Anti-intellectualism

[Azula]

I was lambasted in another thread for being "anti-intellectual". The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

So what?

Debates are not a goal in themselves, but merely a mean to either gain followers or prevent your enemies from gaining followers. If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.

Confidence is actually more important than intelligence.

If you are not believing in your own positions, you will not make anyone else believe in them either.

Leftist intellectuals, who love sitting at cafeterias with berets on their head and drinking cappucino from cooperatives in Nicaragua, love to rather discuss and debate arts, music, politics and things which only they care about for hours, sitting on their skinny asses and talking slowly with meek, sweet voices.

They try to gain support by appearing as weak and self-defeating, like lying down in front of bulldozers which are going to dismantle public parks. In fact, they seem to think that culture is more important than people. That is illustrated by the suicidal position of the Leftist party in my town.

They want to stop cuts to the theatres, while the rightist parties want to cut the theatre to give more money to the elderly. If I could save one old working class person by dismantling a theatre, I would do so.

Intellectualism as an attitude is condescending and cowardly. It is weak people hiding behind their glasses, behind Sartre and Camus and pretending to be like priests. They don't have radical ideals, only radical posturing.

They are parasites on the working class.

Anti-intellectualism on the other hand is looking at everything on the basis of real, tangible results. It doesn't matter how the victory is achieved, as long as the forces of progress are victorious and the forces of reaction are smashed into submission or oblivion.

Anti-intellectualism is a sharp knife which cuts through the sky castles of intellectualism and reaches the point immediately. Instead of looking at the ideas because of their inherent logics, we should look at them for their usefulness for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation and capitalism.

Anti-intellectualism is a weapon against the bourgeois world, which is built on idealist logics which serve no other purpose than to legitimise the oppression on behalf of the ruling class. Humanism and humanitarianism are just disguises with which to patronise the working people and the third world, in order to exploit their labour.

What is important is not the thoughtfulness of your position, but how well your position resonates with objective class interests plus your charisma.

You know about the great speakers of the 20th century.

How many of you remember anything more than short fragments of their speeches?

One good slogan equals 30 000 pages of existentialist philosophy.

And one good insult equals dozens of debate victories.

We must trash down the intellectualist garbage and reach down to our instincts, liberate ourselves from our shackles of bourgeois civility and become one with our animal nature in order to be able to lead the masses in overthrowing the state.

Ideas are weapons in class warfare.

Anti-intellectualism is superior to intellectualism in the actual, material struggle. If you are trying to see everything from everyone's perspective, you will negate yourself and become a non-entity.

Could anyone even defend intellectualism?

[black magick hustla]

do ypou like anime?????????????? everything u say sounds like a line from an anime villain just sayin. i played a lot of jrpgsin my heyday. areu a boss from finalfantasy??????

[danyboy27]

you sound like a right wing person i heard long time ago on the radio.

[Azula]

you sound like a right wing person i heard long time ago on the radio.

What did he or she say?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was lambasted in another thread for being "anti-intellectual". The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

I don't like resorting to ad hominems or people resorting to them, honestly.


If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.

There are other means of doing this other than "winning the intellectual debate." One of them is "going to the masses" directly, and any related agitation should go past cheap sloganeering.

Your other points re. non-worker intellectualism raise some issues, though.


What is important is not the thoughtfulness of your position, but how well your position resonates with objective class interests plus your charisma.

And if it means resorting to elitist perceptions of conspiracy theories and demagoguery to "win the masses over," then definitely.


One good slogan equals 30 000 pages of existentialist philosophy.

There's where I have a problem. I'm quite averse to sloganeering because it hasn't really been that effective. Pins and business cards have been way more effective than the likes of poster slogans.

[Azula]

Yes, slogans are not everything - but the slogans are what the people will remember.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Check out my Theory thread posting someone's article on The Religion of Evil.

[Lynx]

Sticks and stones may break my bones but ad hominems can never crush me.

Pragmatism may be more to your liking, more than "anti-intellectualism", whatever that is. (In your mind it appears to be a swiss army knife)

[28350]

I'm quite averse to sloganeering

really?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ There are better forms of agitation. Right-wing sensationalism appeals to the biological fear embedded in many conservatives' brains (a recent scientific find).

