Old Left, New Left

Philosopher Karl Popper wrote in his book, The Open Society and its Enemies, about the paradox of tolerance:

“Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”

Today, depending on your point of view, one of two things has happened:

-         What Karl Popper warned about has happened, as exemplified by the rise of the Right.

-          Or the Right is the set of people who have risen to “defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant”.

Regardless of your take on the topic, “identity politics” and “questions of religion” have fueled the rise of the Right and the fragmentation of the Left, in India and the West. The “Old Left” is dead, writes Paul Russell:

“The ‘Old Left’ embraced a simple Manichean worldview of good versus evil: the enemy was easily identified (the rich and powerful, who oppressed the poor and the weak), and its agenda was simple and clear (redistribution of wealth and greater economic equality).”

Religious tolerance of the Old Left increasingly became an item of criticism. Because, says Russell, it failed to account for the difference between “ideological and non-ideological identity commitments”. Huh? Let Russell explain.

To him, “non-ideological identity” is something a person doesn’t choose. Like gender, race, disabilities, or sexual orientation. Many feel people should not be criticized on the basis of these parameters since they did not choose them. Religious identities, on the other hand, are chosen. While a religious identity is often a “product of culture, education, socialisation and even indoctrination of various, overlapping kinds”, one can drop out of it. Not so with gender or race. Another difference about religion is that it is “value laden”, but that’s not the case with gender or race.

Russell believes that the New Left needs to figure out its stance on the topics of tolerance and religious identity before it becomes appealing again:

“It is only by drawing the ideological/non-ideological identity distinction that we can effectively distinguish non-ideological bigotry from genuine ideological disagreement, and protect the rights of diverse and opposing ideological groups to openly express their views.”