Should people be liberated from error?
Some leftists argue this in A Critique of Pure Tolerance. Premise one is that the revolutionary minority is right (about something). Premise two is that holding tolerance as a virtue is a trick performed by evil doers to cause the Righteous to become lax and cynical.
Therefore, the revolutionary minority should have no tolerance for diverse views and should take it upon themselves to force changes, thereby liberating the masses from their stupidity.
I find this notion mingling with Chomsky's fundamental outlook: that knowledge of the way we should live is innate. This is a rejection of relativism. It follows from this that politics in general is just folly. What the world needs is more people who have authoritarian personalities.
What is an authoritarian personality? This is where I actually started. In an article in the Atlantic, a dude psychoanalyzed Donald Trump and identified him as having an authoritarian personality. Supposedly what we can expect from such is a person for whom purity and cleanliness (of one kind or another) is important. If this kind of person feels threatened (by vermin... who may be human), he'll tend to react aggressively, expecting to be protected by an authority (so it's not necessarily a person who wants to be a dictator... it could just be a person who easily accepts dictatorship.)
The further down the rabbit hole this argument goes, the more it seems to make sense. I start to forget that I'm opposed to it with every fiber of my being. Apparently some fibers weren't accounted for.
Anyway.. the prediction based on the analysis was that Trump would be expected to behave boldly... in other words, contrary to what may appear to be, as a president, he wouldn't be all talk.
Therefore, the revolutionary minority should have no tolerance for diverse views and should take it upon themselves to force changes, thereby liberating the masses from their stupidity.
I find this notion mingling with Chomsky's fundamental outlook: that knowledge of the way we should live is innate. This is a rejection of relativism. It follows from this that politics in general is just folly. What the world needs is more people who have authoritarian personalities.
What is an authoritarian personality? This is where I actually started. In an article in the Atlantic, a dude psychoanalyzed Donald Trump and identified him as having an authoritarian personality. Supposedly what we can expect from such is a person for whom purity and cleanliness (of one kind or another) is important. If this kind of person feels threatened (by vermin... who may be human), he'll tend to react aggressively, expecting to be protected by an authority (so it's not necessarily a person who wants to be a dictator... it could just be a person who easily accepts dictatorship.)
The further down the rabbit hole this argument goes, the more it seems to make sense. I start to forget that I'm opposed to it with every fiber of my being. Apparently some fibers weren't accounted for.
Anyway.. the prediction based on the analysis was that Trump would be expected to behave boldly... in other words, contrary to what may appear to be, as a president, he wouldn't be all talk.
Comments (44)
But that was a funny analysis of Trump - particularly in highlighting his disgust of womanly secretions. There has to be something deeply wrong about a guy so intolerant of the unruly that he has to glue down his hair.
Did the article say Trump would be bold or simply rash and petulant? In truth, the summary I thought was that Trump is an empty narcissistic shell of a person constructed on the competitive notion of "the deal".
So he has internalised the idea that negotiations in life are about putting up a tough front. But then you need experts to help you out because you don't actually know much, and you might need to compromise once around the table, so every principle becomes flexible.
So the overall impression is that he would be a president whose prime goal was always to come out of every situation looking good - the winner in the deal - whatever unprincipled thing it took.
At the very least I would expect gifts for the rich and hard work and frugality for the rest of us.
Trump would be way too "interesting". Presidents should not be carnival side shows. They can be inspiring, but otherwise they should be boring and efficient.
I loathed Nixon; I expect I shall also loathe Trump as president. I hope to god that it won't be necessary.
I can say I agree to these two separately:
1. Tolerance can be wrong -- it is circumstantially good, not universally good.
2. Revolutionary minorities can be right to act.
I don't know the relation between these, though ,or how one follows from the other, or what-not.
Yea, but if you think about it, it doesn't matter. The basic form is:I'm right and therefore I should liberate you from your error.
It's not that I want to be a dictator, it's that I have an obligation to humanity to take over the world and ram my opinion down its throat. It's not leftist or rightist. It's not minority or majority.
Do you agree? If so, I think I understand why you think that way. If you disagree, what's your reasoning?
Actually, I think it would be pretty funny to have Trump as president. I don't think he's going to win, though.
OK.
It doesn't follow at all. Being authoritarian does not entail being right. Every politico from left to right thinks they are right, and they can't all be.
I will agree with Chomsky that we all know what it takes to live together - taking care of those in need, justice, tolerance, and so on. But this being the case, it should be possible to persuade people to agree to take the right decisions to the extent that they are not governed by fear, rigid tradition, propaganda etc, which divide the individual against themselves. And these are the tools of the authoritarian par excellence.
So politics is folly to just that extent that it allows, nay demands, authoritarianism. The notion of serving in government is due for revival as more than a rhetorical fiction; as an antidote to just that righteous certainty that justifies the commander in being a bully.
Yes, most of us know those things, at least deep down, but there are differences of opinion in terms of degree and selectiveness, e.g. taking care of those [i]most[/I] in need (while others deemed less deserving can fend for themselves), tolerant of some but not others, as well as starkly contrasting notions of things such as justice.
I don't think that blame can be placed solely on the influences of external factors such as propaganda. Some people are just more self-interested, more judgemental, and so on, than others.
On one hand I have thoughts about authoritarianism, which I tend to think of as the negative of libertarianism -- not in the sense of the American libertarian party, but in the historical view where the term originated within anarchist circles (who, to put that into perspective, are explicitly anti-capitalist).
Then there's the notion of tolerance, which doesn't necessarily go along with libertarianism even if we take it to be the only value that matters (who are intolerant when the values of libertarianism are violeted). But that might just be because I think of Authoritarianism along a spectrum and as the opposite of libertarianism.
