Why are so many socialists unwilling to admit mistakes?

[Blanquist]

Take Libya for example, some strongly supported the 'uprising' and then at the end they screamed about how reactionary it was and how heroic Gaddafi was.

There is so much flip-flopping and absolutely wrong 'analysis'

Alan Woods is the perfect example. If there is some strike or something in Iran he will procalim that this is the revolution, and he will say "I wrote about the start of the revolution back in 1993, here is what I said...."

WTF man?

This is just an example, it's so hard to hear "I was wrong, we were wrong, we completely miscalculated this and didn't understand that"

Why insist on being right even when you were wrong?

[Искра]

Because leftists don't think - they follow.

[roy]

i don't think this is unique to leftists but ok

[Ostrinski]

i don't think this is unique to leftists but okAgreed. In my observation people of all political persuasions are pretty hesitant to admit mistakes because it implies faulty theory.

[Kronsteen]

Why insist on being right even when you were wrong?

Three related thoughts:

* It takes a lot of confidence - even arrogance - to hold views which are very different from the mainstream. And this same confidence can tip over into denial when the views are disproven.

* If you've invested a lot of time, money, and effort into an idea, if you've endured a lot of ridicule or hardship for it's sake, one thing you don't want to learn is that it was a waste of time. Or that you made a fool of yourself. Especially when it was your self-respect which kept you fighting.

* When we're part of a group, it often isn't just for political reasons. The group is our family, our support, our 'rock'. And the point of rocks is they're fixed and reliable, and you can cling to them in stormy weather. They hold fast so you don't get swept away.

So what happens when the rock does a flip-flop? Suddenly it's no longer reliable. You might persuade yourself it didn't really flip-flop, or you might have a convenient road-to-damascus experience and follow the new line. But it's easier to stay loyal to something that doesn't require ideological gymnastics.

[hatzel]

Take Libya for example, some strongly supported the 'uprising' and then at the end they screamed about how reactionary it was and how heroic Gaddafi was.


This is just an example, it's so hard to hear "I was wrong, we were wrong, we completely miscalculated this and didn't understand that"

Why insist on being right even when you were wrong?I don't think you're using a good example here at all. My mad logical deduction skills seem to suggest that supporting something and then opposing it constitutes an admission of a mistake, a change of opinion in light of new evidence. One who fails to admit one's own mistakes, instead clinging to their false assumptions, would continue supporting something even after this support has been shown to be misplaced...those who change opinion are unavoidably saying that their previous opinion was incorrect, a mistake, a miscalculation stemming from false or incomplete understanding of the situation...

[Raúl Duke]

Take Libya for example, some strongly supported the 'uprising' and then at the end they screamed about how reactionary it was and how heroic Gaddafi was.

There is so much flip-flopping and absolutely wrong 'analysis'

Alan Woods is the perfect example. If there is some strike or something in Iran he will procalim that this is the revolution, and he will say "I wrote about the start of the revolution back in 1993, here is what I said...."

WTF man?

This is just an example, it's so hard to hear "I was wrong, we were wrong, we completely miscalculated this and didn't understand that"

Why insist on being right even when you were wrong?

Because political ideologies can get hung up to dogmatism and other problems. It's not exactly unique to socialism, anarchists, the left.

One unique problem to socialists in regards to this is the use (or misuse) of the term "dialectical materialism" as an excuse for certain policies, even weird/wrong ones (this misuse as lead to all sorts of shenanigans, even perhaps splits in a party that usually starts with claiming that the splitters had the wrong analysis while they had the correct dialectical materialist one; and vice-versa). Although I bet other ideologies have their own similar fall-back "analysis" to justify all sorts of shit.

Now on why it seems that they find it hard to admit mistakes...well that probably has psychological reasons as well. I remember a Cracked article mentioning that people tend to continue to argue for their side even if its been proven and they know it's wrong due to some alleged psychological imperative or something. In other words, it's possibly a human trait (not sure if culturally universal or not).

I'm not saying this to brush you off, I myself am annoyed by this as well. We should not try to hide our mistakes but accept them, apologize/etc, and move on. But it's a common thing and goes beyond just the left.

[#FF0000]

Take Libya for example, some strongly supported the 'uprising' and then at the end they screamed about how reactionary it was and how heroic Gaddafi was.

There is so much flip-flopping and absolutely wrong 'analysis'

Maybe you are reading different people who are both socialists and have different opinions? Or maybe that is one person who just changed their minds?

[The Idler]

Because a lot of adults have less maturity than a 14 year-old.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

I think it´s usually just pretentious self- importance, to be honest.
Allan Woods is indeed an excellent example; almost a political personification of this.

[Leftsolidarity]

Different leftists supported and denounced the rebels in Libya from the beginning.

[Kronsteen]

One unique problem to socialists in regards to this is the use (or misuse) of the term "dialectical materialism" as an excuse for certain policies

Heh. You know my views on the dialectic, but even if it's true that everything resembles it's opposite (for a given meaning of 'opposite'), it's a wonderful way to justify blatent policy U-turns.

Trade Unions protect workers' rights? On Monday we support them and make all the compromises we can to work with them and in them. Trade Unions are run by sell-out leadership? On Tuesday we only deal directly with workers.

As for Materialism...I'm not sure how insisting the world is made of something called 'Matter' helps you decide your position on the Arab Spring, but it looks good on your policy statement.

[ArrowLance]

We'd rather just disown it completely and say it never was.

