Anti-Intellectualism

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Stumbled upon the term when I was looking at the Khmer Rouge page on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any more information on this from the perspective of someone who supports it?

[Искра]

Anti intellectualism for the win. :thumbup1:

[ZeroNowhere]

Apparently it consists in not answering questions you ask lest you become too educated.

I don't support it, though, so I shall not answer.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I would still like to know if you know something about it ZeroNowhere.

[The Count]

If you're interested in anti-intellectualism, I'd suggest reading The Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus. He focuses a lot on anti-intellectualism, although perhaps more about embracing foolishness. Basically, the more intellectual someone is, the more 'removed' they become from the rest of society. They tend to have less people skills, and put an exorbitant amount of mental exertion into abstractions. They're also bad with women and unlucky in basically everything. He also stated that they often have depressing lives, paling in comparison to those of fools. In his book, Erasmus runs down a list of prominent intellectuals (keep in mind, it's from the 1500s) such as, Socrates, Cicero, etc. and states his beefs with them. It's an amazing read, I'd suggest that you check it out.

[Drace]

I would think anti-intellectual is an insult used against those who do not hold intellectual thought.

I couldn't imagine someone attributing themselves as an anti-intellectual.


If you're interested in anti-intellectualism, I'd suggest reading The Praise of Folly by Desiderius Erasmus. He focuses a lot on anti-intellectualism, although perhaps more about embracing foolishness. Basically, the more intellectual someone is, the more 'removed' they become from the rest of society. They tend to have less people skills, and put an exorbitant amount of mental exertion into abstractions. They're also bad with women and unlucky in basically everything. He also stated that they often have depressing lives, paling in comparison to those of fools.
To become involved in such deep thoughts and analyze the topic, I think its intellectual and therefore hypocritical of Erasmus to discuss why intellectualism is bad.

[The Count]

To become involved in such deep thoughts and analyze the topic, I think its intellectual and therefore hypocritical of Erasmus to discuss why intellectualism is bad.
You're absolutely right, that's the beauty of it. It's an intellectual paradox.

[ComradeOm]

I would think anti-intellectual is an insult used against those who do not hold intellectual thought.

I couldn't imagine someone attributing themselves as an anti-intellectualExcept that there are numerous movements throughout history that have not merely railed against intellectuals but strongly attacked the very concept of rational or abstract theories. Its quite a common vein even today. Such groups have typically asserted the primacy of the deed/action. Examples would include the early 20th C Russian anarchist tradition and, of course, fascism. In both form and content these movements were 'anti-intellectual'


To become involved in such deep thoughts and analyze the topic, I think its intellectual and therefore hypocritical of Erasmus to discuss why intellectualism is bad.Which is the beautiful irony of anti-intellectualism. Anyone who puts together a coherent and meaningful critique of intellectualism (and I'm not saying that Erasmus' was either) are themselves engaging in "intellectual thought". The Russian terrorist groups that so despised intellectualism (and Avrich is good on these) were themselves largely drawn from the intelligentsia

[Pogue]

I guess in one form it could just be people who reject intellectuals and their little games.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Depends in my perception 'intellectualism' is not the same as being an intellectual. Intellectualism is raising yourself above people, looking down on others (making this very clear in your comments) and preaching as if you know everything. This is a practice you can see in these boards as well. It's a very annoying tendency.

[9]

I think this thread would be more constructive if there were some description or links or something to engender thought in the OP. As it stands, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss*... just some one-liners and assumptions.
I'll add my two cents to the register, but I should say, my thoughts here are also based on assumptions. Perusing the wikipedia entry for "anti-intellectualism" (which, by the by, may or may not be total nonsense, seeing as its missing a lot of citations) basically confirms my thoughts/assumptions on the subject; it describes anti-intellectualism as follows:


Anti-intellectualism is the hostility towards and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual), and intellectual pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education), philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literature), art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art), and science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science).In which case, it's bullshit (not to mention, as others have noted, a laughable paradox). Naturally, this line of "thinking" is entirely incompatible with Marxism and any sort of application of historical/philosophical materialism. It seems pretty compatible with primitivism, though.....

On an anecdotal level, I've met a lot of people on the left who embrace anti-intellectualism (assuming it means what I assume, and what wikipedia verifies, it to mean), and I find it revolting. Particularly because - again, in my experience - it seems to come largely from middle class students who, due to the awkward combination of their idolization of the working class and their total lack of identification with workers and working class people, attempt to compensate for their petit-bourgeois origins by trying to act "working class". The worst part about this act is their disgusting caricature of (how they wrongly perceive) working class people: uninterested, unintelligent, uninformed backward hicks who are only concerned about getting drunk, watching sports, and getting paid. I actually find it personally insulting as a fulltime wage worker with only a high school education; it's thoroughly demeaning and revolting on many levels.

