IN DEFENCE OF MODERATION

in defence in defence of of moderation moderation

Words by Alexander Karpov

My recent years in uni have been plagued with ardent and sometimes exhausting search for moderation. And not simply in food, drinking, pleasures or habits, but more importantly in my beliefs and persuasions, in the way I think and judge the world around me. To simplify, I began to think more and say less, to observe more and judge less. And while this may seem a dubious achievement in our age when we all have to react fast, whether online or in real life, I have noticed how these simple changes affect your perception of the world, how common-sense ideas that you held to be indubitable begin to fade in comparison to what introspection allows you to discover.

I guess the reader should expect me to say what this all rant is about. Well, it’s politics, what else? And not simply your good old stupol with so much toxicity that I wonder how uni is still not closed down due to general health concerns. It’s politics in general, whether in Australia or the US, whether it’s the adherents of capitalism or the disciples of communism and whether it’s your rich dad advocating for neoliberalism and claiming how the poor never want to work or your good LGBTQ+ friend who never seems to stop raving about the oppression capitalism produces and the need to destroy the whole system. It seems that a very ancient idea of moderation enunciated by the Ancient Greeks and Buddhists alike has suddenly become extinct in our world of progress, knowledge and mass-scale happiness. Surely those Greek fellas missed the point when they said that too much of a good thing can be harmful (that’s for you, my dear capitalist friends). Surely, they were simply not astute enough when they said that you can’t rid the world of evil with evil means (and that’s for you, my Communist stalwarts). And finally, surely, they were talking nonsense when they claimed that humans are essentially both bad and good and that the idea of progress is rather foolish and complacent (and that’s for both of you so it’s all fair and square).

moderation, understanding and cautiousness in life and politics are, in the words one of the contributors to On Dit monthly issues, ‘a serious obstruction in the way of a better, safer, cleaner world.’ You may think that sometimes, just sometimes, a certain goal can justify any means, whatever the unknown implications. You may think that the writings and works of some authors you read cannot be wrong, that we already know all that we ever would need to know and therefore the path seems clear. You may think that the old ways were the best, that the only way to solve our imminent problems is to revert to the past, that unlimited freedom cannot be a bad thing. I have enumerated all these perspectives to show that conservatism and radicalism are really two sides of the same medal – excess. When we are all being swayed from one extreme to another, it resembles what an alcoholic does when he tries to give up drinking. Instead of seeking moderation, he simply seeks a different object of addiction. That’s how former alcoholics frequently become heavy smokers or drug addicts.

And the same process is observed here, if you care to know. A young person, appalled by the horrors of capitalist exploitation, by the pictures of Asian children working till death in big capitalist factories owned by greedy, obsessive white males from AngloSaxon countries quickly decides that the way to end this injustice is by destroying all capitalists and their devotees and by creating the good old paradise on Earth. Now a different example. An impoverished youth, living in an Eastern Bloc country who has never seen genuine Adidas sneakers and who has only been able to eat mandarins or bananas twice a year decides that the only possible way to happiness in this life is unlimited, unimpeded production and consumption of everything imaginable, from the most exotic and mind-blowing varieties of chocolate to the most exotic and mind-blowing varieties of dildos. And I can assure you that both of them, when their goals are attained, would remain just as unhappy (if not more) as they were before.

So, what’s the lesson? Well, I’m neither a teacher nor a preacher to give lessons or tell you what to do. I strongly believe that only personal experience and mistakes can change what you believe in or what you do. I wrote this article to say that you don’t have to choose only between extremes, whether in politics, life or people. I wrote it to say that you can go to church and pray and at the same time advocate for the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. I wrote it to say that we can have a country where we support the unemployed and lowincome earners and simultaneously help our businesses grow. And finally, I wrote it to say that the authors of all those promises of extreme happiness and equality, prosperity and infinite progress, eternal love and joy are simply too afraid to admit that life is intrinsically complicated, that nothing is ever as it seems, and that moderation and restraint are often our only way to a truly happy and meaningful existence, devoid of the chimeras that we are bombarded with on a daily basis.