Liberal political parties almost never and nowhere after 1945 were powerful. On the another hand, the powerfully influential proved to be a liberal systemic paradigm. And although there was no one-way movement (several successes in influencing the form of the consensus were naturally besides social democracy), however, during the period around 60 years after planet War II we observed a phenomenon that could be called a "diffusion" of liberal ideas.
For respective years now Poland has been 1 of the most crucial and more closely observed arenas of the conflict between liberal democracy and the forces of the authoritarian right, which request a systemic correction. On the another hand, a comparatively fresh phenomenon is the awareness that there are besides social forces on the left that are looking for the end of liberal democracy with hope and enthusiasm. The views and attitudes of the voters of Adrian Zandberg of I tour, who on the net announced their refusal to vote in the 2nd circular of the presidential election for the Liberal Centre candidate, were widely commented, although his only competitor at this phase was a "racial" typical of the authoritarian right. In this context, there were many words of condemnation and, above all, of amazement. However, if we look at the trends of social and political debate in much of the Western countries of fresh years, we will easy see the correctness that the bright left does not stand with the liberal center to an alliance against the utmost right. Rather, it stands aside, tries (if its possible allows it – in Poland it does not let it) to make a 3rd pole, and sometimes demonstrates Schadenfreude in the face of the failure of liberal-democratic forces.
Liberal political parties almost never and nowhere after 1945 were powerful. On the another hand, a liberal systemic paradigm (which includes not only the institutions of the state but besides the essential directions of socio-economic policy) proved powerfully influential. And although there was no one-way movement (several successes in influencing the form of the consensus were naturally besides social democracy), however, during the period around 60 years after planet War II we observed a phenomenon that could be called a "diffusion" of liberal ideas. They spread throughout almost the political spectrum, transforming social democratic, Chadetic, folk or conservative parties into partially liberal. This process deepened to the point where (about 2010) all of these parties – which together form the European mainstream – began to be called briefly and to facilitate the "liberal" analysis.
However, more and more voters began to complain about the deficiency of a real programme alternative. This dissatisfaction was imposed by the period of the 2008–15 crises, from the collapse of global finances, through the euro area debt crisis to the heaviest of them – the migration crisis. The attitude of the rising as on yeasts of the electorate group became anti-elitarian. So they rejected this party-political mainstream, full identified now as "liberals", which gradually turned into a full rejection of the existing reality of liberal democracy. Skipped earlier and treated more as comedies, utmost political forces saw their chance. Next to the mainstream, there is another option, already real choice, anti-system, anti-elitarian, which hits perfectly into the fresh Zeitgeist. The utmost right was free from “infection” by liberalism in the course of this “diffusion” and the utmost left was an anti-liberal left. A much stronger increase in support for the first resulted from her taking a de facto right-left position or from reaching for the slogan of an extended social state alternatively of lesiferism or libertarianism with which she had previously experimented. However, at the level of social, network, university discourse, the weak in elections the utmost left was besides able to imprint a visible mark on the changing scenery of the West. It became clear that the liberal paradigm became a victim of its own success, this "diffusion". Here came the powerful forces, which for respective years have wedged liberalism in a constantly tightening vise. Despite the awareness of this crisis, efforts to reverse the logic of events stay ineffective. Here we scope the phase just before the forces take control of governments in all or almost all European countries, and the ability of the liberal mainstream to win elections in the future becomes a clear question.
You can walk step by step through the essential blades of anti-liberal criticism, set even symmetrically from the right and left. The image we will get reveals that even if the sources of criticism, directions of attack and desired changes are different and embedded erstwhile in the right-wing, erstwhile in the left-wing way of thinking, their origins must have been analogous. Worse still, this convergence discovers the space to make a political alliance of the utmost right authoritarian and utmost progressive left around the common work of destroying the individual pillars of liberal order, even if it was an alliance of reluctant, tactical, situational and short-lived.
