A couple of questions that I’ve been wondering about recently. Simple questions, really.
Why does the Left follow the Left, and the Right follow the Right? Seriously. In Left wing and Right wing politics we see a broad consensus as to which issues ought to occupy that space you set aside for those things called “opinions”.
Why does the Left emphasise the freedom of the individual, yet conversely emphasise the need for greater controls upon the free flow of capital?
On the other side of things, why would Margaret Thatcher, queen of that old-Dickensian-factory-owner view of the world, say that there is no such thing as society, that their are only individuals? Why would she say such a thing when she also preached about the general good of very social structures underpinning our world, like marriage and the importance of the family?
Is socialism contra to such social structures by default, or has it just evolved that way? Surely the dignity of the human person, Marx’s highest concern, is also a concern of the Right? Why would they not wish to share the wealth around - with their families, their neighbours, their fellow citizens, in order to strengthen the values present within their society as a whole?
Or is this just another way of advocating nationalist socialism, or Nazism, as it was called in Germany some years ago? Is their something insidious within this idea or was Hitler just f*&%ing nuts?
Does every theory need some point of contradiction, in order to sustain itself, for some weird psychoanalytic, Hegelian reason?
The human, the rational-irrational being?
Do we always need to fall into camps, be divided up, set against each other, have our opinions shaped into something readily acceptable, packable and sellable to the most people possible?
Am I foolish for asking such questions?
Is the question like a ticking time bomb which no one notices until it explodes?