The elections in Italy came to an end. A right-wing coalition with the Brothers of Italy, a party based on fascist ideology and led by Giorgia Meloni at its center, came to power, while the Italian left suffered a major defeat. It is reported that the far-right is on a rise in at least 10 European states and that this is a great threat to the EU ideal, which takes pride in its democratic values. Meloni represents the average woman on Italy’s streets. She has a fierce, zealous, and influential address. She comes from the Italian Social Movement (MSI), which was founded after World War II in 1948 and represents the remains of fascism.
The differentiation between right and left is in fact a product of European analytical thought. Political tendencies are encoded based on this. This encoding is accepted not only in Europe but worldwide. Groups around the world can be seen to identify themselves categorically as left-wing and right-wing. The left and right concepts ensure the positioning of various ideologies. Leftism is identified by various socialisms, and rightism is identified by conservative, nationalistic, and sacred ideologies. This differentiation is essentially a presumption. A closer look will show that the differentiation between the two never applies in practice. National socialism is a typical example of this. Nationalism, a right-wing feature, and socialism, a left-wing feature, two thought codes that are thought impossible to come together theoretically or analytically, united under this ideology. Socialists claim that this is trickery aimed at misleading the masses interested in socialism, inclined towards the left, but the truth is far from it. Similarly, nationalism and socialist ideas hybridized through Leninism – which claims a principle such as nations' right to determine their own destiny – and the proletariat lost their concrete class meaning in non-Western worlds. Instead, they are replaced by proletarian nations filled with complex precapitalist relations. This has thus given rise to unresolved problems today. I long struggled to understand how the analyses of socialists fueled by Marxism, in particular, are influenced so much by analytical distinctions, and separations, despite their supposedly dialectical methods. The dialectical method implies that the patterns and differentiations on paper, or rather in the mental world can interpenetrate in life. Syntheses indicate this heterogenesis as well. Politics is not excepted from this, and always produces hybridizations and syntheses in which opposites transform into one another. This is the point that those who see these synthesizations as populist deviations fail to understand.
It can’t be said that the “far right” won the elections in Italy, but on the contrary, the left lost. This brings us to matters arising from the left’s deep history. This is a long story. We need to go through the mental galleries of groups that identify themselves as leftists, but we will take a brief look at certain outlines. The matter is related to analyzing the deep conservatism within Marx’s so-called revolutionist ideas. Influenced by Engels, whose thoughts a very blunt compared to his own, Marx became a pure Englishtenmentist at a certain stage of his career. Removing himself from the line of those like Bakunin and Proudhon, he became an incorrigible enemy of feudality. Yet his 1844 manuscripts contained sentences that found feudality more humane. Through time, he decided that capitalism was a further stage of history. The socialist society would emerge from within capitalism. His direction was to gain the capitalist experience a socialist direction through which productive powers would be liberated. Contrary to anarchists’ intention, he was in favor of taking over power and transforming it rather than toppling it. He uses quite a conservative tone in his criticisms of those like Bakunin. His attitude is similar to that of a father towards his out-of-control child. It is his position against the Second Internationalists that he appears to be a revolutionist. The Second Internationalists, who would call themselves socialist, and take on the social democrat name in the later stages, did not want to take over the power but instead ensure the working class gained more benefit from it. This was the difference—this difference diminished over time, which is visible mostly in the Italian Communist party. After the war, the party settled in the democratic system. In the 1970s the Italian Communist Party was a powerful party with 2.5 million members and garnered 9 million votes in the elections. Party leader Enrico Berlinguer cooperated with the French Communist Party led by George Marchais, who had substantial support of 5 million in France, and the Spanish Communist Party that recovered after Franco, and signed a historic agreement under the name of Eurocommunism. The difference started to diminish after this. The historic agreement failed to bring any benefit, with all three of these parties wiped out of history. Socialist and social democrat parties easily surrendered to neoliberal impositions as they have been accommodating from the very beginning. The New Left, on the other hand, which no longer holds a denominational view, and renewed its baggage with the environment, gender, and ethnicity issues, was left without an approach in the face of the waves of migration, which shook Europe and caused great chaos. Finally, similar to the German Greens, contrary to its founding values, it drifted towards a line that supports the return to war provocation, and brown energy sources.
Looking at the consequence of the chain or mistakes that started with Marx, of course, my harsh comments regarding his methods remain, yet I cannot help but say those like Bakunin and Stirner were so right. Capitalism continues to assimilate everything. Anti-capitalist struggles lead to nothing but outcomes that strengthen capitalism. There is nothing more to do until humanity imagines a world without a ruling power, and strives toward achieving it.