Both extremes request the elimination of social diversity. So they redefin both equality and freedom. Equality is to be strengthened and widened artificially by clipping the present liberal society from undesirable people. The utmost right, after a certain period of caution in this area, is now operating with xenophobia and open racism. Its current main origin of political successes – migration policy – is oriented towards the reversal of the clock and the nostalgia behind the times of racially, ethnically, religiously and culturally uniform, i.e. mostly whites. As many people as possible who do not fit in this template should be deported. Interestingly, the left which escapes in its classical variant for the tolerance movement and positively relating to multiculturalism, begins in its utmost variant to experimentation with anti-immigrant attitudes, explaining this with the social interests of ethnically native workers. Formally distanced from racism, he wants to draw from this reservoir and begins to fuel fears by aliens. This is, for example, the case of Sahra Wagenknecht organization in Germany.
The right besides dreams of social reconstruction in which LGBT people and representatives of another minorities will be removed back into the margins of society. This thought is behind Donald Trump's administration's attack on universities and another institutions, which in their actions assumed the application of the DEI concept.
On the another hand, the utmost left wants to bridge the diversity of opinion. The same logic of stigmating another people, excluding and defining enemy groups that drive xenophobia and right-wing homophobia is besides the origin Cancel culture with her desire to remove from the common space all people who do not share the most progressive pulp of the utmost left. All these attitudes are the carriers of a fresh concept of freedom. In this imagination freedom is even widened, but only in relation to the preferred groups – here, of course, in the proposals of the right hand alternatively than the left. Those who, by virtue of cultural origin, sexual orientation or professed worldview, are counted among enemy groups must reckon with a crucial regulation of their freedom compared to its liberal variant of equal freedom for each individual. This may sometimes mean kidnapping off the street and putting immigrants in a detention center, and sometimes a run of hatred against circumstantial people online.
- The above shows that specified a popularized identity policy is simply a weapon willingly utilized against liberalism and by the far right, and by which they bargain the left. The thought of "composing" your own identity in any way was initially a reasonably free thought of the left. Soon, however, 3 problems arose. The utmost left began to scope for a circumstantial no-platform, i.e. another than Cancel culture deprivation of freedom of expression and the right to talk in public space. While Cancel culture is simply a criminal crusade against circumstantial individuals who have violated an crucial left-wing "holyness" by word or act, so identity policy serves to differentiate the right to talk people on grounds of cultural origin, religion, sexual orientation and many another factors. This means, for example, that a white individual cannot talk about colonialism at all, or can do so solely from the root and self-criticism position, and his voice and arguments have no meaning in clashing with the expression of a erstwhile colony. The meritorical content of both statements is irrelevant for their assessment.
The second problem was the appearance of a question mark on the voluntary "composing" of your identity. erstwhile black people spoke publically that they personally did not admit their race as the key determinant of their identity, they were subject to hysterical criticism. There were certain sets of expectations for different people about how they should behave in peculiar situations, belonging to 1 or another group, and being obliged to take this into account in their identity.
On the another hand, the 3rd problem with left-wing identity policy is that it becomes the subject of ridicule and social irritation, resists, rejects and contributes to social divisions with their increasing hostility. It has besides become a provocation tool erstwhile individuals deliberately “identify themselves” as individual another than they are in reality and request from the environment uncritical participation in apparent fiction.
The utmost right-wing identity policy in this issue criticises, but naturally uses this tool in its own very broad way. For her, promoting attachment to national heritage and conventional values is an apparent tool for mobilising supporters. There is besides a full long list of right-wing "holinesss" which cannot be violated, must be professed, must be internalised as identity elements. There's no area for free choice here. No 1 here even pretends to have no dictatorship.
The right-wing identity policy in fresh years, yes, appears to be a defensive effort towards its left-wing options. The right usually appreciates those identities that the left considers to be "worst" and places on the bottom of the left-wing "order of pecking" (simplifying: a white, full-fledged, heterosexual man, a believer in God, a household head, following the traditions of a patriot/nationalist). However, this does not change the fact that both parties at least partially effort to dictate to individuals the content of their identity and then differentiate on this basis the rights and freedoms of people. The utmost right recognizes immigrants, LGBT people, but besides women as second-class people who owe white men an ear. The utmost left calls for a retaliatory impairment of previously privileged identities, so that these people “pay the price” for utilizing “white privilege” In liberalism, both are unacceptable.
