VITAL SIGNSrnThe DivinernLeft vs. the NewrnRightrnby Tomislav SunicrnThis time around, the divine leftrnis definitely short of ideologicalrnchange. Once upon a recent time itrnwent to sleep with uncle Stalin; muchrnlater, it began to yawn with the revisionistrnTrotsky, Mao, and Tito; today, it isrnnoisily waking up to the tune of politicallyrncorrect liberalism. Even a laymanrnmust raise a simple question; If the divinernleft did not have the guts to staternpublicly that it once was deadly wrong,rnhow can one be sure that it is right today?rnOf course, its belated ideologicalrnmenopause requires updated politicalrnromanticism, stretching today from thernlacrimal advocacy of human rights to thernfervent campaigns for the rights of pets,rnpenguins, and pedophiles. Short of itsrnhard right-wing nemesis, which is, alas,rnnowhere in sight, the divine left must resortrnto labels of demonization, dubbingrnevery opponent a proverbial fascist pig.rnThe unstoppable corrosion of thernliberal experiment in the East is causingrnnightmares for the divine left and itsrnsocialist-liberal offshoots in thernWest. The recent nationalist-communistrntemptation in Poland, Russia, andrnLithuania is casting a long shadow ofrnuncertainty on the liberal legacy. Thernfacts, after all, speak for themselves; thernfree market experiment in Eastern Europernhas resulted in a poverty that evenrnbygone communist horror had managedrnto avoid. First decapitated by communistrnpathology, only to be recently inundatedrnby growing market uncertainty,rnwho can the disenfranchised masses inrnEastern Europe turn to and which newrnangels can they now follow? Might it bernthat the bad guys from the bin of recentrnhistory were partially right? Could it bernthat some national-communist hybridrnmay offer the best political alternativernfor the New World Order facing old disasters?rnRight-wing populism, coupledrnwith a growing appetite for a commandrneconomy, is meticulously paving itsrnway through the mind-set of Europe.rnRecently, the European New Rightrnand its youngish French theoretical leader,rnAlain de Benoist, came again underrnthe liberal-socialist limelights, presumablyrnbecause of their never-ending searchrnfor the Third Way. Benoist, who hasrnbeen preaching the exit from left- andrnright-wing dualism for over 25 years, wasrnagain called to account. His prestigiousrnquarterly Krisis, in which both leftleaningrnand right-leaning scholars andrnerudites have found a platform for politicalrnand philosophical debate, has triggeredrna witch-hunt from all corners ofrnthe French intelligentsia. The first to hitrnhim with charges of fascist and communistrnsympathies were some French LernMonde journalists, who were quicklyrnmimicked by other defamers throughoutrnEurope. As one could expect, insteadrnof trying to refute the New Right’srnscholarly endeavors and Benoist’s ideas,rnFrench and Belgian journalists, togetherrnwith other politically correct writers,rncalled for censorship—in the name ofrnhuman rights and tolerance. The divinernleft and its liberal fellow-travelers seemrnto be indefatigable in defending all typesrnof multicultural pluralisms, but theyrnadamantly refuse the pluralism of newrnideas. They deplore multiethnic purgesrnin the Balkans but employ sophisticatedrnpurges against their erudite enemies.rnThe modern hit-scribes attempt tornrelegate Alain de Benoist and otherrnindependent thinkers to the dustbin ofrnhistory, although this time history hasrnreturned.rnBenoist has long declared that, inrnthe wake of the fall of the Berlin Wall,rnthe cleavage “left vs. right” meansrnabsolutely nothing. The discourse ofrnthe Versailles-Potsdam architects is nornlonger valid in the face of new geopoliticalrntremors, which are causing new intellectualrnrifts and surprising alliancesrnthroughout Europe and the world.rnWhat do the words fascism or communismrnreally mean after the collapse ofrntheir respective systems? When Stalinrnwent after the communist Trotsky, herncalled him a “fascist traitor”; whenrnAmerican campus students protestedrnagainst the conservative Richard Nixon,rnthey dubbed him a “fascist pig”; when arnfeminist gets tired of her awkward male,rnshe calls him a “fascist jerk.” As thernwords “commie” and “fascist” becomernpolitical footballs, so do their respectivernhistorical incarnations become trivializedrnand forgotten.rnCould one not, after the brutal collapsernof both communist and fascist systems,rnpartially adhere to the conservativernlegacy, insofar as this legacy incorporatesrntradition and historical memory? Andrncould one not concomitantly and partiallyrntinker with the socialist credo orrnplanned economy in a country shaken byrnbarbaric upsurge in the only me generation?rnUnquestionably, even the modernrnstandard-bearers of progress can nornlonger deny that the liberal illusion ofrnpermanent economic growth is slowlyrncoming to a close. Today, even thernFrench left is badly split. Some prominentrnleft-leaning heavyweights, some ofrnwhom have collaborated with Benoist’srnKrisis, have come to his defense andrnvocally denounced the new intellectualrninquisition. Prominent left-leaningrnjournalists, like Jean-Frangois Kahn orrnJacques Julliard from Le Nouvel Observateur,rnhave distanced themselves fromrnthe modern watchdogs of political correctness.rnEven the former Bolivianrnguerillero, the famed philosopher RegisrnDebray, as well as the known sociologistrnof postmodern surreality, JeanrnBaudrillard, have scorned the modernrnliberal-socialist scribes in search of sensation.rnMany intellectuals in Europernknow very well that different times arernJULY 1994/41rnrnrn