I am of the opinion that much ideological fervor is a form of displaced religiosity. How opponents and the merely skeptical are treated is evidence of this.
Results 1 to 18 of 18
What's with the moralism towards people's political views?
One strange thing I've noticed about the otherwise fairly skeptical view towards morality which people on this forum have is the strongly moralistic tendency in interpreting the politics of other people. I understand and appreciate why the forum bans liberals, conservatives, capitalists and reactionaries, but it seems strange how folks here actually talk as if these individuals have some kind of deep-seated moral failure in their political views. Whenever someone says something "liberal" on this forum, someone always flips out as if a real sin was committed.
I disagree with liberals, but I don't find them "disgusting" or think that they are "scum", I just think that their suggested fixes for society's problems to be fundamentally wrongheaded. I find a lot of views which religious conservatives have abhorrent, but I don't view them as essentially flawed human beings, just misguided. Why is such a strong, moralistic tone taken towards people who lack radical political views? How is it going to help people move towards the left? Why not focus more on the structural reasons for why people hold these political views? Is it because so many on the "far-left" resent the similarly moralistic view others hold about communists and anarchists?
There are other forms of this too, such as taking some statement or action someone made out of context and using it to show that the person is essentially reactionary, as if such a thing could actually be concluded from that one choice.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
I am of the opinion that much ideological fervor is a form of displaced religiosity. How opponents and the merely skeptical are treated is evidence of this.
i'm not condoning the behavior, but the amount of crap i got as someone who questioned authority, when i became a skinhead, when i opened up about my believing in marxism... after a while you tend to feel things as being more hostile than they might have been intended to be. my blood boils when i hear people talk about "commies" like they could define, let alone spell communism. in the information age, ignorance is a choice(at least here in america). just my $.02
Well, some political ideas make me pretty angry. I think it's okay to be disgusted by somebody's misguided politics, because often those ideas perpetuate or even encourage oppression. Or when put into practice, actively undermine effective action (for example when UAF hand antifascists over to the cops).
"Her development, her freedom, her independence must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children unless she wants them; by refusing to become a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc. ... by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women."~ Emma Goldman
Support RevLeft!
Well this is a form for leftists. If someone wants to debate in OI, that's good and well, but if not then they should expect to be flipped out on.
As someone else posted, many do hold a perverted 'religiosity' about their views, just as do people of many political persuasions. This can be part of a defense mechanism. In the capitalist world that we live in, we tend to get a lot resistance if we reveal our beliefs, so much that people on both sides are inclined to become over zealous and/or close-minded as an attempt to avoid persuasion. Emotions rise, and soon everyone ends up hating each other. People end up carrying a handful of bad experiences with them and over generalize those who have labels similar to people they have argued with before, instead of treating each person as an individual.
As you said, this is an obstacle in gaining new leftists. To persuade someone, you have to at least pretend to be respectful of their views, even if you believe they are the worst thoughts to ever pass through a human mind. If you don't, they will take that as a personal insult and will not only disregard anything you say, but will disregard what other leftists say and will hold a personal vendetta against others of your political persuasion.
The solution? Keep your emotions to a low level. This can be difficult esp. if the other doesn't return the favor, but you are not helping yourself or your cause by being an asshole.
This is less what you were talking about earlier and more of an example of badly handled tendency wars. Contextomy is a very dirty way to go about an argument, and those who use clearly must not be able to actually rebut the other; in an ideal world it would be a good way to lose an argument, as long as you got caught. Unfortunately, many do not get caught and people actually buy the misquote, ending not very well for the other person.
Your talk of moralism and of "fundamentally flawed human beings" I don't quite get. You disagree with people who'll say "conservatives are bad" (and are therefore making a statement on their morality) but you are also making a statement on their morality by claiming the opposite, that they are all fundamentally good just clueless.
If someone has a business and wants to do well he will want low taxes on himself, low wages etc. This isn't to be found in the ten commandments or anything, it's not a sin. It does hurt others though. Only through that prism can you say that this man is "bad". His ethics and his morality are born out of his material needs, your ethics and morality are born out of yours (though many workers who are on the minimum wage dream of "making it" and becoming just like the person above, that's cultural hegemony).
It is an oversimplification to call him bad or greedy or uncaring. A person can lay off a thousand of his employees and be a loving father to his very spoiled children. Would you say that's a bad person? Morality is relative.
One thing though which I've seen over the past few years. It doesn't take much for those people you simply call misguided to start not only supporting the most vile things but enforcing them. You'd be surprised how very little human empathy is then found. Give those religious conservatives of yours a threat to their financial wellbeing and it won't be long before they start saying only christians should have access to healthcare and benefits. Give those liberals a recession and it's not long before they nod in agreement with the conservatives.
