It is universally agreed that the new normal is significantly sicker than the old normal. However, going backward is not an option. Unfortunately, what is being offered as an option on the (global) political scene is far from comforting. There is no solace to be found on the left or the right. Both have been radicalized to the point of caricature, drowning in a pedestal of moral superiority.
Will we ever escape this one-way alley? Do we hear the necessary voice of reason? Where are the (r)evolutionary forces to lead us to a rosier terrain? We asked all this of young political consultant Karlo Jurak, a former serious leftist (he was a member of the Workers’ Front), who today is merely a ‘leftist’ seriously dissecting the left. Moreover, on some topics, he speaks quite heretically, enough for us to conclude that not everything is lost.
Discussions about the transformation of capitalism have been ongoing for a long time, primarily focusing on the relationship between labor and capital. Does it not seem that this is now falling by the wayside precisely due to the expansion of the state?
– The transformation of capitalism began with the economic recovery after the 2008 crisis. The IMF initially proposed austerity measures, which, in combination with deflation and recession, proved counterproductive. Therefore, even before the pandemic, the IMF abandoned austerity policies and began advocating for greater monetary expansion. Inflation implies excessive demand, but treating inflation with recession?! Besides the abandonment of the idea of austerity, there is also a green transformation of society in which companies have social and moral responsibilities. Of course, they will maximize profit, but at the same time, they will be socially beneficial by promoting, among other things, the green transformation of society. Another transformation has occurred – the strengthening of state capitalism, led by China, actually the BRICS group. State capitalism, which was reinforced by China’s role in the pandemic crisis and which will further strengthen with the war in Ukraine, will increasingly replace liberal capitalism.
And despite all this, Germany, France, Austria… are nationalizing their electricity companies or half-empty gas storage facilities, thereby further strengthening their position in society.
– This is one example of how Western capitalism, which prided itself on liberal institutions, has strengthened the role of the state by introducing states of emergency and thus actually accepted some of those models of authoritarian systems. By applying these practices, the West has weakened, and Putin has realized this.
How much sense does the left make in this mix of the new order, including the relationship between labor and capital that has been covered by the state?
– A big question, as even some companies have taken on the role of social and identity politics insurers. However, I view the concepts of left and right as relational concepts, historically elastic. If we look at the identity issues dominant on the left, from ’68, through the collapse of real socialism to today, it is evident that both left and right governments accept, for example, ecological issues, minority and gay rights. Much of what the left has advocated has been realized through the institutions of liberal democracy. Therefore, when the right attacks these institutions today, it is actually signaling that leftist ideas, which communists once realized through revolution, are being perfectly realized within the institutions of liberal democracy. At the same time, while the left has co-opted with the system and institutions it once called bourgeois, alienated, and dehumanized, the right has adopted historically leftist methods of struggle through civil society. On this terrain, the right is much stronger because some leftist ideas have been state-institutionalized.
This twist is interesting; generally, the left has forcefully sought to vaccinate everyone, labeling others as flat-earthers, without questioning how we went from ‘anti-vaxxers should be allowed to die’ to the dismantling of ‘Roe vs Wade’. Where does this blindness come from that fails to see that the root is the same?
– Yes, you cannot advocate for personal freedoms and bodily autonomy in one area while dismantling it in another. I cannot recall a party or movement that was for freedom of choice during vaccination and also for freedom of choice regarding abortion, and vice versa.
After everything that has happened, where do you see liberal democracy, which has been quite trampled in these two and a half years?
– As a political framework, it sets the least harmful rules for the functioning of society. And in crisis, it has faltered because it is composed of opposing elements: democracy, which strives for the power of the majority, the people, the demos, and liberalism, which emphasizes individual rights. Liberal democracy is a balance of majority rule and the rights of minorities and personal freedoms. It is an oxymoron, but with good institutions, it can coexist. It is not good if it veers in either of those two directions; if, for example, it becomes stadium democracy, where the majority can suffocate someone’s personal rights. It is also not good when the liberal component crosses into its extreme, technocratism, when it becomes an unimportant democratic segment, and everything is decided by experts, regulators. Then the question arises of who regulates the regulators and on what foundations they rest. The future of liberal democracy is a return to basic principles.
Given the strengthening of states, are we heading towards the liberal or democratic component?
– Liberalism cannot exist without the state, and a strong rule of law is its foundation. However, it can lead us to extremes and technocratize society. I would say that currently both components are under attack: the liberal one through the deprivation of freedoms, and the democratic one through the self-appointment of experts. Decision-making about the functioning of society is the job of politics. The profession does not decide on this; it can give an opinion, but the responsibility lies with politics. By constantly depoliticizing society, we kill the meaning of politics, and this crippling of politics is an attack on both components.
Is there an end to ‘cancel’ culture, are we irreversibly divided into camps, where has liberal democracy been lost in all this? Read more in the new issue of the digital and printed Lider.
