Equality of Opinion

[Questionable]

What do fellow Marxists think about the notion of equality of opinions?

Essentially I'm referring to the concept that different social views are equal to each other, and rather than working out the contradictions and reaching an understanding of reality, both sides should be content to believe what they will believe in.

It's a concept I've seen used in political arguments when tensions begin running high. Rather than coming to the truth even if it means sacrificing one's own beliefs, the participants will say something like, "Hey, you believe in Marxism, I believe in liberalism, let's just agree to disagree!" It means that each individual gets to exist within his own ideological bubble, their beliefs never being tested for the sake of civility. You can see it being used as a tool to avoid confrontation when people say things like, "I'm so tired of people being intolerant about other opinions! Can't we all just respect each other's beliefs?"

This has the appearance of a noble wish, because it seems to be calling for civility in manners in debates, but in fact it works as a way to silence any opposition to an individual's viewpoint without having to engage in any critical thinking. Rather than being forced to consider one's own views, you can cry persecution, intolerance, and demand that your subjective views be given as much credibility as even the most informed person in the name of tolerance and equality. It's an effective tool because, as I said, it takes on the appearance of a noble plea for understanding, when it's true purpose, whether the person realizes it or not, is to solve ideological problems without really solving them.

Perhaps I'm constructing a strawman, but I've had this "argument" invoked upon me many times when debating politics with friends, and I can't help but feel it's a way for people to feel right without having to prove themselves as such. "Questionable's Marxist beliefs are good and all, but that's just his opinion. In my opinion, libertarianism is real, and people should respect that," or something along those lines.

I do want to make the distinction between debating and being an asshole. You can be civil and still analyze viewpoints critically. The problem occurs when there's no actual hostility present in the debate, but people are uncomfortable with evaluating their views and simply want to withdraw.

It has multiple problems from a Marxist standpoint, the most obvious of which is that it implies a subjectivity present within reality. If we accept that reality is objective, something must exist, a certain view must be correct, or at least more correct than others. If we resign to let each individual exist within their own ideological bubble, we're ignoring the fact that an objective truth must exist. Someone must be wrong, someone must be right (Or closer to being right than others).

Not to mention the fact that ideology stems from class influence. As Engels said, ideology is not merely the individual coming to a conclusion based on their own volition, it is a process determined by real material motives. If an individual accepts a viewpoint, we must criticize that from the standpoint of class struggle, not treat opinions as holy things that deserve respect (A concept I feel is somewhat present in all bourgeois ideology).

Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts. How do other Marxists feel about it?

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

It's a concept I've seen used in political arguments when tensions begin running high. Rather than coming to the truth even if it means sacrificing one's own beliefs, the participants will say something like, "Hey, you believe in Marxism, I believe in liberalism, let's just agree to disagree!" It means that each individual gets to exist within his own ideological bubble, their beliefs never being tested for the sake of civility. You can see it being used as a tool to avoid confrontation when people say things like, "I'm so tired of people being intolerant about other opinions! Can't we all just respect each other's beliefs?"

I've encountered this situation plenty of times, though not usually with liberalism. For me it's a case of people wedding themselves too closely to what they believe, and the bond is usually emotional. In other words, they become so attached to their ideology that defending it is as vital as preventing the amputation of a limb, rather than using it as a tool for finding the truth. For example, I was surprised how much brute (verbal) opposition and resentment I encountered for criticizing the recent film version of Les Misérables; I could not question the acting and the writing without in some way maligning them personally. Trying to enter into a debate in these conditions is very ill-advised.

So what is the solution? No one approach has worked for me. But I try to consistently make clear that while you don't necessarily respect the opinions you're opposing, you have the utmost respect the people you're engaging. After all, the point is to convince others through debate, not treat them like Lilliputians personally. A sharp attack will force people to bust out a "Chinese wall" to insulate themselves. All this "agreeing to disagree" talk misses a very important point, that people are more than the sum of their politics and beliefs. That is what must be addressed immediately. When I make this clear to my opponent, the rest usually comes rather easily, because the terms of discourse have changed from defending themselves personally to a more dispassionate exploration of the topics involved.

tl;dr: Always seek to engage people's intelligence, not emotion. One may protest that my approach plays too much by the rules and prejudices of bourgeois discourse. Perhaps. But here is the question: Do we wish to build a "bridge" to these people and others by first speaking to them in their own language before introducing another (class consciousness and revolution)? Or do we immediately resort to the big guns, bluntly dismiss what people think they know and simply hope that a cadre of advanced workers comes to us on their own? The truth is that the best way to fight bourgeois ideology is to engage it on its own terms. That is one of our tasks as Marxists who wish to leave an impression on the working class. There are absolutely no shortcuts to socialist class consciousness.

[Lowtech]

I've confronted the same thing.

and you've explained it much more clearly than i am capable of doing while tired lol. but you're right, its just a tactic to shut you down when the other person can't compete with your reasoning but are still still arrogant and stubborn enough to feel they are right and you are wrong.

i suggest to react calmly and say you do respect their beliefs, and maybe slyly comment that you agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however are not entitled to their own facts.

i feel it comes down to the fact that not everyone will want to discuss important issues or take them as seriously as you and i would. those people reduce themselves to mental fodder that capitalists prey on.

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

i suggest to react calmly and say you do respect their beliefs, and maybe slyly comment that you agree everyone is entitled to their own opinion, however are not entitled to their own facts.

I have to start using that.