The Narcissism of Small Differences

Liberal commentators are very eager to accuse the left of obsessing — and falling out — over things which, in reality, don't seem to the liberals to matter very much. They have a phrase for this: 'the narcissism of small differences.' Well, OK, we on the left do fall out over things which, seen from outside our spectrum, may seem trivial, such as whether communism should be imposed from above or grown from below; whether people should self organise voluntarily or should be led by a self-appointed vanguard party; whether people should be entitled to food and security as a reward for their work, or simply as a consequence of their membership of the society; and so on.

But, actually, the entire spectrum of liberal political discourse, from the Green party on the left through to Reform on the right, subtends an extremely small ark of the potential political space. If we exclude the Greens, the spectrum of concordance becomes even closer. So let us, please, consider for the moment the mote in our brother's eye.

All the parties within the liberal political discourse believe that:

1. Money is real;

2. Economics is a science;

3. Economic growth can continue indefinitely;

4. Corporations are persons;

5. Donations by rich people (and corporations) to political parties are legitimate;

6. Corporations, despite being persons, may only be punished for crime by fines;

7. People (including corporations) can own stuff;

   1. Stuff, for these purposes, includes ideas;
   2. A person who owns a thing may legitimately neglect, damage or destroy that thing, even if other people depend on it;
   3. A person who owns a thing can determine who will own that thing after they die;

8. Unearned income should be taxed at a lower rate than earned income;

9. Private landlordism is a legitimate enterprise, and should be supported by public subsidy through housing benefit;

10. Nuclear energy is a useful energy source, and should also be supported by public subsidy;

11. Foreign policy (including foreign aid) should operate on the basis national self interest, irrespective of ethics;

12. That poor people born outside a polity should only be allowed to settle in that polity if they can demonstrate that they will personally contribute to its political economy;

13. Politicians should wear suits, shirts and ties.

I would claim that items 1 to 6 above are objectively false; and that the rest are, at best, contentious. Yet no party with the resources to effectively contest an election anywhere in what we call the 'liberal democracies' opposes any of them.

Why not?

Well, I would argue, because all the items I have listed above serve the short term interests of the very rich, and because, see item 5, it is the very rich who fund our political parties. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

But if no 'legitimate' political debate can be allowed to fall outside this very narrow spectrum, then surely, any political debate that can happen is by definition a narcissism of small differences.

By contrast, the 'small differences' on the left range, on the matter of property, range across

1. The state should own all property (state socialism);
2. Each enterprise should be owned as a cooperative by all its workers (socialism);
3. There is no such thing as property (anarchism).

On the matter of money and income, across

1. The state should pay each person what The Vanguard Party considers they personally deserve (state socialism);
2. Each cooperative should pay each of its workers exactly the amount they personally earn, as determined by the management (socialism);
3. Each cooperative should pay each of its workers an equal share of its profits (syndicalism);
4. There is no such thing as money (anarchism).

On the matter of the making of laws, from

1. The people can elect members of The Vanguard Party to an assembly, which will suggest laws to The Supreme Council of The Vanguard Party to enact (state socialism);
2. The people can elect delegates from local assemblies to go to a national assembly which enacts laws, and vote there exactly as their local assembly has directed them (socialism);
3. The people can elect representatives from local constituencies to go to a national assembly which enacts laws, and vote there as they personally choose (social democracy);
4. There is no such concept as laws (anarchism),

On the matter of foreign policy, from

1. If neighbouring polities do not adopt exactly our system of government, we should, as soon as we believe ourselves powerful enough, invade them and impose our system (state socialism);
2. If neighbouring polities invade us, we should group together with other neighbouring socialist states to resist them (socialism);
3. If neighbouring polities invade us, we should group together with other neighbouring states to resist them (social democracy);
4. If neighbouring polities invade us, people who want to resist may self-organise and do so (anarchism).

I would argue that, on all these axes (and many more), the left has far more intellectual diversity than the 'liberal' consensus; so let us hear less about the left's supposed narcissism.

Tags: Anarchism, Foreign Politics, Politics