[Azula]

I don't like resorting to ad hominems or people resorting to them, honestly.

It could be done quite effectively against people if you know their weaknesses.


There are other means of doing this other than "winning the intellectual debate." One of them is "going to the masses" directly, and any related agitation should go past cheap sloganeering.

Yes, but slogans are still an important part. "I have a dream", "Yes we can" and "After us marches Germany" are very strong expressions.


Your other points re. non-worker intellectualism raise some issues, though.

Should we not evoke an image of strength and determination to impress the masses?


And if it means resorting to elitist perceptions of conspiracy theories and demagoguery to "win the masses over," then definitely.

Yes, definetly.


There's where I have a problem. I'm quite averse to sloganeering because it hasn't really been that effective. Pins and business cards have been way more effective than the likes of poster slogans.

I am not talking about poster slogans. I am talking about phrases which could be used on stickers, pins and other mediums.

[danyboy27]

What did he or she say?

''dismantle the theater, it will save a shitload of money''. ''those damn pedantic artist should loose their support from the governement''

''those damn liberals intellectual, they are not real peoples, real people listen to metallica''.

[Azula]

''dismantle the theater, it will save a shitload of money''. ''those damn pedantic artist should loose their support from the governement''

''those damn liberals intellectual, they are not real peoples, real people listen to metallica''.

Note. I want to invest those resources in elderly care and education instead of theatres, if there must be a choice.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It could be done quite effectively against people if you know their weaknesses.

I should perhaps be clearer: my experience with ad hominems has been one where both the dishing and the taking didn't work. They won't work against those with thicker skins.


Yes, but slogans are still an important part. "I have a dream", "Yes we can" and "After us marches Germany" are very strong expressions.

"I have a dream" wasn't plastered on posters. Left sloganeering involves lots of posters.


I am not talking about poster slogans. I am talking about phrases which could be used on stickers, pins and other mediums.

Ah, then you're on to something. Point conceded. :)

[Ocean Seal]

I was lambasted in another thread for being "anti-intellectual". The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

So what?

Debates are not a goal in themselves, but merely a mean to either gain followers or prevent your enemies from gaining followers. If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.

Confidence is actually more important than intelligence.

If you are not believing in your own positions, you will not make anyone else believe in them either.

True



Leftist intellectuals, who love sitting at cafeterias with berets on their head and drinking cappucino from cooperatives in Nicaragua, love to rather discuss and debate arts, music, politics and things which only they care about for hours, sitting on their skinny asses and talking slowly with meek, sweet voices.

This actually sounds like what right-wingers generally say about us all. To be fair, I don't think that I've actually met any leftists like this. Maybe I don't hang out in hipster shops enough.



They try to gain support by appearing as weak and self-defeating, like lying down in front of bulldozers which are going to dismantle public parks.

Well what do you want to do, shoot the people inside the bulldozers and spend the rest of your life in prison? Why should working-class communities lose their parks. To give development land to the rich? I don't believe in pacifism but violence shouldn't be used gratuitously.




In fact, they seem to think that culture is more important than people. That is illustrated by the suicidal position of the Leftist party in my town.
They want to stop cuts to the theatres, while the rightist parties want to cut the theatre to give more money to the elderly. If I could save one old working class person by dismantling a theatre, I would do so.

Actually right-wingers opportunistically use this rhetoric, so I would be careful here. We need the money from art/science to use for social care. Because there isn't enough money to start with. And people take the position that theaters are completely unimportant. Then they cut the art budget, and then at the next opportunity they say that there isn't enough for the elderly. Then they cut that, and eventually they cut everything that isn't a large loophole for the bosses.


Intellectualism as an attitude is condescending and cowardly. It is weak people hiding behind their glasses, behind Sartre and Camus and pretending to be like priests. They don't have radical ideals, only radical posturing.

They are parasites on the working class.

Anti-intellectualism on the other hand is looking at everything on the basis of real, tangible results. It doesn't matter how the victory is achieved, as long as the forces of progress are victorious and the forces of reaction are smashed into submission or oblivion.

In the process of achieving the victory we are going to weaken the revolution if we apply this idea. There are certain things that leftists should shy away from, because they are generally disgusting, and only keep the consciousness of the masses away from true revolution.