The Soviet Union. Just sayin' . . .

[Manic Impressive]

We'd rather just disown it completely and say it never was.

The Soviet Union. Just sayin' . . .
"When Lenin said he was introducing state capitalism he didn't MEAN state capitalism he meant socialism obviously"

Honestly the mental gymnastics used to try to justify shit is just ridiculous. If a M-L actually came out and said "it was state capitalist. So what there was nothing else they could do" I would respect them for being honest.

[ArrowLance]

"When Lenin said he was introducing state capitalism he didn't MEAN state capitalism he meant socialism obviously"

Honestly the mental gymnastics used to try to justify shit is just ridiculous. If a M-L actually came out and said "it was state capitalist. So what there was nothing else they could do" I would respect them for being honest.

I'm not sure who you are quoting but I've never heard anything so ridiculous. The system put in place in the Soviet Union was a system that worked for the advancement of Socialism not just locally but worldwide. Besides Lenin saying 'state capitalism' it's obvious the Soviet Union was NOT capitalist in any meaningful way. Capital was not largely privately owned. Exchange value was not the goal of production, nor was it a product.

[Manic Impressive]

I guess you'll have to trust me but that's an argument I've run into plenty, I'm glad you find it as ridiculous as I do. I'm not debating the economic nature of the SU now there's plenty of other threads for that, I'll just say that you're wrong and you should read up on the LTV.

[Grenzer]

"When Lenin said he was introducing state capitalism he didn't MEAN state capitalism he meant socialism obviously"

Honestly the mental gymnastics used to try to justify shit is just ridiculous. If a M-L actually came out and said "it was state capitalist. So what there was nothing else they could do" I would respect them for being honest.

The thing was, it's actually impossible to spontaneously abolish commodity production and wage labor, so there is no way a post-revoultionary society could avoid a transitional period in which the law of value was still the rule.

It was a mistake for him to say that 'socialism is state capitalism turned to the benefit of the people' and he should be criticized; but it's also disingenuous to say that Lenin had ever said Russia had surpassed capital. He never stated such a thing. He stated that socialism might be established, which was a delusional expectation, but he never once said that Russia had surpassed capital. Lenin's state capitalism was capitalism, but capitalism without a bourgeoisie and capitalism that was moving in the direction of socialism. In lieu of the bourgeoisie, which had been liquidated, the state would fill the role of the capitalist, but that state was under the control of the dictatorship of the proletariat. When the revolution degenerated, the high party officials simply established themselves as the new bourgeoisie, and it was no longer state capitalism, but just plain old capitalism.

It's also incorrect for the Stalinists to insist Russia was socialist. We all know that isn't true; but it's important to note that the theory of Socialism in One Country was originally about building socialism in one country. No one ever believed socialism could be achieved in one country back then; the idea that it could be is Stalinist revisionism.. ironically Stalinist had backtracked on what he had stated [correctly] in the twenties.

It seems like some people would just prefer to throw stones without offering a credible alternative. If you can think of some way commodity production can be spontaneously abolished, I'd be curious to hear about it. As it stands, it seems impossible for a post-revolutionary society to avoid a transitional phase, as a mode of production cannot be spontaneously changed! This has been the rule throughout history, and there is no reason to think it is any different with capitalism.

[ArrowLance]

It's also incorrect for the Stalinists to insist Russia was socialist. We all know that isn't true . . .

It's fair to say that Russia was not socialist so long as it is fair to say it was the closest and most important socialist project so far. It did wonders for the state of the global revolution and we can learn a lot of lessons from what was done wrong. I have a problem when people who call themselves leftist would rather deny that it was a socialist project than take the time to analyze it. Distance themselves from it instead of accept it for what it was.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Blanquist is a Troll.

[Zealot]

Anyone with a Marxist analysis never supported the rebels from the beginning but those who don't have a correct analysis of situations, i.e. a large part of the Anarchists on Revleft and even some Trotskyists, were supporting the rebels until they realized what a shit storm it was turning into. I'm not going to admit any mistake because the Marxist-Leninists, having the most immortal and correct ideology, did not make a mistake in the analysis of Libya.

[Manic Impressive]

The thing was, it's actually impossible to spontaneously abolish commodity production and wage labor, so there is no way a post-revoultionary society could avoid a transitional period in which the law of value was still the rule. Spontaneously, no, but the length of any transition will be determined by the level of conciousness preceding a revolution. The other factor was of course the productive capabilities of industry. That's no longer an issue in most of the world. So if as Marx said a majority of the working class, working in the interests of the majority emancipate themselves. Then any modern day transition will be shortened dramatically say 1-5 years. If in that time some sort of market economy needs to exist then we should call it what it is and not try and make out that it's something else. If on the other hand you disagree with me and Marx that the working class can emancipate themselves then a transition in which the proletariat are educated about socialism is necessary and likely to be long. In this instance you would need to be literally educating the proletariat that those in control of the state and those which are extracting surplus value from their labour are the baddies, which will just so happen to be you. That obviously ain't gonna go down to well.


It's fair to say that Russia was not socialist so long as it is fair to say it was the closest and most important socialist project so far. It did wonders for the state of the global revolution and we can learn a lot of lessons from what was done wrong. I have a problem when people who call themselves leftist would rather deny that it was a socialist project than take the time to analyze it. Distance themselves from it instead of accept it for what it was.
I'd agree with all of this except the bolded part.