Many years ago I read Bankers to the poor: Microlending and the fight against global poverty Written by Muhammad Yunus. In his book, Yunus explains its origins and purpose. Grameen Bank. The bank specializes in providing small loans to help people living in poverty become self-reliant. It is a commercial bank, not a charity, and in his book, Mr. Yunus states that in order for Grameen to effectively achieve its goal of lifting people out of poverty and freeing them from the vicious cycle, it is necessary to make a profit. It is emphasized that there is a gender. Of dependence. Curiously, he found that his own success in poverty alleviation was itself open to criticism from the left. The complaints were not that Grameen was ineffective in achieving these goals, but precisely because Grameen had been so successful in improving the lives of the poor and the poor. Yunus recalls that left-wingers were earnestly complaining that Grameen was „taking despair and anger from the poor'' by improving people's lives and supporting independence. In my opinion, this is indeed a strange objection. I tend to think that anger and despair are bad things that should be released, not good things that should be kept from being taken away.
![](https://www.econlib.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/71Ga9t9xONL._SY466_.jpg)
Still, there was something about Yunus's own political analysis that always bothered me. When discussing whether Grameen Bank should be considered a left-wing or right-wing company, Yunus draws an apples-to-oranges comparison. He said Grameen could be considered right-wing because, during his withdrawal, he said, „As we now know, the government should withdraw from most things except law enforcement, the judicial system, national defense, and foreign policy.'' He said that this is because he believes that. “Other functions” to “private sector.” He summarized: „Grameen supports less government, the minimum viable government, that emphasizes free markets and promotes entrepreneurship.''
But Yunus says there are also factors that make Grameen a left-wing organization. These include how Grameen is „committed to the social goals of eradicating poverty and providing education, health care, and employment opportunities for the poor.“ Achieving gender equality through women's empowerment. To ensure the health of the elderly. Grameen dreams of a world without poverty and welfare. '' According to Yunus, „all these characteristics place Grameen on the political left.''
Do you know why this is apples and oranges?
When assessing what makes a person (or organization) right-wing, Yunus puts things in terms of: meanswhereas when explaining what makes a person (or organization) left-wing, he switches to explaining things in terms of: end. I'm generally happy to accept the definitions people stipulate when evaluating their arguments, but this kind of apples-to-oranges distinction is a serious flaw. If we want to define what separates the political left from the political right, we need to define both in terms of means or ends. Defining one by means and the other by ends is just bad lexicography.
I prefer to think of left and right in terms of differences not in the ends sought (necessarily) but in terms of what means are appropriate to employ. Dan Mohler makes the same point in his book advocating a libertarian political philosophy. Minimal Government: Liberalism in New England. Mohler writes:
The disagreement between libertarians and their opponents is not over how important values such as freedom and equality are, but over whether states should be allowed to exploit them. Power We promote these values in a variety of ways. To understand this, note that libertarians and their opponents may actually agree that equality and fraternity are very important. If these contributions are voluntary, they can join forces and work tirelessly for such values. As long as anti-libertarians only focus on how much they value equality, or how horrible poverty is, or their vision of a better world, there's no point in identifying points of disagreement. There is no progress…nor is there a need for it. To decide whether happy „communitarian“ values should trump libertarian basic „atomism“. The question is not whether we see ourselves as lonely islands or friendly communities, but whether states should create related communities by coercive means. We can all agree that while marriage is a blessed state, it is also spontaneous. In other words, if those who argue that the state promotes some values just add a rider that says, „I support the use of intimidation and violence, if necessary, to promote this value.“ If we do, we can avoid a world of chaos.
Agreement on means does not require agreement on ends. Two people may support the same measures of policy and institutions, yet expect or expect different outcomes. Also, two people may be trying to achieve the same outcome, but may disagree about which policies or institutions will most effectively achieve that objective. To my understanding, it makes more sense to think of the latter difference as defining the difference between political left and right. In other words, it makes sense to talk about left-wing or right-wing policies, but it doesn't make much sense to talk about left-wing versus right-wing outcomes.
But there are even worse criminals than Yunus.For example, socialist writer Nathaniel Robinson seems to define politics by a combination of means. and In other words, socialism is a system that uses a specific set of means, but is only considered socialist if it also achieves the ends desired by the socialist.Thus, Robinson defines things in such a way that Venezuela's descent into madness does not give him pause or reason to reevaluate the policies he advocates–because of Venezuela, he teeth To tell „Without equality, there is no socialism,'' he argues, and as a result „my politics demands equality, so you cannot indict my politics by pointing to a highly unequal society.'' However, „politics“ is not like that. result – it is process. Politics is not an end, but a means to an end. When Robinson confuses the two, he is saying, „I cannot indict the process I advocate by pointing to results that do not reflect my desires.''
Many critics are Socialism They argued that the processes inherent in socialist policies inevitably lead to highly unequal authoritarian societies. Milton Friedman summed up this idea: „A society that prioritizes equality over freedom will get neither. A society that prioritizes freedom over equality will achieve a high degree of both.“ Most importantly, critics of socialism say: This means that we have specific discussions such as the following: why If socialist policies are implemented, they will ultimately lead to Venezuela-like outcomes. The short answer to this concern is Define Socialism, which is only considered socialism if the outcome is what the socialists want, is the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting „Lalala, I can't hear you, I can't hear you!!!“
David Schmitz's Live together It articulates another reason why I prefer to think of political divisions as differences in means rather than ends. Schmitz writes:
Political ideals are not points of convergence. The liberal political ideal is not that we all share the same religion, but that we don't have to. The ideal is for everyone to choose for themselves…Our real historical experience is that true mountaineering is less about being on the same page and more about being on the same page. is. unnecessary It's about getting on the same page, learning to accept the humbling fact that we live among people with their own destinations.
In short, political ideals are not about what destination we are trying to reach, but rather how we should all get along with each other even if there is no agreement on what we should aim for. , is about the framework of rules and institutions that allow us to explore our destinations. The end must be reached.