Anti-intellectualism is a sharp knife which cuts through the sky castles of intellectualism and reaches the point immediately. Instead of looking at the ideas because of their inherent logics, we should look at them for their usefulness for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation and capitalism.

Anti-intellectualism is a weapon against the bourgeois world, which is built on idealist logics which serve no other purpose than to legitimise the oppression on behalf of the ruling class. Humanism and humanitarianism are just disguises with which to patronise the working people and the third world, in order to exploit their labour.

Yes, the bourgeoisie opportunisitically use these terms to defend their exploitation, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about them. The reason that many of us came to the left was because we were humanists and because we cared about the suffering of humanity as a whole. The minute we dismiss humanism we abandon revolutionary ideals. The ruling class must be exposed for their anti-human and anti-humanitarian acts, and that's why we fight everyday. We fight for our class and along the way we won't fight with silk gloves but stop fetishizing over violence.

[RED DAVE]

I was lambasted in another thread for being "anti-intellectual". The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

So what?

Debates are not a goal in themselves, but merely a mean to either gain followers or prevent your enemies from gaining followers. If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.And, beyond a certain point, you would be engaging in a dishonest and, in the long run, politcally dysfunctional act.


Confidence is actually more important than intelligence.Actually it's not, unless you're a neitschean and not a Marxist.


f you are not believing in your own positions, you will not make anyone else believe in them either.True.


Leftist intellectuals, who love sitting at cafeterias with berets on their head and drinking cappucino from cooperatives in Nicaragua, love to rather discuss and debate arts, music, politics and things which only they care about for hours, sitting on their skinny asses and talking slowly with meek, sweet voices.Your cliches are both offensive and sadly out of date.


They try to gain support by appearing as weak and self-defeating, like lying down in front of bulldozers which are going to dismantle public parks. In fact, they seem to think that culture is more important than people. That is illustrated by the suicidal position of the Leftist party in my town.What leftist party in which town?


They want to stop cuts to the theatres, while the rightist parties want to cut the theatre to give more money to the elderly. If I could save one old working class person by dismantling a theatre, I would do so.You are playing at a form of rigid politics which is far from Marxism and accepts a dichotomy that Marxists do not accept.


Intellectualism as an attitude is condescending and cowardly. It is weak people hiding behind their glasses, behind Sartre and Camus and pretending to be like priests. They don't have radical ideals, only radical posturing.

They are parasites on the working class.You are really sounding like a jerk: like a parody of a Stalinist from the Third Period.


Anti-intellectualism on the other hand is looking at everything on the basis of real, tangible results. It doesn't matter how the victory is achieved, as long as the forces of progress are victorious and the forces of reaction are smashed into submission or oblivion.You are making no sense whatsoever. Intelligence is needed to do what you are describing.


Anti-intellectualism is a sharp knife which cuts through the sky castles of intellectualism and reaches the point immediately. Instead of looking at the ideas because of their inherent logics, we should look at them for their usefulness for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation and capitalism.You sound like a businessman lambasting university professors.


Anti-intellectualism is a weapon against the bourgeois world, which is built on idealist logics which serve no other purpose than to legitimise the oppression on behalf of the ruling class. Humanism and humanitarianism are just disguises with which to patronise the working people and the third world, in order to exploit their labour.An antiintellectual attitude is typical of fascists.


What is important is not the thoughtfulness of your position, but how well your position resonates with objective class interests plus your charisma.Nonsense. You have no idea how to make a political appeal. Your notions are demagogic.


You know about the great speakers of the 20th century.

How many of you remember anything more than short fragments of their speeches?

One good slogan equals 30 000 pages of existentialist philosophy.

And one good insult equals dozens of debate victories.

We must trash down the intellectualist garbage and reach down to our instincts, liberate ourselves from our shackles of bourgeois civility and become one with our animal nature in order to be able to lead the masses in overthrowing the state.You are full of shit.


Ideas are weapons in class warfare.They certainly are. And someone with an anti-intellectual attitude, like yourself, is incapable of wielding them.


