Philosophy and Science

It is sometimes maintained that the conflicts of the twentieth century (war and international contests in general) might best be characterized as between the left and right political persuasions (e.g., "communism" against "fascism" or "democracy" against "fascism"). Defend or dispute such a characterization using the two socioeconomic and political systems that have been the central concerns of our readings and discussion: that of Sun Yat-sen (The Kuomintang on the Chinese mainland and on Taiwan) and that of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (the Chinese Communist Party) in the People's Republic of China. Your answer should include (1) ideological components (both domestically and internationally relevant), (2) structural features (leadership and political party properties), (3) economic strategies (both domestically and internationally relevant) and (4) general consequences. What are you prepared to argue are the major differences between the two systems here discussed?

Now, answer that question in a coherent fashion. Don't try to answer each question in particular, except where the questions are numbered, for example, #1 ideological components, #2 structural features, #3 economic strategies, make sure that is clear so the readers understand that's what you are answering. For example you say, as for ideological components, so something to indicate that you are answering that specific part of the question. Now, I think the question is relatively clear. It is a complex, but relatively clear question.

I don't know exactly what experience you have. You know again, as I told you, I am sort of visiting the planet sodospeak. I mean you are completely outside the range of my comprehension. I don't know what you know, what you don't know. Education nowadays has become so impoverished, I'm not even sure that you have the prejudices that we used to have. So right on this campus, my sense is, the world is divided between the left and the right. And so when they look back on the past experience of the preceding century, they think that the conflicts of the preceding century were on the left and the right, you see? And somehow the world is divided into the left and the right. Now, part of this, and if you read any of the material, again I am being very generous in my expectations, but if you read any of the material, for years, the second World War was characterized as a conflict between the left and the right. That carried over into Asia. The Japanese were spoken of (you know) as the Fascist (The Right). So the confounding element of all this was that China was considered ridden by the left and the right [5:00] and the Right was the Glo Minh Dong (that is the followers of Sun Yat Sen), and the left were followers of Mao Say Dung. Now the literature of that period, I mean I had to suffer it, was "Mao Say Dung could do no wrong." I mean here was the brilliant revolutionary from the left, entering the world scene, and resisting the fascism of the Glo Minh Dong. And Chong Kai Shiet (of course) was the Chinese Hitler [spoken sarcastically]. I mean that was so common a feature, that I am sure you still get it nowadays. I am sure you hear it in some history courses. I am sure you hear it in some "political sciences."

Now the question is, is that a plausible construction of the conflicts of the 20th century? Now, the basic argument that I have given (and I've been giving it for years) is that the distinctions between operative political systems in the 20th century was not left and right. The notion that Adolph Hitler was a rightist is really very difficult to defend if you imagine (and most people do), that the right defends private property. Hitler didn't defend private property. In fact, Hitler dominated private property. He dominated capitalists and he brought them to ruin, as they all knew, as they all expected. The fast is, that Hitler was not a right wing fanatic, as is usually characterized. He was a fanatic, but he certainly wasn't right wing. He had very little to do with conservatism. He had no patience with what he called the bourgeoisie. He called his party was, the National Socialist Party. Now why did he call them socialist. If you listen to the left wing people, they say "Oh, that is just to confuse everybody." The fact of the matter is that he organized the government (the state) to dominate everything. Now, that should be a clue.

The 20th century in my judgment, here's a judgment call, was not a conflict between the left and the right but between democratic and antidemocratic elements (political elements, population elements, whatever and however you want to characterize). Democracy and anti-democracy was characteristic of the activities of the 20th century and I suggest will probably be the principle dispute in the 21st century.