere to this line of thought toward the Israeli melting pot , which they claim excluded non- Ashkenazi Jewish immigrants, as well as Palestinians and Israeli Arabs . According to some postmodern and post-Zionist critics, a multicultural reality should be allowed, since, among other things, there is no common denominator that does not reflect a power structure and cultural preference of one group over another. According to Taub, what is perceived in these arguments as a left-wing social critique is nothing more than an individualist right-wing perception. According to him, criticism of shared values is a call for the dismantling of society, which harms the weaker, since the practical results of such moves are the dismantling of the welfare state , the economic and social privatization of society, and the absence of the possibility of solidarity and common life. What he claims appears to be a radical left (postmodernist) is in fact nothing more than an extreme right .
I understand that the Rabbi perceives the correlation differently. Could you briefly write here where he is wrong and how you see it?
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
He claims that the radical left is actually an extreme individualist right-wing view - do you agree?
Absolutely. And I've written this more than once. The radicalism of two poles meets in many cases (opinions are arranged in a circle and not in a line).
How then do you define yourself? As I understand it, you are a right-winger, so you share the leftist criticism? Or maybe, in addition to the individualist value, you also have a national value that balances it? In other words, a right-winger can also have a tension between two values (but in the end, the right-wing value is slightly stronger)
What is actually happening here is that the radicalism of both sides as he presents them (Gadi Taub) is actually anarchy. But it is not the same anarchy. Anarchy on the right is a kind of jungle. Everyone has the right to utilize their talent to achieve achievements without any government (or society) interfering with them, even if all their talent is brute force. In contrast, anarchy on the left actually comes from a desire not to harm equality and on the other hand not to limit individual rights. But there really is a right and a left (the meeting at the other end of the circle is only at the level of the result but not at the level of the principle). The right is a rule and the left is a detail. A radical right is simply fascism, and a radical left is really anarchy in which there is no rule at all. In practice, the extreme left is communism, but this is the usual contradiction of the left (Russell's paradox. I like to think of the group of all groups that contain themselves (I think they call it the Henkin group) as the right and the group of all groups that do not contain themselves (Russell's group) as the left). In other words, it creates fascist coercive mechanisms (Mother Russia) to impose its "god of equality" on individuals. But the real left is not really equality, but rather the impossibility of comparison (criterion for comparison), while the right has hierarchies (necessary for the existence and functioning of society as a single entity).
That is, on the right there is also inequality between individuals (more precisely, there is a relation of order between individuals. Hierarchy. And by virtue of it, sometimes there is also equality) but as such that it is necessary for the existence of society. And on the left there is also inequality, but it is due to the very lack of hierarchy in general (some principle of comparison. That is, there is neither inequality nor equality. There is no relation of order nor equality)
First, calling something left-wing doesn't mean it's really left-wing. What's called the extreme left here is an individualistic approach that is unwilling to accept binding values. In such a situation, nothing can be imposed, and in any case, a situation similar to the right-wing utopia is created.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