Anti-intellectualism is superior to intellectualism in the actual, material struggle. If you are trying to see everything from everyone's perspective, you will negate yourself and become a non-entity.What do you really know about the "actual, material" struggle and how it is "actually, really" carried out?


Could anyone even defend intellectualism?Marx and Lenin were intellectuals.

RED DAVE

[Zealot]

How the hell did your crusade against intellectualism turn into a tirade against cuts to theatres?

Anyway... If your opponent was trained enough in reasoning, he would have been able to point out your ad hominems and make you look like an idiot which is why intellectualism is important. And to most people, once they realize this, your debating skills and thus your arguments would appear to be a joke since you had to resort to such tactics when you shouldn't need to.


Anti-intellectualism is superior to intellectualism in the actual, material struggle.

LOLWUT?

[PopulistPower]

Azula, I think you might be a fascist. At the very least many of your positions seem consistent with fascism.

Being an intellectual does not preclude you from combining your theories with practice.

[Meridian]

Note. I want to invest those resources in elderly care and education instead of theatres, if there must be a choice.

No one gives a shit what you want to invest in. You will never gain power. No one on would support you having power, and we should all be grateful for that fact.

You should adjust your goals.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I was but I don't why would because there I don't even what
what
what
what
what

[Tim Finnegan]

Leftist intellectuals, who love sitting at cafeterias with berets on their head and drinking cappucino from cooperatives in Nicaragua, love to rather discuss and debate arts, music, politics and things which only they care about for hours, sitting on their skinny asses and talking slowly with meek, sweet voices.
So I guess we can add misogyny and homophobia to the list of ways that Azula makes a mockery of the left?

[Rooster]

Is this just a cover for not being able to answer basic questions?

[RED DAVE]

Note. I want to invest those resources in elderly care and education instead of theatres, if there must be a choice."You" have no choice unless: under capitalism, you're a bourgeois politician or a dictator. You can choose an agitational position, but the choice is still not yours.

Frankly, Azula, I think that you have zero experience with the working class, with working class agitation or, really, with intellectuals.

Have you ever engaged in working class agitation, run for shop steward, addressed a working class demonstration or been involved in a strike? I suspect none of the above, and you are spouting some weird shit that reminds me of fascist agitation, third period stalinism and constipated maoism.

RED DAVE

[Wanted Man]

do ypou like anime?????????????? everything u say sounds like a line from an anime villain just sayin. i played a lot of jrpgsin my heyday. areu a boss from finalfantasy??????

http://usera.imagecave.com/KaBlamoid4Life/a%20256px-Kefka_Hate.png.jpg

Actual picture of the OP.

Anyway, I'm actually puzzled at what to do with this thread. It's not quite theoretical, but I don't want to give it to some other mod to deal with it. I don't want to trash it just because the OP is unpopular. Guys, please try to have a serious discussion on anti-intellectualism. For me. :crying:

[Bardo]

Confidence is actually more important than intelligence.

If you are not believing in your own positions, you will not make anyone else believe in them either.

If you don't understand your own positions it doesn't matter what you believe, it makes you a pawn. Blind belief is something we should be trying to rid ourselves of. Confidence is important, but intelligence is more important.



They want to stop cuts to the theatres, while the rightist parties want to cut the theatre to give more money to the elderly. If I could save one old working class person by dismantling a theatre, I would do so.

Aren't the rightists also cutting funds to the elderly? I don't understand the logic...

I don't understand how anti-intellectualism will liberate the working class when it is already an effective instrument of working class repression.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anti-intellectualism is a sharp knife which cuts through the sky castles of intellectualism and reaches the point immediately. Instead of looking at the ideas because of their inherent logics, we should look at them for their usefulness for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation and capitalism.

Anti-intellectualism is a weapon against the bourgeois world, which is built on idealist logics which serve no other purpose than to legitimise the oppression on behalf of the ruling class. Humanism and humanitarianism are just disguises with which to patronise the working people and the third world, in order to exploit their labour.

What is important is not the thoughtfulness of your position, but how well your position resonates with objective class interests plus your charisma.

You know about the great speakers of the 20th century.

How many of you remember anything more than short fragments of their speeches?

One good slogan equals 30 000 pages of existentialist philosophy.

And one good insult equals dozens of debate victories.

