Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, June 25, 2009 5:25:43 PM
I ran across an
interesting article in Der Spiegel about the underground fashion scene in East Germany. There are many topics that immediately spring to mind reading it, but for now I want to look at one particular quote:
Marco Wilms clearly remembers an early lesson from his days as an
elementary school pupil in communist East Germany. One day, the
director drew a crooked tree on a chalkboard. She then explained to the
class that her job, and that of the socialist collective, was to bend
that tree and make it grow straight.
"It was obvious that she was referring to me," said Wilms, laughing.
Under a regime that demanded conformity, Wilms preferred individualism,
and wasn't afraid of speaking his mind. He paid the price. As a
teenager, he was labeled a "potential enemy of the state" and barred
from finishing high school, despite top grades. Instead of applying to
art academies as planned, he spent the next three years waking up at 6
a.m. to work at a factory making fish hooks.
Reading this I was immediately reminded of a question which plagued me since college, in fact the question which ended my brief, if quite serious, dalliance with communism (or anarcho-communism), given that the politics of the left eventually ends in an all powerful state, and that an all powerful state cannot logically accept anything other than total conformity, why do so many artists espouse left wing politics?
Of course, many will dispute with me, argue that left wing politics do not lead to an all powerful state, or that communism was only oppressive because it was run by "
the wrong people", but that is
just not true. Think about the facts behind the left. The basic premise of the left is that people are incompetent, in one regard or another, to run their own lives. (see "
Man's Nature and Government", "
The Citizen Dichotomy", "
The Intellectual Elite", "
Appealing to Arrogance" and "
Cognitive Dissonance Part 2")That being the case, they need to be told how best to live.
Now take that to its logical conclusion. If people can't run their own lives in some aspects, don't they need the state to tell them what to do in those areas? And if they are incompetent in some areas of their lives, aren't likely those who need to be helped in other areas? In fact, if if is necessary for the state to protect people from their own ignorance in some aspects of life, why not help in all aspects? And thus the logic always leads to an expansion of power, until the state encompasses every aspect of life.
Well, given that the state knows better than the citizen what is right, doesn't it follow that the state should establish the norms? And if the norms are considered ideal, then why should any citizen be allowed to deviate from the norms? Would not any deviation be inevitably seen as harmful? And also likely to lead others astray? And thus we develop the crushing conformity of the totalitarian systems. Not the outcome of "wrong people" leading, but of the inherent logic of the left.
Which brings me back to my question. Why do those who are so proud of their noncomformity so prone to support the ultimate conformist politial philosophy?