My lefty dilemma #1
What am I on about?
Politics, of course. Or, more specifically, the politics of "the left".
The more I see, hear, and read, the more I drift to "the left". I consider myself to be firmly on the left side of politics. But, paradoxically, the more I examine "the left", the more confused I get.
One major issue for me is Anarchism (the political movement), and its influence on left-wing thought.
I've just finished reading
Here's my dilemma:
Before reading Goldman, I saw anarchism as a device useful for tearing down corrupt regimes, but I also felt that once the corrupt regime had been torn down, the very same anarchistic principles will create a power vacuum which the next wave of despots will fill because it has no model for cultivating benign leadership.
After reading Goldman, I still see anarchism as a device useful for tearing down corrupt regimes, and her life's story has reinforced my suspicions that once the corrupt regime has been torn down, the very same anarchistic principles will create a power vacuum which the next wave of despots will fill because it provides no model for cultivating benign leadership.
For me the problem with anarchism is its negative attitude to _all_ forms of leadership. This, to me, is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water. It seems to be based on what to me looks like a fallacy of logic which goes something like "bad leadership is bad, therefore all leadership is bad." I just can't buy that.
Don't bother commenting unless you consider yourself to be a genuine "lefty". I'm not giving free kicks to "the right" here.