We must trash down the intellectualist garbage and reach down to our instincts, liberate ourselves from our shackles of bourgeois civility and become one with our animal nature in order to be able to lead the masses in overthrowing the state.

Ideas are weapons in class warfare.

Anti-intellectualism is superior to intellectualism in the actual, material struggle. If you are trying to see everything from everyone's perspective, you will negate yourself and become a non-entity.

Could anyone even defend intellectualism?


What? I think you're a seriously confused individual. Ideas are weapons in class warfare, but we're supposed to go against the means of creating, articulating, and debating those very ideas-intellectualism? Do you understand the inherent irony and contradiction in what you're arguing? If not I find that incredibly amusing.

Also, are you so much more successful than the intellectuals at overthrowing the working class? Lenin was an intellectual who took down the Russian Tsarist state, how many states have you overthrown? Or are you just a poseur with a lot of hot air? I'd vote for an intellectual over a shrieking autocrat any day of the week. What the fuck is your track record?

[hatzel]

Could somebody please explain why we have to 'impress' the masses (as Azula said on the last page, but I'm on my phone, so quoting's a right pain), and why exactly we have to be badass toughnuts to do that? I mean, I am personally 'impressed' by intellectuals and page after page of philosophy, assuming it's insightful. Much more impressed than I would be by a bunch of people in military uniform marching into town, dragging their knuckles, chanting empty slogans about instilling fear in the enemy and calling people names, or whatever it is Azula advocates...sitting in a café discussing art, culture and intellectual concerns seems infinitely more appealing to me, sorry...

[Die Neue Zeit]

The reason that many of us came to the left was because we were humanists and because we cared about the suffering of humanity as a whole. The minute we dismiss humanism we abandon revolutionary ideals. The ruling class must be exposed for their anti-human and anti-humanitarian acts, and that's why we fight everyday. We fight for our class and along the way we won't fight with silk gloves but stop fetishizing over violence.

I think she came to the left from a more conservative political background. Some workers have done so and continue to do so.

Anyway, Azula might also be interested in what Kautsky wrote with respect to socialists and intellectuals:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1903/xx/int-work.htm


The alliance of science with labour and its goal of saving humanity, must therefore be understood not in the sense which the academicians transmit to the people the knowledge which they gain in the bourgeois classroom, but rather in this sense that every one of our co-fighters, academicians and proletarians alike, who are capable of participating in proletarian activity, utilise the common struggle or at least investigate it, in order to draw new scientific knowledge which can in turn be fruitful for further proletarian activity. Since that is how the matter stands, it is impossible to conceive of science being handed down to the proletariat or of an alliance between them as two independent powers. That science, which can contribute to the emancipation of the proletariat, can be developed only by the proletariat and through it. What the liberals bring over from the bourgeois scientific circles cannot serve to expedite the struggle for emancipation, but often only to retard it.

[...]

An ideal example of an intellectual who thoroughly assimilated the sentiments of a proletarian, and who, although a brilliant writer, quite lost the specific manner of an intellectual, who marched cheerfully with the rank-and-file, who worked in any post assigned to him, who devoted himself wholeheartedly to our great cause, and despised the feeble whinings about the suppression of one’s individuality, as individuals trained in the philosophy of Nietzsche and Ibsen are prone to do whenever they happen to be in a minority – that ideal example of the intellectual whom the socialist movement needs, was Wilhelm Liebknecht. We might also mention Marx, who never forced himself to the forefront, and whose hearty discipline in the International, where he often found himself in the minority, was exemplary.

[La Comédie Noire]

Right so politics is not something to be apprehended logically with argumentation and evidence, but something that must be instilled with emotions such as fear, pride, and anger?

Although I agree with you to an extent, that we are creatures of emotion, let me say you have a very dismal conception of the human race.

[Invader Zim]

The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

It sounds like you made a fool of your self.


My guess is that you've been playing too many dungeons and dragons based computer games and think that characters with high charisma stats produce more powerful chracters with high intelligence stats.

[Leftsolidarity]

Just go away and stop making these stupid fucking threads about how you are all butt-hurt that no one cares for your stupidity.

[CleverTitle]

You make a lot of threads centered around you.

[o well this is ok I guess]

It sounds like you made a fool of your self.