Having said that, I should mention that I do personally empathize with the sentiment/tendency (which, unlike the caricature that I described above, really is very prevalent among the working class) to distrust or become very impatient with leftist academics, university students, and their ilk. Though it has nothing to do with contempt of intellect or any sort of dumb bullshit like that; it's more the result of the elitism, condescension, and just the general patronizing attitude many of them display toward wage workers, particularly when they (leftist academics) claim to represent the interests of the working class on the one hand, and yet seem to be entirely detached from it on the other and hostile to anyone who isn't. And ironically the earlier example I gave of "anti-intellectualism" in the form of middle class uni students behaving in accordance with their disconnected "dumb prole" stereotype is actually part and parcel of this attitude of smugness and thinly-veiled disdain for actual workers. They're both very much demonstrative of the ridiculous idea on behalf of much of the middle class leftist 'intelligentsia' that there is no such thing as "intellectual" (intelligent, informed, astute) workers, so benevolent dissidents from another class need to come in and fill that role.

Anyway, sorry... I sort of went off on a tangent there. But the point I was trying to make is that "anti-intellectualism" (as I understand it, anyway; please correct me if I'm completely misinformed here) is reactionary nonsense that serious communists have no business indulging.

--

*EDIT: Just noticed this was in learning, so I now realize why there wasn't any more of a description or any links etc. in the OP.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's pretty much how it's generally used, in the context of the Khmer Rouge it generally refers to oppression of people with glasses, schooling, etc.

[Panda Tse Tung]

Well, even though i agree with the majority of Apikoros's post. I'd like to add that in my perception 'intellectualism' is an attitude, contrary to merely being 'intellectual'. Hence the ism.
But yes in the context of the Khmer Rouge it means a distrust of intellectuals in general.

[blake 3:17]

There was a class basis to the Khmer Rouge freaking insanity. Sections of the very oppressed Cambodian peasantry did benefit from Pol Pot, if quite temporarily.

As a political agenda it was completely nihilistic and in some ways mirrors the Taliban agenda.

One of the proofs of the justice of the Vietnamese revolution was their defeat of the Khmer Rouge.

[cameron222]

"Except that there are numerous movements throughout history that have not merely railed against intellectuals but strongly attacked the very concept of rational or abstract theories. Its quite a common vein even today. Such groups have typically asserted the primacy of the deed/action. Examples would include the early 20th C Russian anarchist tradition and, of course, fascism. In both form and content these movements were 'anti-intellectual'"
italics mine - can you explain that? who, how, why, etc.,? I was not aware of that.

[ComradeOm]

italics mine - can you explain that? who, how, why, etc.,? I was not aware of that.Avrich's work The Russian Anarchists is the best introduction to Russian anarchism. He devotes an entire chapter to this movement's anti-intellectualism. At least some of this is available here (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5pqSkSgKacAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=russian+anarchists&ei=YcoGS9rgNo7WNb-ExbsP&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=anti-intellectualism&f=false) on Google Books

[bricolage]

I guess in one form it could just be people who reject intellectuals and their little games.

What does this actually mean?

[RED DAVE]

Maoism and Stalinism both display anti-intellectual currents. During the 60s, groups like Progressive Labor were notorious for a thuggish, anti-intellectual tone. And anyone reading a piece of crap like Mao's Little Red Book can see the strain clearly.

RED DAVE

[ArrowLance]

Maoism and Stalinism both display anti-intellectual currents. During the 60s, groups like Progressive Labor were notorious for a thuggish, anti-intellectual tone. And anyone reading a piece of crap like Mao's Little Red Book can see the strain clearly.

RED DAVE

And anyone could tell why there was good reason to it if your piece of crap post has a pro-intellectual tone.

[RED DAVE]

Maoism and Stalinism both display anti-intellectual currents. During the 60s, groups like Progressive Labor were notorious for a thuggish, anti-intellectual tone. And anyone reading a piece of crap like Mao's Little Red Book can see the strain clearly.
And anyone could tell why there was good reason to it if your piece of crap post has a pro-intellectual tone.Could you have the integrity to elaborate on what you mean? Or are you just going to engage in intellectual bashing?

RED DAVE

[ArrowLance]

Could you have the integrity to elaborate on what you mean? Or are you just going to engage in intellectual bashing?

RED DAVE
I was mocking your post, calling Mao's 'Little Red Book' a piece of shit. Care to elaborate on what you mean, or do you just want to be a pseudo-intellectual dick.

[RED DAVE]

Just for openers, here's a random quote from Chapter 1 of The Little Red Book.


