Compromising Beliefs = Betrayal?

[00000000000]

I've often wondered if it's possible for anyone who holds a strong belief in a certain political ideology to revise or change those beliefs? If they do, is it fair or right to consider that a 'betrayal' to the cause?

There are times when I feel some 'leftists', for want of a better collective term, are just as rigid and unyielding in their conviction that what they think is right as any religious fundamentalist. I know that practical political theory and religious dogma aren't really comparable, but I worry that the unwillingness to concede or compromise leads to greater conflict between left-wing groups and this leads to lack of progress.

Your thoughts.

[Coach Trotsky]

Listen to what you are saying:
'concede'
'compromise'

Who are you conceding to? Who are you compromising with?
Whose interests benefit from this concession and compromise?
What is pressuring you to feel the need to concede and compromise?
What does it say about your perspectives?

[00000000000]

Who are you conceding to? Who are you compromising with?
Whose interests benefit from this concession and compromise?
What is pressuring you to feel the need to concede and compromise?
What does it say about your perspectives?

I wasn't talking about me personally, I don't have a specific example.

I meant generally, is there ever an instance where you could change your ideology? Sorry if that's too broad and not worth persuing as a topic

[Sensible Socialist]

There are times for comprimise and times to hold to our political positions. No one should ever shut their eyes to the world and deny the existence of possible compromises, but if we start to focus moreso on compromise, we lose our focus on the larger goals: to abolish capitalism. That can't come from compromise or reform, and in that respect we must hold firm and never back down.

[PopulistPower]

I think a better way to have put this would have been, "Is being dogmatic better than being more open-minded"?

Obviously being open-minded to the point that you support capitalism is counterproductive. But being able to appreciate and apply various theories and practices, and the type of inter-organizational solidarity that would consequently arise, is a good thing. I don't think any single strand that could be categorized as left has %100 of the answers and strategies for defeating capitalism and other forms of oppression. And even if one group did, there aren't isn't any single leftist group around that could accomplish its goals without working with other socialist or leftist groups.

[runequester]

Marxism is based on scientific study of class relationships and how societies develop.

It is inherent to the scientific method to revise as evidence is presented. Without this, ideas must perish.

[humdog]

Marxism is based on scientific study of class relationships and how societies develop.

It is inherent to the scientific method to revise as evidence is presented. Without this, ideas must perish.

I would agree with runequester here. Also, to expand, I think it's to be expected that many leftists become dogmatic in a way not dissimilar to conservatives on the other end of the spectrum. The attitudes and worldviews behind capitalism have been given hundreds of years to disseminate and soak into all the facets of life; one of the characteristics of those typically capitalist worldviews is an emphasis put on the self-interest of the individual. It's fair to expect that an individual, even a leftist, coming out of such a culture wouldn't be entirely free of such inclinations, and would likewise be very dogmatic or defensive about an idea or notion that they have a lot of their personal energy invested into.

The catch-22, however, is that when you personalize something to such a degree, you reduce it from its social and practical functions to nothing more than an object for consumption, thereby reinvigorating the capitalist ethic. Such is the way leftism can be co-opted so effectively by capitalism, as seen with the emergence of 'lifestylism.' This is why resistance is most effective when emancipated from the restrictions of dogmatic thinking; a theory, such as Marxism, should be treated as it treats itself, that is, a scientific method and thereby a methodology that should be adaptive and flexible. Only when this is accomplished can both its humanist aspects be retained and its strength as a means of analysis be effectively applied to real-world situations in which we are ethically obligated to act.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's not like there's a leftist movement to betray. In any case, let ideology do what it likes, one's primary concern is finding the truth of the matter, and whether that involves being 'open-minded' (on the left, generally an excuse for a narrow-minded adherence to silliness) or not is irrelevant.


Marxism is based on scientific study of class relationships and how societies develop.

It is inherent to the scientific method to revise as evidence is presented. Without this, ideas must perish.This is generally an excuse for theoretical emasculation in the guise of 'revision'. Marx was generally concerned with theory and analyzing necessary connections, and as such wasn't a simple inductivist. Given this, his theory isn't highly vulnerable to what is usually considered 'evidence' from this kind of viewpoint.


I know that practical political theory and religious dogma aren't really comparable, but I worry that the unwillingness to concede or compromise leads to greater conflict between left-wing groups and this leads to lack of progress.To be honest, I like conflict between left-wing groups. It's fun.