My guess is that you've been playing too many dungeons and dragons based computer games and think that characters with high charisma stats produce more powerful chracters with high intelligence stats. Nobody thinks that and nobody ever has for any game that ever included a charisma stat.

You're supposed to set it to 1 so you can throw all you can into strength.

[Geiseric]

Sounds like you were just bullying him. like were you making fat jokes? Please don't associate yourself with leftists. it also sounds like you have a sith lord complex, or at least a wanna be sith lord complex. Anyways, you posted more in the few weeks that you've been here, in proportion to how much i've posted in about 6 months of being around. how often are you at the computer? Sounds like you're so angry, you need to take some time to relax, get a nice cup of hot cocoa, and smoke a bit of weed or something...

[Leftsolidarity]

Sounds like you're so angry, you need to take some time to relax, get a nice cup of hot cocoa, and smoke a bit of weed or something...

Yeah man every so often I get offline for a week, smoke pot, and drink coffee. When I get back I can laugh at everyone who wasted all their time on here arguing with trolls.

[tobbinator]

So you, Azula, would want to live in a completely joyless world, one devoid of fun, science and culture? You may want that, but the masses don't.

[RHIZOMES]

I was lambasted in another thread for being "anti-intellectual". The subject was that I told about when I crushed a Libertarian in the real world using ad hominems.

So what?

Debates are not a goal in themselves, but merely a mean to either gain followers or prevent your enemies from gaining followers. If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.

Confidence is actually more important than intelligence.

If you are not believing in your own positions, you will not make anyone else believe in them either.

Leftist intellectuals, who love sitting at cafeterias with berets on their head and drinking cappucino from cooperatives in Nicaragua, love to rather discuss and debate arts, music, politics and things which only they care about for hours, sitting on their skinny asses and talking slowly with meek, sweet voices.

They try to gain support by appearing as weak and self-defeating, like lying down in front of bulldozers which are going to dismantle public parks. In fact, they seem to think that culture is more important than people. That is illustrated by the suicidal position of the Leftist party in my town.

They want to stop cuts to the theatres, while the rightist parties want to cut the theatre to give more money to the elderly. If I could save one old working class person by dismantling a theatre, I would do so.

Intellectualism as an attitude is condescending and cowardly. It is weak people hiding behind their glasses, behind Sartre and Camus and pretending to be like priests. They don't have radical ideals, only radical posturing.

They are parasites on the working class.

Anti-intellectualism on the other hand is looking at everything on the basis of real, tangible results. It doesn't matter how the victory is achieved, as long as the forces of progress are victorious and the forces of reaction are smashed into submission or oblivion.

Anti-intellectualism is a sharp knife which cuts through the sky castles of intellectualism and reaches the point immediately. Instead of looking at the ideas because of their inherent logics, we should look at them for their usefulness for the emancipation of the masses from exploitation and capitalism.

Anti-intellectualism is a weapon against the bourgeois world, which is built on idealist logics which serve no other purpose than to legitimise the oppression on behalf of the ruling class. Humanism and humanitarianism are just disguises with which to patronise the working people and the third world, in order to exploit their labour.

What is important is not the thoughtfulness of your position, but how well your position resonates with objective class interests plus your charisma.

You know about the great speakers of the 20th century.

How many of you remember anything more than short fragments of their speeches?

One good slogan equals 30 000 pages of existentialist philosophy.

And one good insult equals dozens of debate victories.

We must trash down the intellectualist garbage and reach down to our instincts, liberate ourselves from our shackles of bourgeois civility and become one with our animal nature in order to be able to lead the masses in overthrowing the state.

Ideas are weapons in class warfare.

Anti-intellectualism is superior to intellectualism in the actual, material struggle. If you are trying to see everything from everyone's perspective, you will negate yourself and become a non-entity.

Could anyone even defend intellectualism?

Man, I came into this thread expecting some average left-wing anti-intellectual dogmatic angst, a disease all-too-common on Revleft. Instead I stumble upon this tl;dr adolescent fascist manifesto that can hardly be defined as "left-wing" at all.

How can you even justify making 308 posts in under a month on a forum like Revleft, when you obviously don't even agree with ideas of basic debating tactics?