I'm not saying they will all act like that in every case.
But just as it is naive to call them bad, it's also naive to call them good yet misguided. And you should know that people can sink to some great depths, even the ones you think are ok.
...We shall never recognise equality with the peasant profiteer, just as we do not recognise “equality” between the exploiter and the exploited, between the sated and the hungry, nor the “freedom” for the former to rob the latter. And those educated people who refuse to recognise this difference we shall treat as whiteguards, even though they may call themselves democrats, socialists, internationalists, Kautskys, Chernovs, or Martovs.
V.I. Lenin
Most of my friends and family are liberals, so using that word as an insult doesn't have the intended effect. Liberals are broadly normal people, and I'd rather spend time around liberals than around Marxist-Leninists, who are mostly maniacs. I'd rather a liberal was prime minister too, come to think of it.
No sectarianism intended, love you comrades <3
First of all I don't know that this is 'politics' as such, but I take your point for sure. What was a forum for ragtag bunch of leftists, became refined into one for revolutionary leftists...and then 'they' started coming for others. It wasn't long until people suggested banning anyone who didn't tow a certain CC approved line. I am not saying that everyone thought this, but there were frequent arguments. Poor members that stuck to the orthodoxy were maintained, and others were marginalised. This was a shame, and amongst the reasons why I left.
The problem with rejecting so many ideas out of hand is that people sometimes come to the left by degrees (yes there is a learning forum, but some people like to consider their political ideology already suitably advanced, if not finished). It also means that a great many posts are made argumentum ad populum, and useful or novel arguments that may seek to convince the open but unconverted are neglected.
Well made points that could serve every day purposes (for those of us who work or study surrounded by non-radicals) are not given the thought that they deserve. When people with a dissenting opinion on a subject are met with hostility or dogma, then they are less inclined to accept a change than they would be given a reason. Yes dogma works for some people, but we should consider ourselves above that.
I am not saying that the orthodoxy is wrong; for the most part I agree with the majority of people here on the majority of topics, else I wouldn't be posting, but I do think that where we neglect the logical and persuasive foundations we do ourselves a disservice.
Logical fallacies will be commonplace on any discussion board, but the point is that we have discussions. It is great that a place exists for ever more specialised discussions on certain topics, but when a basic question is posed, we should be able to give concise and reasonable responses at an appropriate level, even if this requires it to be doctrine light. Circle jerking, and finding the most definite way to say the exact same thing as a dozen other posters without offering an accessible reason is a self congratulatory waste of time.
Again, I think for the most part that revleft is an awesome resource, and that there are many debates that have been worth putting up with some issues, I just think that with regards to certain 'self evident' topics we forget that there are fence sitters and rational unconvinced that will not respond well to venom.
SCM you raise some good points but I don't think politics is really the right forum for this. The reason being that I think "politics" should strive to go beyond the politics of revleft. I've therefore moved this thread to nonpolitical, hopefully it will be a bit more accessible there than the CU where it probably really belongs.
百花齐放
-----------------------------
la luz
de un Rojo Amanecer
anuncia ya
la vida que vendrá.
-Quilapayun
It depends a lot on location and specific situation (was trying not to use the word 'conjuncture') but in places where the Left is very weak, most people we should be trying to work with are going to be some sort of 'liberals'.
Years ago I was having a heated argument on the Popular Front vs the United Front at a CP campground I used to go to. A very smart, wiser and older leftist, who knew the debate inside and out, simply said, "It's a tactical decision."
I think you raise very good points. I myself didn't mean to imply that they are "good" people either, although I'm less of an amoralist than most leftists. In a way that's what seems ironic to me - it is the leftists who are the most committed to critiquing morality who are most likely to utilize moral language.
In a way though it's more counterproductive to see someone as "fundamentally bad" than "fundamentally good" because you are less likely to be able to actually connect with them or genuinely convince them of your POV. See any of the ideological shouting matches on this forum for evidence of this fact.
I agree with this analysis for the most part. To me it seems like we must respectfully disagree with people to help convince them that we are right. We can acknowledge our views then try to understand (without caricaturing them) why they believe what they do. As you say, trying to minimize our emotional response is critical in that kind of situation.
In response to both of you, yeah this is fair, but it's something we all go through. I think people can end up in a vicious circle, as we are disgusted by their politics, and they in response are less able to see our point of view and become disgusted by us. It feeds into the caricatures people have of Leftists, without giving us the opportunity to counteract them. It also causes Leftists to caricature their ideological opponents, misunderstanding why they believe what they do.
