Epicureans and lovers of luxury like myself have some difficulty in forming a political view, and this post is about possible choices that come forth in this regard.
Recently, I read a book called "Winter in Madrid" by CJ Sansom. Like with all good books, I felt totally connected with one of the protagonists- the guy who goes to fight for republic in the international brigades in the Spanish civil war- Bernie. I guess when I think about it, if I didn't know any better now, had I been alive in the 1910's through the 1940's, I would have been a Bolshevik, or at least have would profound communist sympathies. When I saw Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi, I knew that like Siddharth, I would have been strongly attracted to the Naxalites, although perhaps more hesitant about the use of force. Even now, despite their brutality, I find myself still sympathetic at least to the ideals of the Naxalites and the cause of their struggle. If I ever was ruler of all the world, I would rule with strong communitarian and egalitarian principles.
However, this fine idealism comes to a grinding halt mainly because I love luxury too much. The sensual delights of good food, wine, and sex are too good to give up and i know that proper communists or egalitarian folks don't believe in luxury and sybaritic enjoyment, not officially anyway. Everyone should be similarly treated and no-one should get luxuries at the cost of exploitation of brother men, etc. My attitude is a bit like Jesus in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar when confronted musically by Judas who basically asks him not to waste the fine ointment on himself but to save it for the poor croons, "surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot. there will be poor always pathetically suffering look at the god things you've got..."
I guess I'm destined to be an armchair socialist who wants the revolution to come but not just yet and not without special provision for my personal luxury. In fact this would probably make me exactly like the real life communist rulers in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe- those hypocrites who lived in luxury while the common people got what everyone else did (Ceausescu, and probably Stalin and maybe even Mao...). However, since I'm not at all keen on torture, repression, gulags, secret prisons etc, it would be rather difficult to manage being a communist- I mean if you are against oppression- how can you oppress? This brings me safely to the ideal political position: Fabian socialism. Like most Fabians, I can be an idealist and hope for equality for all while ensuring that it all doesn't happen now and deprive me of my comfortable bourgeoisie lifestyle and the fine Bordeaux on my bed side. Oh and I can boycott Burmese rubies, African diamonds and drink fairtrade tea and feel good about my humane politics.
Life would be so much simpler if one could have a political philosophy based entirely on what is convenient, for example luxury for your self and you don't really care about equality and fairness, sort of like so many of the right wing republics and administrations, not that they are honest enough to admit this. Take for example Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines or the republicans in the US. Each of these folks strongly project or projected that the right wing is about individual freedom (except for gay people), color blindness (which means blindness to colored people and any problems they may face), personal choice (except for women and minority religions) and responsibility for your own actions (unless you are George Bush relying on evidence on WMD). In truth, of course, the rich become richer and the poor are left to their own devices even if they cannot afford insurance for their kids or do not have nest eggs to tackle retirement. These folks also find it much easier ideologically to torture and oppress (no human rights for terrorists, death penalty for defendants who cannot hire fancy lawyers, water-boarding and the like, all in the name of the country and patriotism- the last refuge of every scoundrel). I have to admit that if you are ok with religious bigotry, racism and selfishness, the right wing is ideal for those who love luxury. But then again, life was not destined to be so simple for me. I can think of no reason why the state does not have a positive affirmative duty to do the best by its citizens and ensure a decent life for its people- even if that means higher taxes for the rich and stuff like labor and environment protection.
So therefore, I find myself comfortably and hypocritically ensconced on the centre-left, home of the liberal democrats in the UK, the democrats in the US and the Congress party in India. I'm all for equality in theory but would hate giving up the luxury I have been brought up in. I realize and am somewhat amused by the inherent hypocrisy in this position but my idealism forces this down my throat sort of like Israel feeds Palestinian freedom fighters when they go on hunger strikes. Its better to be a hypocrite than a torturer I guess although this is clearly a call every luxury lover has to take on his own.
What amuses me about politics is that most people do not realize that so much of what passes as political discourse is sheer nonsense. If most people only realized their own inherent hypocritical impulses, they would stop taking politics so seriously. Anyway, as far as fellow Epicureans and lovers of luxury go, after the demise of old-world monarchism as well as the disappearance of old fashioned small c conservatives, we have no natural political constituency any more. Idealists and left-liberal intellectuals like myself should find our armchair with the Fabians comfortably ensconced in our mild hypocrisy of activist rhetoric and non-activist behavior. Non-idealists should move to the capital C Conservative movement, even though people of refinement might get turned-off with the religious puritanism, small mindedness and bigotry of so many on the Right. Still, if you can shrug your shoulders and say "white trash" while chugging your Krug bought off your tax refund due to tax cuts funded by ensuring that poor kids get no insurance, you have it going good.