[Invader Zim]

Nobody thinks that and nobody ever has for any game that ever included a charisma stat.

You're supposed to set it to 1 so you can throw all you can into strength.


Only people who don't know how to play games ramps up the strength stats to the max (unless you have an awesome roll). It is all about dexterity and intelligence and you put strength up a few, but not to the max.

At lest that is the way to solo a lot of these games. That or max out intelligence and charisma to play as a mage/sorceror.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Debates are not a goal in themselves, but merely a mean to either gain followers or prevent your enemies from gaining followers. If I could accomplish a destruction of an enemy by crushing his self-confidence rather than his positions, I will do it.

Gaining followers is not a goal in of itself - not if the goal is the self-emancipation of the working class that is. How are workers ever going to trust radical ideas if radicals lie to them, distort, and give them bad information for self-serving reasons. To me your argument is the definition of sectarianism: it doesn't matter if workers are armed with the knowledge of how to actually change society as long as they follow me or my group.

Lie to cops and politicians and bosses, not to workers.

Minority ruling classes lie to the people they rule over because they don't want people to know how things really are (it's better if they don't) because that opens up the possibility of people understanding how society works and therefore how it might be changed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think she came to the left from a more conservative political background. Some workers have done so and continue to do so.It sounds to me like someone who knows that things are fucked up with this system but has no clue how people can change that. The root is not seen the working class as the agent of possible liberation for all humanity, so people like that look for short-cuts: "we'll gain power and reshape things in a better way" or "we'll fight the cops and then the masses will know what they should do".

IMO it's a product of the huge disconnect between the class anger out there right now and apparent viable ways for people to organize an opposition. I've been running into a lot of people IRL recently who display this sort of frustration and impatience.

[Azula]

Instead of answering the storm of angry comments to my entry, I will focus on some points. I want to thank Die Neue Zeit for answering constructively.

Power is not founded on institutions or ideologies, but because people are coerced or swayed to behave in a specific manner.

People can listen to arguments, but it is more likely they do it if the messenger is already respected, loved or feared.

People follow ideas not because of the ideas in themselves, and not only because of their class interests, but because of the strength and charisma of those who are proponents of those ideas.

This does not mean that for example determined Communists will become Fascists or Liberals only because there is a strong leader, but it will affect apolitical or non-determined people to sway their support.

"When people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they will choose the strong horse" - Osama bin Laden.

In short, the ideas in themselves are not as important for success in the revolutionary stage. What is important is the strength, determination and mental inflexibility of those who fight over the support of the masses.

Working place struggles are important, but all they achieve are better terms for working people, which legitimise the capitalist system. Better to just burn down this corrupt world, and build up a bright, pure future from scratch.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Have you read the communist manifesto, I assume you have, and what do you think of it? I ask because many of the things you argue seem to be in direct conflict with many of the arguments of Marx.

I sincerely would like to hear why you think that historical materialism is incorrect and that great people with the correct ideas and conviction actually make history?

[hatzel]

People follow charismatic and feared leaders, and we should employ this strategy ourselves? Sounds like something from the Hitler school of political persuasion. Seriously, that guy was a GREAT propagandist! Held meetings and debates at night because he knew tired people would be more easily swayed and less likely to formulate counter-arguments (so he'd win and look good), realised that conquest of the East was actually a psychological battle, to mentally degrade the populace into submission, ensured the support of respected public figures to lend his regime some legitimacy. Really, that guy knew how to play the Great Man game, and rally the masses behind him. You could do a lot worse than checking out his techniques if you want to know how to be a charismatic dictator...

[Die Neue Zeit]

People follow charismatic and feared leaders, and we should employ this strategy ourselves? Sounds like something from the Hitler school of political persuasion. Seriously, that guy was a GREAT propagandist! Held meetings and debates at night because he knew tired people would be more easily swayed and less likely to formulate counter-arguments (so he'd win and look good), realised that conquest of the East was actually a psychological battle, to mentally degrade the populace into submission, ensured the support of respected public figures to lend his regime some legitimacy. Really, that guy knew how to play the Great Man game, and rally the masses behind him. You could do a lot worse than checking out his techniques if you want to know how to be a charismatic dictator...

