Some believe – they are not my friends – that I have changed the „political position“: from „left“ to „right“. I can’t understand that at all. Since I’m against the monopolists, against the bosses, against those who rule and manage the world (see above or in the blog below) – how can one assume such a thing? That is damaging to reputation! I can hardly be among my friends anymore, let alone among people! …

Have those who claim to have done so thought this through? Do they know what they are talking about? What do they say? The rights today, the real rights: in Germany AFD, Pe­gi­da, Legida and other Gidas – are either thick as a brick (e.g. von Storch and Poggenburg) or dangerous (e.g. Höcke and Bachmann). And the unreal rights: CDU, FDP, SPD and recently also the Green Party, are so normal and boring – „structural conservative“ – that I would be embarrassed to name them.

But to be serious (philosophy is the most serious thing): Because I would have spoken dis­pa­ra­ging­ly about Žižek and Badiou, because I would have categorically rejected post-, trans- or metahumanism and lately – for instance in my collaboration with Detlef Günther (cf. here) – talked about dignity, individuality, sovereignty etc., I could actually only be „a right“? For all these „values“ – dignity, individuality, sovereignty, etc. – would have „the left,“ that is „we,“ long since „deconstructed“?

I don’t know how my esteemed readers feel, but here I think a lot of things have gotten mixed up: Is deconstruction per se a „left“ affair? And is it those who are imagined by deconstruction, that is to say: these imaginary philosophers, who have ever come to the mind of deconstructing their own deconstruction? Apart from the fact that a „left theory“, to which dignity and individuality would no longer be worth a single construction, hardly deserves its name.

Since some have claimed (I am not one of them) that it is no longer possible to distinguish between „left“ and „right“, I would rather assume that the ability of some intellectuals to distinguish has suffered. Because the world has become more complex, they do not shar­pen their conceptual instruments, but go with them to the same world, as if nothing had changed at all. In fact, it is not so difficult to say what is „left“. Hermann L. Gremliza has brought it to the point:

„When a homeless person, a handicapped person, a homosexual, a refugee is killed, even the most narrow-minded civil society hobbyist does not believe for a second that the per­pe­tra­tors are leftists. For more violence, weapons, soldiers, police, surveillance, fewer rights for women, gays, lesbians, foreigners, more fatherland, working hours, cars, exhaust fumes, less pensions: that’s right. The opposite of everything: it’s to the left.“ (Halb richtig ist ganz falsch, in: Konkret. Politik und Kultur, 7/2017, S. 9, Sp. 1; cf. my blog post from 8.5.17)

Über Christian Kupke

Philosoph, Autor + Dozent
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter ... trans ... veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:


Du kommentierst mit Deinem WordPress.com-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s