Binary Thinking, Politics, and Dialectics

Long time ago I formulated a principle that I still follow: the opposite of crap, is not necessarily a candy, but most likely, a stinking crap, or total crap, or any other crap.

Since then, I realized that it is just a version of an old Russian proverb, “horseradish is not sweeter than black radish.”

We always think that the opposite of bad (liberals, conservatives, commies, capitalists) will be better, but they are not.

The laws of dialectics tend to equate thesis and antithesis, suggesting that only synthesis, the resolution that appropriates and transforms both sides into something more advanced, can offer an improvement.

Of course, there is a difference between a woke liberal, proudly canceling ugly reality, and a violent thug with a gun and a license to kill, issued to him by his bullying bosses. As there is difference between rich and poor.

But as one of the greatest Russian poet, Marina Tsvetaeva, observed, “if the soul was born with wings, what does it care about huts or palaces… it has only two enemies: hunger of hungry and satiety of the sated.”

In terms of political systems, there are people who are convinced that democracies are better than autocracies, or that Democrats are better than Republicans and vice versa. Yet, as Pushkin observed, all these are “words, words, words.” Adding, “who cares, who fools you, censorship or democratic press.”

In other words, there should be some version of synthesis. Socialist dreamers dreamt of “socialism with human face.” Same applies to capitalist dreamers. Or, as Pushkin insisted, “leave a hero with a heart. What will he be without it? A Tyrant!”

Without a heart, without a soul, without deeply felt religious outlook on the world, every part of the dialectical equation, every thesis and antithesis turns into crap. Or stinking crap, if you prefer.

Dostoevsky understood it well. His most profound thinker, Ivan Karamazov, reveals the poverty of two parts of the equation. First he announces that “everything is permitted.” Than scandalized by it, he invents Grand Inquisitor, who claims that everything is forbidden, and dismisses Christ for allowing too much freedom. As Dostoevsky makes sufficiently clear, both sides of Ivan’s equations are inadequate. Ivan goes mad, incapable of dealing with his dilemmas.

Which takes me from sublime to ridiculous. Yes, originally, many of us were hoping that Trump would be different from the naive woke liberals and pig-headed, bigoted conservatives. With his unorthodox actions and behavior, he was promising that much. But alas, now he just takes one side of the equation, that of the heartless two-bit politician, Lindsey Graham. As a pragmatist, Trump prefers a bully with a gun to a muddle-headed wokist. Well, it is his choice. Noam, Hegseth, Bondi, Miller. Who said that those obnoxious barbies and show offs are any better, or offer a capitalism with a human face, rather than a gun in your face?

Is Trump still capable of throwing these scoundrels and nincompoops under the bus, and starting something new that would make his country great? We know that he has ability to come back from rather hopeless situations. But! The realities of global competition, the reality of the “swamp,” the reality of Trump’s own limitations suggest the business as usual: black radishes and horseradishes all the way to hell.