|
 Right?
or Left?
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
The words "right" and "left" are currently
used to classify positions taken on the greatest variety of
themes. The most common use relates to matters of a political,
social or economic nature. However, these words may also apply
to ways of feeling or being, as well as literature, the arts
and the like.
In fact, these terms have assumed such
a diversity and ambiguity of meaning that many observers believe
they have lost any value as labels for classifying ideological,
cultural or moral positions.
In spite of the talent, culture and
fame of those who have already thought this way for some time,
"right" and "left" continue to be words in common use and
thus are indispensable for anyone who habitually does ideological
analyses.
This fact appears to demonstrate that
at the core of these words there is something substantial,
authentically expressive and even indispensable. They must
then be seriously considered until common usage coins other
terms to replace them.
I propose to analyze that "something
substantial" to check whether my feeling for the words corresponds
to the reader's, and finally to that of the general public.
* * *
I begin by noting that not everything
is imprecise when considering the meaning of "left" and "right."
There is a clear zone. Once this is defined, we can detect
the clue that will lead us step by step to cut through the
ambiguity and get to a final clarification of the matter
The clear zone is on the left. Consider
the trilogy of the French Revolution: liberty, equality and
fraternity. Even today, the general consensus will not hesitate
to classify the leftist in these terms. Moreover, the perfect
and complete leftist does not just defend any liberty, equality
and fraternity, but total liberty, total equality and total
fraternity. He is essentially an anarchist in the etymological
and radical sense of the word (from the Greek "an" - without
and "arch"- government) with or without the connotation of
violence or terrorism.
Moderate leftists may label the total
leftist as a follower of a utopian dream. None of them would,
however, deny the full leftist authenticity of this utopia.
Using this standard of absolute leftism,
one can easily devise a leftist scale to classify a program
or method. One can gauge leftist content by the more a thing
approaches or goes further away from total "an-archism."
For example, the more effective and
general the equality a socialist demands, the more leftist
he is. One who demands total equality is totally leftist.
Analogous affirmations can be made
about another "value" of the trilogy of 1789. I refer especially
to political liberalism. The more a liberal calls for total
liberty, the more leftist he is.
Of course, there are certain contradictions
between socialism and liberalism. And these lead to objections
to what I have just stated that are easy to refute. The principal
objection is that economic totalitarianism destroys political
freedom, and vice versa. But this contradiction exists only
in the intermediate stages. Neither socialism nor liberalism
represent total anarchism, although both can prepare the way
for it. Moreover, both absolute freedom and (especially) absolute
equality can just as well lead to anarchism.
Absolute equality promotes a general
offensive by those who are or have less against those who
are or have more. In its turn, complete liberty amounts to
denying all authority and, therefore, all law. These two so-different
ways are not parallel lines that meet in infinity. However
contradictory these may seem to today's run-of-the-mill moderate,
total equality and total liberty do converge toward a final
"an-archic" point where they meet and complement each other.
Thus, according to the general consensus,
leftism has both its final goal and scale of values well defined.
* * *
Now that the "left" has been delineated,
the question is whether the "right" also has well-defined
goals and values.
On this point there is undeniable confusion.
The key is to find a clue analogous to that which we found
on the left. Then we can go step by step toward classifying
the subtle nuances of what it means to be "rightist."
The words "right" and "left" arose
in the political, social and economic vocabulary of 19th century
Europe. Leftism ideologically participated in the thinking
and work of a still recent and generally quite defined phenomenon:
the French Revolution. The left was not only a volcanic negation
of what seemed to be a dead tradition. Rather it was increasingly
the affirmation of an inexorable future. In the face of the
overwhelming Revolution, the right only really defined itself
gradually, in a groping and contradictory way (cf. Michel
Denis, Les Royalistes de la Mayenne et le Monde Moderne,
Publications de l'Université de Haute-Bretagne, 1977).
Thus while the "right" defines itself
as anti-leftist and "a fortiori" as anti-anarchist, what does
it affirm using the full rigor of logic?
I have noted that anarchism essentially
affirms that each and every inequality is unjust to the point
that the less the inequality, the less the injustice. Liberty
is also dear to anarchism, precisely because authority is
in itself a denial of equality.
Contrary to this, rightism affirms
that inequality in itself is not unjust. In fact, God created
the universe where all beings are unequal including and especially
men. Injustice occurs when one imposes equality on an order
of things which God, for the very highest reasons, made unequal
(cf. Mt. 25, 14-30; 1 Cor. 12, 28-31; St. Thomas Summa
contra Gentiles, Book III, Chapter LXXVII).
Hence, justice is to be found in inequality.
It is well to remember in passing that
the rightist does not conclude that the greater the inequality,
the more perfect the justice. To leftist thinking the antithetical
affirmation (the less the equality, the less the injustice)
is logical. Not so with the rightist position. There is a
glaring lack of symmetry between the leftist and rightist
perspective.
Indeed what the rightist affirms is
that God did not create terrifying and monstrous inequalities.
Rather He created inequalities that were proportional to the
nature, well being and progress of each creature and adequate
for the general ordering of the universe. This is Christian
inequality.
Analogous considerations could be made
about liberty in society and in the universe.
I insist that the standard of rightism
is not an absolute inequality, symmetrical to and opposed
to absolute equality but rather the proportional inequality
explained above. In this way, rightism is defined. The more
a doctrine is contrary to the 1789 trilogy and approaches
this standard of harmonious and proportional inequality, the
more rightist it is.
Many thinkers and men of action rose
up against the Revolution in the 19th and 20th centuries,
and for this reason they were called rightists. However, they
often did not understand the essence of rightism.
Some of these (or those who studied
them) imagined that the label of rightism could justify abysmal
inequalities of a political, social, or chiefly economic nature
in the name of rightist consistency.
Other "rightists" made concession to
the egalitarian spirit because they themselves were permeated
by the very revolutionary principles against which they fought.
At times, others make concessions as a tactic that served
to advance their political careers. Consider the official
socialist character of Fascism and the not only official but
very marked socialist character of Nazism as examples.
In this manner, the term "right" was
not nearly as clear and precise as the term "left." Over the
years, "rightism" came to embrace not only the true rightism
of Christian inspiration of sacral, hierarchical and harmonious
nature (cf. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counterrevolution,
American TFP, 1995 p.45). Rather, it also served as a label
for other "rightism" which mixed Christian tradition with
peculiar ideological principles (and experiences).
While many of these so-called rightist
currents had very important socialist notes, everyday language
ended up classifying them as rightist because the public imagined
they had a greater or lesser affinity with the ideal Christian
rightism I described above. After centuries of tradition,
everyone still maintains a conscious or subconscious perception
of this ideal to aid in this classification.
Thus, to the right as to the left,
there are definite boundaries from which one may define all
the intermediate nuances.
* * *
The term "sacral" unexpectedly appeared
in this article. Space does not allow me to show what is,
as I see it, the central role of religion in the authentic
rightist conception that I have just outlined. This is obviously
my conception and that of the TFP.
This idea enters as almost as a postscript
because I believe that a secular or atheist rightism is absurd
and that a universe and man without God is unthinkable. This
does not mean (extending the postscript even further) that
I, who am honored to believe - in principle - in the union
of Church and State, desire this concretely in our days…
About this particular subject, I recommend
reading the above-cited Revolution and Counterrevolution
for all those interested in knowing the thinking of the TFP.
This book is available online.
You may access it by clicking
here.
|