I think I would agree with that old, wise leftist on that one. For instance, to protect the right to chose in America, one needs to work with a lot of liberal bourgeois feminists. To work with them effectively, one must acknowledge the very real ideological differences without attaching strong moral blame.
OK good point, although this isn't only a phenomenon on revleft - my RL leftwing friends critiqued the zimmerman trial outcome for reasons I agreed with, but tended to attach moral values to their analysis.
I agree with you here. If someone expresses an idea I disagree with I try to give them logical and rational reasons why I disagree with them and why I have the views I have. I don't think getting in someone's face about how abhorrent their views are is massively constructive.
"Her development, her freedom, her independence must come from and through herself. First, by asserting herself as a personality, and not as a sex commodity. Second, by refusing the right to anyone over her body; by refusing to bear children unless she wants them; by refusing to become a servant to God, the State, society, the husband, the family, etc. ... by freeing herself from the fear of public opinion and public condemnation. Only that, and not the ballot, will set woman free, will make her a force hitherto unknown in the world, a force for real love, for peace, for harmony; a force of divine fire, of life-giving; a creator of free men and women."~ Emma Goldman
Support RevLeft!
Because some of us have had liberals stalk us, physically attack us, snitch and set cops on us, defend (as in directly participate in the creation or maintenance of) systems, laws, policies that led to violence against us and our friends and our family. Not just liberals of course. So I find this whole thing from the position of 'what's the big deal this is just a political spectrum debate' to be an inadequate representation of why some of us refuse to talk to liberals or whoever politely because it is more than a book club or philosophical difference.
"whatever they might make would never be the same as that world of dark streets and bright dreams"
http://youtu.be/g-PwIDYbDqI
I understand what you are saying and partially agree with it. I for example think most common liberals are normal people with nothing wrong about them other than the fact that their political views are misguided. HOWEVER...religious fundamentalism, racism, homophobia and similar discriminatory behaviour is an easy way for a person to lose every single bit of respect I have for them. I try to be understanding with people who just didn't have enough education or were raised by right-wingers but there are limits. I also do my best to be civil and reasonable unless I have reason not be.
The historic ascent of humanity, taken as a whole, may be summarized as a succession of victories of consciousness over blind forces — in nature, in society, in man himself.
-
Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full.
Leon Trotsky
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. Workers of the world, unite!
politics is a dirty game. Those who are more involved, often play the dirtiest.
That's why, as mariel says, the sort of liberals who are all capitol hill and signed up to the democrat party will be the sort who rat out revolutionaries, whilst there are also people who espouse left-liberal political beliefs who are actually decent people and generally sympathetic to anti-capitalist sentiments.
This is why I really think we should try to de-politicise Socialism as much as possible (by de-politicise I don't mean turn to some economistic thing, I mean take it out the hands of parties and party political actors and careerists.
I totally agree. Most of the people I know hold "lefty" political views in varying shapes and are as unhappy with the state of things as I am. They're decent, compassionate people, and many of them do pretty admirable things. That said, they still swallow the poison pills of capitalism. I've heard a lot of the things we post in "dumb things liberals say to radicals" in real life, and I doubt there are many among us who haven't. Despite their general opposition to what our rulers would have us think, they mostly buy the crap about communism being a failed experiment hook, line and sinker.
From my viewpoint, we shouldn't view these people as enemies at all. Indeed, I think it's important to win them over rather than snub them. For the most part, they're young, compassionate and educated and dissilusioned with the current system.
Of course our friends aren't our enemies. That sort of viewpoint, espoused by a certain type of leftist 'thinker', often leads to a very dis-passionate ideology, and way of 'doing' politics, and I think it's something we should try and avoid as people.
I also think that we should avoid this whole 'our liberal friends are swallowing the capitalists' propaganda' line - this implies that we are inevitably correct, better thinkers, more advanced in our understanding etc. Of course, we have to believe that we are correct in our analysis of capitalism, but shouldn't take it as some sort of religious given. We should be able to entertain the thought that maybe some of our liberal friends want to reform capitalism rather than abolish it, because for some workers, in some parts of the developed world, capitalism still provides a certain standard of living that is more or less acceptable for them, or would be acceptable within the realms of 'reform'.
ah, I meant in terms of how a lot of people see communism these days and the tendency to write it all of as "a nice idea but it won't work" kind of thing. I get that even from very independent-minded folks, at a guess I'd say because it's something that's been consistently demonised/misrepresented for well over a century. Add to that the numbers who associate socialism with the nationalisation and welfare programmes following WWII and it often becomes hard to change peoples' minds about things. Often I wonder if the level of confusion over what communism is and isn't - even among left-leaning folk - is to some extent intentional on behalf of the press and so on.
I suppose I could have been a bit more tactful in my original post though, I guess I was being a bit dramatic