- Waved by the identity flags of the far right and the far left, what has been the Achilles heel of the liberal center and the mainstream for many decades. Both political forces have actively engaged in political and emotional engagement with crucial numbers of their supporters. The specified fact of voting for these parties becomes an component of identity for these people, which binds with pride. What a fundamental difference to the fresh times erstwhile voters of utmost groups tried to hide their choices from neighbors, parishioners or colleagues! Liberals, on the another hand, avoided akin heat for combat in their past to date. Their campaigns sought to be substantive and point to concrete benefits from possibly boring but rational and predictable policies. This besides had a social harmony aspect. It was recognised that the over-emotional entanglement of broad masses of citizens in political life could destabilise society and origin the effects we are seeing today: deepening polarisation, interhuman hostility, the failure of social assurance and willingness to cooperate. Liberal mainstream focused on society engaging only occasionally at the ballot box, but for the remainder of the time dealing with private, professional and social life alternatively than politics.
As a consequence of this approach today, the division into elites and "ordinary people", even victims of the system. The parties of the center and their voters were attributed the function of hated elites, oriented towards limiting participation, to keep the social masses in the ignorance of what their real interests look like and to exploit them. With the expanding social frustrations caused by the 2008-15 crises mentioned above (and after all, there have been no little serious crises – pandemic and full-scale war in Europe; both of which entailed inflation), the anti-elitarian offer gained on appeal. Of course, the elite was defined differently. The utmost right bound the centre liberals with a progressive agenda, suggesting that it is the elite of “people from pronouns”, sexualization of youth, atheism and parade of equality. The left, invariably, put a sign of equality between liberals and Wall Street, or more broadly, managers who, after 2008, caught "golden parachutes". Although in fact they criticized each other, they found the Liberals guilty. In particular, the utmost right of Trump's credibility in presenting itself as an anti-elitarian movement of social pits is astonishing.
narration of the "system sacrifice" has played a major function in this. The utmost left in this function naturally cast the full tribe of minorities, which it represents (a bit on the side, leaving employees on minimum salaries). Although conservatives (from the conventional right organization before the "diffusion" of liberal ideas reached it) were liable for the long-term discrimination against these people, and the utmost right is the movement that usually demands to keep or return to these discriminatory practices, however, the utmost left tends to blame liberals who gradually introduced abolitionist reforms. However, they did it as though it were besides slow, for appearances, due to any false motivation, dishonesty and of course frequently ineffective. And rejecting today's progressive agenda with its demands for reverse retaliatory discrimination, liberals simply exposure their reactionary face.
The utmost right, on the another hand, considered to be the “victims of the system” mainly of men who were stripped by liberals and left of their erstwhile dominant social position, demolished, jobless as a consequence of “the desire of globalists”, incapable to keep a family, thus lacking the primal attribute of conventional masculinity. And besides young men, who are stuck in the virtual world, instinctive even supporters of utmost right-wing slogans, whom they in turn hurt liberal and left-wing women, condemning to involuntary singleness. But the victims were besides included: patriots, people of Christian faith, all who neither thought to modify their lifestyle in connection with environmental changes. These are 2 long lists of liberalists in which the utmost left and right have stood up.
- Fighting without pity against liberal democracy as a systemic model, the 2 utmost movements yet besides reached the rejection of the West as a civilizational project. Interestingly, both of these movements of the sources of the fall of the West see enlightenment. The utmost right negates the political framework then shaped: the regulation of law written over the will of rulers, the 3 divisions of power with a strategy of common control and limitation of the omnipotence of the institutions of the state, putting the citizen and the protection of his rights and freedoms above the interests of the expediency of state power. The right besides rejects the enlightenment spirit with the ideas of individual rights at the head. He wants to rise again the themes of “holy” political leadership, clear social hierarchy and submission to power. He acknowledges, of course, Enlightenment as the origin of humanism and interhuman empathy, which have become the engine of the liberal reforms of the next 200 years, and whose current consequence is the scope of freedom of the human individual in creating his way of life. This freedom of the right affects due to the fact that it is completely incompatible with her identity policy project.
While the right is affirmative about many fundamental values for Western civilization prior to the Enlightenment period and would alternatively undo the clock than demolish the full civilization, so the utmost left would gladly do so. The classical left has long been in accord with liberals that the Western world, which has been built through a long marathon of improvement efforts, is the best of the worlds always created. It provides people with safety and freedom, rights and stability, protects against force and crime, establishes man and his dignity the highest value.
