After watching the Paxman interview with Christopher Hitchens, it occurred to me what a loss to the world his death is. He was a great writer, a great thinker – far better at both than I could ever hope to be, and a far better one than his hack brother. Some of his opinions surprised me though – I expected hitches to be a left wing liberal, but was surprised to hear he supported the iraq war, for example.

Yet, as I was thinking earlier – in something of a revelation for me – there’s nothing in left-wing philosophy that is liberal. If society took precedence over the individual, it follows that the weakest, least productive members of society should be weeded out as what matters is the strength of the community rather than the needs of the individual. That is why I cannot call myself a communist, and haven’t done so in a long time. From certain points of view, statism is intolerant and unegalitarian; yet so is libertarianism in that, if people were totally free to do what they want, where would that leave disabled people? Total individualism, ie the total withdrawal of state mechanisms like the benefit system, totally screws us cripples and those less cut out to fend for theirselves. This is a waste of talent and human potential; I firmly believe, then, that the community needs to care for all of it’s members, and that the best way to do this is via a central body – a government. I realised earlier that my long-held belief that one could be both left wing and liberal might not be possible, something which I need to reflect on.

I’m therefore a liberal egalitarian insofar as it is possible to be one, but not a communist. My own ruminations aside, Hitchens himself explored such things with far more authority than I ever can. At the same time, though, it is vital we have such debates, both in our own minds and with each other – we must always question what we believe by reading, writing, and debating. If Christopher Hitchens taught us anything, it is that.