You should read more history books on pre-war German Social Democracy. Along with Wilhelm Liebknecht, the likes of Ferdinand Lassalle and August Bebel were agitators par excellence with the oratory skills.

[Meridian]

Look at this, an entire thread about this person, who is far too self absorbed while remaining firmly irrelevant.


"When people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they will choose the strong horse" - Osama bin Laden
This quotation was used by Anders Behring Breivik in his manifesto as well. I think you'd like him.

[Thirsty Crow]

Power is not founded on institutions or ideologies, but because people are coerced or swayed to behave in a specific manner.This seems like a verbal mish mash that really amounts to nothing concrete and confuses the issues at hand.

For instance, if we conceive of power as the strategic relationship of different forces in which certain institutions function as the effective loci of command, then yes, we can conclude that power, directly related to class struggle, is mos visibly and clearly constituted in that network of institutions and its capacity for certain action.

The question of ideology is much too complex for this discussion, but suffice it to say that it also plays an important role in power relations (it could be argued that ideology is directly constitutive of relations of production, but that's a hot topic which would require its own thread).

Now, you're saying that this is irrelevant since the point is that people are coerced or swayed to behave in a specific way.
This is horribly confused, and it fails to account for the specificity of the configuration of power relations, and the specificity of the institutional structures. You cannot really come up with a viable communist programme, or even a decent set of short-term tactics in such a way.

From this it is clear that your anti-intellectualism really amounts to a crude reduction in class analysis and political analysis. And that's political suicide.



People can listen to arguments, but it is more likely they do it if the messenger is already respected, loved or feared.
I would say that this amounts to a viewpoint that is utterly opposed to Marxism (the so called great man theory), but more on that below:



People follow ideas not because of the ideas in themselves, and not only because of their class interests, but because of the strength and charisma of those who are proponents of those ideas.First, this is an unsubstantiated argument, bordering on the Fascist glorification of "strenght" (what kind of strenght are we talking about? a stuborn refusal to acknowledge real social conditions and in stead engae in mistification and demagoguery, unsupported by clear and meaningful arguments?).

And as I've said, all of this runs counter to the materialist conception of history, which has nothing to do with charismatic leaders who decidedly influence the course of history. I think that this materialist conception of history is far superior to your viewpoint, for various reasons, but I'd like to hear you out on why you implicitly refuse it.

And one more remark: even if the social conditions were favourable for such behaviour on behalf of a good number of people, I think that the point of the communist project is precisely to struggle against such conditions and strive for the empowerment of the whole of the working class. Critical thought is very important here, and I don't think we can expect that the communist global society will be formed on such social basis which works against such developments (the development of rational, critical thought).


This does not mean that for example determined Communists will become Fascists or Liberals only because there is a strong leader, but it will affect apolitical or non-determined people to sway their support.I don't think it's reasonable to assume that in times of revolutionary rupture many people will remain completely apolitical. Therefore I think that this insistence on blatantly coercing the apoliticals to choose their side is not so important.


"When people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they will choose the strong horse" - Osama bin Laden.Wow, a self declared communist citing bin Laden in support of her views on personal strenght and charisma in revolutionary leadership and coercion. That's precious.



Working place struggles are important, but all they achieve are better terms for working people, which legitimise the capitalist system. Better to just burn down this corrupt world, and build up a bright, pure future from scratch.
And that's why communists shoud silently support every single right-wing lunatic who proposes the reintroduction of child labour, for instance. Since that wouldn't legitimize the system.

Seriously, your positions are beyond flawed, and cannot constitute anything but politically bankrupt "mental inflexibility".

[hatzel]

You should read more history books on pre-war German Social Democracy. Along with Wilhelm Liebknecht, the likes of Ferdinand Lassalle and August Bebel were agitators par excellence with the oratory skills.

Whilst true, as the trend of this thread seems to be making flagrant accusations of fascism, I thought I'd take the easy way out and play along :o

...not that I necessarily expect everybody on here to be in complete agreement that the 19th century SPD displayed credentials worth emulating in the modern day, or indeed that Azula's proposals (which sometimes come across as rather ill thought out, and therefore difficult to grasp) match them particularly well...

[Leftsolidarity]

You just quoted Osama Bin Laden.......