The utmost left completely rejects these views. He recognizes Western culture as 1 of the most disgusting forms of evil in history, as a standing of colonial violence, exploitation, racism, slavery and contempt. He does not admit that this unquestionable evil has happened not as a logical product of liberal and enlightened values, immanent of their nature and axiology, and despite and against these declared values. He does not appreciate the fact that the Western civilization has proved to be capable of self-criticism and repair, and that the tragedies of that day are assessed in its womb clearly. Her request to destruct Western civilization is marked by retaliatory hysteria, completely resistant to any argument, historical take-up, and repairs made. It is besides based on the disastrous optimism that it will easy be able to build a fresh order in which the protection of human rights will be ensured from day one. It's naivety, the price of which would be slaughter. It is worth noting that the disgust of the full legacy and achievements of the West by the far left is 1 of the drivers of the increasing support of the far right, which calls for pride from the colonial conquests of the white man.
- The utmost right and utmost left besides met at the point of rejection of economical globalisation. Without doubt, the ever-increasing many hard challenges, the model of expanding the freedom of global trade and investment flows have been a key origin in the growth of prosperity in many previously devoid parts of the world. His work is global poorness falling. Globalisation was besides a tool for reducing the hazard of war, as it itself separated the scope of commercial and economical policy (implemented by the private sector itself) from the scope of national safety policies of individual powers and their alliance blocks. With the undermining of globalisation over the last fewer years, governments have broadly submitted economical activity to control and guidance, making customs, trade agreements or investing with political pressure.
Unlike the classical right, the utmost right never supported the thought of free trade. Her chauvinistic and nationalist attitude towards the planet makes her a natural link of protectionist tendencies in commercial policy. Trump's activities and rhetoric represent a textbook image of this mentality. The political communicative may be about supporting native entrepreneurs and 1 of the key groups – “the victims of the elite”, or unemployed men. The utmost right is eager to accuse liberal democracies of beginning borders and agreeing to migrate jobs to another countries. More often, it mentions the level of prices that native consumers would besides gotta pay for goods produced by home workers with their wage expectations, which are naturally derived from surviving standards and prices.
However, the utmost right feels the real joy of imposing hard trade conditions on abroad countries that it dislikes. This is how he feeds his unusual “economic patriotism”. The general deterioration of global sentiments, the emergence of fresh possible conflicts, and even any form of threat, can be assessed positively, as a "reveal of the actual face" of another countries, and as an chance for even greater mobilisation of people around national ideas.
The utmost left rejects globalisation as the boom of consumerism. Its anti-colonial narratives are perfectly consistent with the condemnation of the "exploitation" of workers in poorer countries, who make up Western companies' products for lower rates than in Western countries. To a lesser extent, it aims to reconstruct jobs that have been relocated abroad as a consequence of globalisation. Many supporters of the progressive utmost left do not have an excessive desire to engage in paid work, so the return of these places, rather hard work in production, is not an crucial nonsubjective for them. Instead, the utmost left demands a simplification in consumption for shortening working time, but besides for environmental reasons. Closing abroad trade borders by customs is undoubtedly 1 of the tools to reduce the alleged carbon footprint of various goods.
The utmost right and the utmost left have another feature in common – they do not fundamentally search dialog with mainstream. Liberalism as an thought and liberal democracy as a strategy has repeatedly proved its ability to correct, amend and reform. It naturally creates a space for dialog and a position to take into account the needs and concerns of supporters of both extremes into applicable politics. But these extremes are not interested. On the contrary, they see it as a possible threat of losing part of their momentum. They have a real interest in power and, in doing so, in order to guarantee that change is sustainable and cannot be easy reversed, even if mainstream is returned to the controls. An example of events in Poland from the end of 2023 to this day shows the effectiveness of specified policies. This is besides what Trump seeks in the United States, primarily through staff cleaning of national officials.
Liberal democracy is about to collapse as rapidly and irreparably as possible. This is what the far right and the far left demand. What happens next is in a way a secondary concern for those enemies.