A well-disciplined Party armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people; an army under the leadership of such a Party; a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party - these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch01.htm

Now maybe you can read this jargonistic crap, designed to turn one's brain off, without giggling or puking, but I can't. Members of Progressive Labor and the RCP would quote this shit at meetings. You could watch people flee for the door. Of course, even they had the sense not to use this kind of crap at, say a trade union meeting.

RED DAVE

[Drace]

Just for openers, here's a random quote from Chapter 1 of The Little Red Book.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch01.htm

Now maybe you can read this jargonistic crap, designed to turn one's brain off, without giggling or puking, but I can't. Members of Progressive Labor and the RCP would quote this shit at meetings. You could watch people flee for the door. Of course, even they had the sense not to use this kind of crap at, say a trade union meeting.

RED DAVE

What was so dumb about that?

[RED DAVE]

A well-disciplined Party armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people; an army under the leadership of such a Party; a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party - these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch01.htm


Now maybe you can read this jargonistic crap, designed to turn one's brain off, without giggling or puking, but I can't. Members of Progressive Labor and the RCP would quote this shit at meetings. You could watch people flee for the door. Of course, even they had the sense not to use this kind of crap at, say a trade union meeting.
Wow, here we have an audacious example of anti-intellectualism. So much for Stalinists being anti-intellectual.

Stop being such an anti-intellectual and try reading those "Stalinist" books for once. They are not made of evil, you know.
What was so dumb about that?Comrades, if you can't see the arrogance, the lack of the self-criticism it touts in this quote, you have already drunk the kool-aid. The unquestioned assumptions in this quote, which we are invited, without warning, to accept, make it a mini-masterpiece of anti-intellectualism.


A well-disciplined PartyWhat about party democracy? This is a deliberate distortion of the nature of left-wing parties.


armed with the theory of Marxism-LeninismGiven the huge disparities in the meaning of M-L between various political tendencies, this is a vulgarization of the of the role of theory in a left-wing party.


using the method of self-criticismIn the absence of party democracy, self-criticism is an exercise in masochism.


and linked with the masses of the peopleNo hint as to what these links are. In the case of Maoism it eschewed a relationshp with the urban working class.


an army under the leadership of such a PartyThe assumption hear is that the maoist party is, de facto, the leaderhip of the revolutionary army. What would happen if a different left-wing tendency gains strength?


a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a PartyOne more time, what happens to other revolutionary groupings?


these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.armed with the theory of Marxism-Leninism, using the method of self-criticism and linked with the masses of the people; an army under the leadership of such a Party; a united front of all revolutionary classes and all revolutionary groups under the leadership of such a Party - these are the three main weapons with which we have defeated the enemy.A vulgarization that begs virtually every critical question in Marxism, including the nature of revolution in under-developed countries, the relationship between the revolutionary party and the working class and other revolutionary classes, party democracy, the institutional form of revolutionary democracy, the role of intellectuals in the party, etc., etc.

Give me a fucking break. Time to flush this shit.

RED DAVE

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I think Class War may well be the best example of anti-intellectualism in modern anarchism. I wouldn't really call myself anti-intellectual, but I've been accused of it, and I think there are very good reasons to be anti-academic, if not anti-intellectual: academic intellectuals tend to communicate in a very jargon-heavy way and use codes of communication that exclude the vast majority of the population. In addition, as an anarchist-communist, I oppose all forms of hierarchy, and I'm aware of the fact that appeal to intellectual authority can be one way of justifying this - in most modern Leninist parties, the leadership justify their rule over the rank'n'file by their superior grasp of theory and consciousness, and it's not hard to see how, if any of those groups ever managed to lead a successful revolution, they could set up a new class system where those not possessing sufficient levels of intellectual consciousness could be barred from participating in democracy (all for their own good, of course).
However, none of this means that we can't admire displays of solid intelligence for their own sake, like Red Dave's perfectly coherent and intelligent demolition of Maoist nonsense.

[Panda Tse Tung]

What about party democracy? This is a deliberate distortion of the nature of left-wing parties.Disciplined meaning within the context of Democratic Centralism. Mao multiply emphasizes on the need for both party as well as external democracy in the little red book. So i doubt you read it. I could bother to answer the rest, but seeing as you haven't read it and are clearly quoting out of context. I wont bother.

Edit: I'm gonna bother just in case someone takes Red Dave serious.



Given the huge disparities in the meaning of M-L between various political tendencies, this is a vulgarization of the of the role of theory in a left-wing party.ML isn't a term used by Trotskyists. So the meaning is pretty clear.


In the absence of party democracy, self-criticism is an exercise in masochism. Has been answered with the fact that there was factually party-democracy.


