idea is that if youare somewhat critical of some cultural-political aspect, you should thereforeplace yourself on the left. Conversely,if you accept the way things are, or if you claim a return to lost origins, youare on the right. This has beenhappening, although not as assumed: there is no fundamental division of lifethat sets people on the "for" or "against" ranks,primarily. Rather, it is a historical,cultural, aspect of modern nation-states that has set politics as an antagonismof opposite forces, and some of the most radical political activists have beenreproducing the practices of a stronger and fascism-bearing right, by assumingthat the left has to be all-inclusive of resistance. It is a historical and identitariancomponent, akin to Nietzsche's master-slave dynamic, that has taken placehere. In this struggle, or war inBobbio's imagination, the left has been systematically informed by andempowered to the degree that it can stand as a -many times reactive,reproductive, and direct - response to the right. Though many times needed, and important as ithas been for "equality", "justice", "freedom"(which are always multiple and contradictory), the left has given the right thepower that it needs. More importantlyhere, though, is the relation that asks from each side a racial purity, theroad to which is war, both external and internal.Anthony Giddensand the third wayAnother proponent of the "beyond" is AnthonyGiddens, author of Beyond Left and Right:The future of radical politics.[10] Again, like Bobbio, Giddens assumes thatthere is a universal left and a right. The left is equated with future orientation, and the right with pastorientation, linked to a notion of tradition. The dualism is taken as a fundamental fact of life, rather than ahistorical construction. Giddens wantsto show us that there has been a synthesis going on since the late 20thcentury that we have been blinded to. This is the coming of "reflexivity", a way of being that isbeyond traditions "as they were understood to be", and it supposedlymeans greater freedom for everyone. Theannihilation of peoples and cultures is trasnposed onto the trajectory of a unilinearhistory. Freedom lies, for Giddens, inrealizing the beauty of reflexivity, of taking risks, and of producing"active trust". All of thesemediated by the power of capital and of the individual. Giddens assumes an inherent equity inpower between any two or more parties, a power vacuum. One is left wondering how he can say that wehave to disregard "productivism", when his central concerns areforces that can actually reinforce it. Giddens cannot see that, because he is concerned with the subjective;all his propositions rely on a properly-prepared subject, one that can manageall of its affairs because it is knowledgeable. Even an environmental problem as macrospatial as climate change, isregarded by Giddens as a problem for the properly-prepared subject tosolve. This only foregrounds the claimthat I have made about Bobbio as well: that the left/right discourse isprimarily an identitarian one. It issubjects, not issues and events in the world, that are the concern of thedemarcation. For Giddens, the solutionlies in a subject that is the synthesis of left and right. He therefore needs to presume the naturalexistence of those two in order to formulate his