Recently, I read a book called "Winter in Madrid" by CJ Sansom. Like with all good books, I felt totally connected with one of the protagonists- the guy who goes to fight for republic in the international brigades in the Spanish civil war- Bernie. I guess when I think about it, if I didn't know any better now, had I been alive in the 1910's through the 1940's, I would have been a Bolshevik, or at least have would profound communist sympathies. When I saw Hazaaron Khwaishen Aisi, I knew that like Siddharth, I would have been strongly attracted to the Naxalites, although perhaps more hesitant about the use of force. Even now, despite their brutality, I find myself still sympathetic at least to the ideals of the Naxalites and the cause of their struggle. If I ever was ruler of all the world, I would rule with strong communitarian and egalitarian principles.
However, this fine idealism comes to a grinding halt mainly because I love luxury too much. The sensual delights of good food, wine, and sex are too good to give up and i know that proper communists or egalitarian folks don't believe in luxury and sybaritic enjoyment, not officially anyway. Everyone should be similarly treated and no-one should get luxuries at the cost of exploitation of brother men, etc. My attitude is a bit like Jesus in the musical Jesus Christ Superstar when confronted musically by Judas who basically asks him not to waste the fine ointment on himself but to save it for the poor croons, "surely you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot. there will be poor always pathetically suffering look at the god things you've got..."
I guess I'm destined to be an armchair socialist who wants the revolution to come but not just yet and not without special provision for my personal luxury. In fact this would probably make me exactly like the real life communist rulers in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe- those hypocrites who lived in luxury while the common people got what everyone else did (Ceausescu, and probably Stalin and maybe even Mao...). However, since I'm not at all keen on torture, repression, gulags, secret prisons etc, it would be rather difficult to manage being a communist- I mean if you are against oppression- how can you oppress? This brings me safely to the ideal political position: Fabian socialism. Like most Fabians, I can be an idealist and hope for equality for all while ensuring that it all doesn't happen now and deprive me of my comfortable bourgeoisie lifestyle and the fine Bordeaux on my bed side. Oh and I can boycott Burmese rubies, African diamonds and drink fairtrade tea and feel good about my humane politics.
Life would be so much simpler if one could have a political philosophy based entirely on what is convenient, for example luxury for your self and you don't really care about equality and fairness, sort of like so many of the right wing republics and administrations, not that they are honest enough to admit this. Take for example Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines or the republicans in the US. Each of these folks strongly project or projected that the right wing is about individual freedom (except for gay people), color blindness (which means blindness to colored people and any problems they may face), personal choice (except for women and minority religions) and responsibility for your own actions (unless you are George Bush relying on evidence on WMD). In truth, of course, the rich become richer and the poor are left to their own devices even if they cannot afford insurance for their kids or do not have nest eggs to tackle retirement. These folks also find it much easier ideologically to torture and oppress (no human rights for terrorists, death penalty for defendants who cannot hire fancy lawyers, water-boarding and the like, all in the name of the country and patriotism- the last refuge of every scoundrel). I have to admit that if you are ok with religious bigotry, racism and selfishness, the right wing is ideal for those who love luxury. But then again, life was not destined to be so simple for me. I can think of no reason why the state does not have a positive affirmative duty to do the best by its citizens and ensure a decent life for its people- even if that means higher taxes for the rich and stuff like labor and environment protection.
So therefore, I find myself comfortably and hypocritically ensconced on the centre-left, home of the liberal democrats in the UK, the democrats in the US and the Congress party in India. I'm all for equality in theory but would hate giving up the luxury I have been brought up in. I realize and am somewhat amused by the inherent hypocrisy in this position but my idealism forces this down my throat sort of like Israel feeds Palestinian freedom fighters when they go on hunger strikes. Its better to be a hypocrite than a torturer I guess although this is clearly a call every luxury lover has to take on his own.
What amuses me about politics is that most people do not realize that so much of what passes as political discourse is sheer nonsense. If most people only realized their own inherent hypocritical impulses, they would stop taking politics so seriously. Anyway, as far as fellow Epicureans and lovers of luxury go, after the demise of old-world monarchism as well as the disappearance of old fashioned small c conservatives, we have no natural political constituency any more. Idealists and left-liberal intellectuals like myself should find our armchair with the Fabians comfortably ensconced in our mild hypocrisy of activist rhetoric and non-activist behavior. Non-idealists should move to the capital C Conservative movement, even though people of refinement might get turned-off with the religious puritanism, small mindedness and bigotry of so many on the Right. Still, if you can shrug your shoulders and say "white trash" while chugging your Krug bought off your tax refund due to tax cuts funded by ensuring that poor kids get no insurance, you have it going good.