No hint as to what these links are. In the case of Maoism it eschewed a relationshp with the urban working class. He elaborates on this in the chapter 'the mass-line' and other chapters. This is a single quote with very little text. A summary so to say, and your already judging. And the party had several chapters in the city's (after the revolution in all of course). In fact the party was formed in an urban area.


The assumption hear is that the maoist party is, de facto, the leaderhip of the revolutionary army. What would happen if a different left-wing tendency gains strength?Why would they join such an army?


One more time, what happens to other revolutionary groupings? It depends on the groupings. The goal is a united Communist Party to maintain unity, and to not create an appearance of being divided, something which the bourgeois forces will definitely exploit. So it would be preferable if they joined the party, they could of course oppose such a revolution. But that brings them in the same camp as all other enemies. If they neither oppose nor join, well idk what would have happened if Mao was there. But i wouldn't mind. I'd merely see it as a waste, cause I'm pretty positive these obvious external differences will be exploited by the bourgeoisie.

[Red_Xan]

A lot of people on the right are anti-intellectualist, because they are afraid higher learning will bring people to the realisation that capitalism isn't right.

I have heard anti-revolutionaries use the saying, "schools are a breeding ground for Leftist groups and movements." This, it seems, should mean that we should imbrace intellectualism, as so long as it is used for the good of the proletariat and the peasantry.

[Cowboy Killer]

It seems that anti-intellectualism or intellectualism is a pretty broad term.
If by Anti-intellectualism, you mean oppressing people by means of knowledge then I am against that. If it means to be anti-academic then I support it.

[proudcomrade]

A lot of people on the right are anti-intellectualist, because they are afraid higher learning will bring people to the realisation that capitalism isn't right.

Good point.


I have heard anti-revolutionaries use the saying, "schools are a breeding ground for Leftist groups and movements." This, it seems, should mean that we should imbrace intellectualism, as so long as it is used for the good of the proletariat and the peasantry.

My problem with that, though, is that intellectuals far too often do just the opposite. I have seen academics treat working-class people with such condescension, lack of basic respect, even outright proud and open hatred, that I find myself too disgusted with academe to retain much respect toward self-identified intellectuals in return. Too many of them really are the enemy of the people, far too regularly- at least, in the Northeast US in my experience.

This is not the same as contempt toward learning, in and of itself, but toward the academic system, and of those leftists who refuse to own and correct their hypocrisy, and treat workers decently.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

My problem with that, though, is that intellectuals far too often do just the opposite. I have seen academics treat working-class people with such condescension, lack of basic respect, even outright proud and open hatred, that I find myself too disgusted with academe to retain much respect toward self-identified intellectuals in return. Too many of them really are the enemy of the people, far too regularly- at least, in the Northeast US in my experience.

This is not the same as contempt toward learning, in and of itself, but toward the academic system, and of those leftists who refuse to own and correct their hypocrisy, and treat workers decently.

I would agree with that and I would say for the majority it is true. But I am sure there are some academics and intellectuals who you will find are very progressive and some will even be communist. Obviously this doesn't mean they will follow communist values but what I'm saying is I don't think they're all the same.

[Angry Young Man]

I would have most strongly associated anti-intellectualism with conservatism, in particular, conservatism's predation of the working class. Conservative elites, when they understand that their political system has nothing real to offer the working class, fabricate a culture war and make everything that could be deemed 'intellectual' seem middle-class, exclusive. I'll use tabloids as my proof.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I would have most strongly associated anti-intellectualism with conservatism, in particular, conservatism's predation of the working class. Conservative elites, when they understand that their political system has nothing real to offer the working class, fabricate a culture war and make everything that could be deemed 'intellectual' seem middle-class, exclusive. I'll use tabloids as my proof.

Yes, anti-intellectualism seems like a tool of the ruling elite who of course don't want an educated, free-thinking population. Intellectualism is a tool, it shouldn't be our enemy.

[Angry Young Man]

But Marxist intellectuals have to be different from the standard liberal or conservative intellectuals. Proud comrade talked about the high-and-mighty tendency of academics. Marxist intellectuals need to be explicit that their intelligence is democratic and beneficial to all society.

[Devrim]

I think Class War may well be the best example of anti-intellectualism in modern anarchism.

Which is Ironic really as many of them were university educated. Personally, I just found CW patronising.


I wouldn't really call myself anti-intellectual, but I've been accused of it,

Me too. :)

Devrim

[The Red Next Door]

I don't support it and i don't see what is the problem with being intellectual because i think Marx and Engels were intellectual but not the kind who look down on people who are less knowledgeable. I can understand why most people actually practice anti intellectualism because some intellectual people are so fucking snotty, speaking from as person who use to be that way.