Even so -- it seems to me that there's a difference between authoritarianism and conviction, which I would say is the counter to tolerance. We should be tolerant of any form of art, even if it seems "obscene", but we should not be tolerant of white supremacy -- we should have a conviction that white supremacy is wrong, and to oppose it is right, even if we happen to be in the minority, just as we should have a conviction that art should be open to all kinds of expression.
So I would say that, rather than praising authoritarianism because this is what people who know what is right do, that there's a negotiation which takes place between competing values, but in having conviction we can't abandon either one. We have to negotiate within particular circumstances.If we were to act out of tolerance when we're talking about some core values of our political outlook then, yes, that would be a political failing. It may be easier to say that this or that value takes precedence now, but it wouldn't be a conviction in that case.
Also, to talk about revolutionary minorities -- is it authoritarian to be in the minority? If so then every political persuasion, including libertarian, is authoritarian, because whether you be revolutionary or middle-of-the-road, the number of active people in a political group is always vastly smaller than the number of people within a country. We can talk about the situation of a small group of people, but revolutionaries-- like any political group -- don't have a lever to pull. They have to be appealing to people in some measure whatever methods they might use to overturn who is in power. Democratic forces like popular appeal are a factor even in formally non-democratic countries. So I suppose I'd just question both 1. how a minority is figured, and 2. the scenario of a vanguard forcing their way of life on everyone through an army. Not that it couldn't happen, mind, but I'm wondering how much of the scenario is just built out of self-doubt when, if we were actually building a revolution, we'd have to consider much more about how the people around us feel and believe than the scenario seems to indicate.
Also, lastly -- I don't know if I'd agree that knowledge of how we should live is innate. I don't know that I'd call this relativism, either. But it seems a different topic than either the topic of authoritarianism-libertarianism, or the revolutionary minority.
Both Marcuse and Hitler agree with this except the sort of persuasion they favor is annihilation of the opposing view. Voila. No more fear, rigid tradition, or propaganda. Error has been "corrected" as described by Mr. Grady in The Shining.
Your approach would appear to require some faith in humanity. MLK came by his faith in a Christian church. Where'd you get yours?
I think the opposite of libertarianism is acceptance of human government as either a necessary evil or as a vehicle for the expression of our potential. Authoritarian-leaning people are just conservative when all is well. If you're old enough to remember 911 (and you're American), then you saw how latent authoritarianism responds to stress. All of the sudden the population of the US was unified. It actually shocked me and frightened many people. Apparently, the US is always just one catastrophe away from ditching democracy and becoming a dictatorship.
.. more later, gotta go. :)
My faith is not of the dogmatic kind, but more of a decision. To believe in justice is not to fondly imagine it prevails already, but to commit oneself to making it somewhat more prevalent. My faith in humanity is of this order.
You could contribute to Doctors Without Borders and make justice somewhat more prevalent. That doesn't take faith in humanity.
You would need faith in humanity if you believe that accepting diverse viewpoints with the aim of convincing people to see what you see is superior to actively removing injustice from the world.
So you aren't tolerant of white supremacy? Exactly what are you doing about it?
The example is meant to elucidate what I mean by conviction, not to go into the ins-and-outs of white supremacy -- conviction as the opposite of tolerance, rather than authoritarianism as the opposite of tolerance. Namely, there are some beliefs, when we have conviction, that rules out tolerance.
Are there beliefs you do not tolerate? Or do you tolerate everything?
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/60spubs/1965MarcuseRepressiveToleranceEng1969edOcr.pdf
Tolerance has a specific meaning that one could gather by reading the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution (which, along with the rest of the Constitution specifically documents that which is supposed to have been subverted.)
Is there an argument that authoritarian rule is necessarily bad. Is it innately bad and if so how is that possible, unless it somehow represent the evil in us all. Is Democracy good? or just maybe the best so far.
Have you ever read the Derbyshire Case. It involved a father's frank conversation with his Eurasian son about why he should fear Blacks. He got fired from the National Review...too hot for them. Somewhat similar to the talk the Eric Holder, prior US Attorney General, said his father had with him about how he should act when confronted by the police. Holder also said when he was a Federal Prosecutor he was stopped a couple of times by the police for no other discernible reason except that he is Black. The realities of life don't always fit well with theory.
From Martin Luther King's I have a Dream speech:
"I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.
I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
He goes on to state, it is a hundred years latter and the heat of oppression still goes on, and now about 60 years latter we are still deep into it...Black Lives Matter.
Interesting to note that the Conservative Party has tried to co-opt King's Creed, since it matches up well with many of our founding father's thoughts. They also like the fact that he preached non-violence and they have sought to make it part of their Creed, but I think King's Creed is beyond their range of thought.
Thanks for noticing.
Like most of the slurs cast against Homosexuals, yours is 100% true. The agenda continues, of course. I'm not involved in this particular area of destroying Western Civilization, but whenever I check in on fashion reports in the NYT, it is encouraging to see such good work being done. Women (and some men as well) are even more unattractively dressed, ridiculous, and unappealing this year than they were during the Nixon Administration.
I'm retired now, but I served in the program to saturate public parks with obscene sex acts so that nuclear families venturing into them would be totally scandalized and would experience nervous collapse. Children living in the vicinity were, of course, at total risk of being exposed to alternate sexual lifestyles. What questions they must have asked of their mortified parents!
I pioneered the effort to scatter bits of obscene literature masquerading as AIDS education material all over the city streets. Children would pick it up and bring it home, handing it to enraged mothers, who would call City offices to complain about the filth. They taught their children to fear bits of paper on the street. They were harangued to stay away from city centers where the most vital culture is. In this way, the culture of respectable Americans was further impoverished.
Since our campaign in the 1960s - 1980s, families now restrict themselves to their fenced in back yards. Even the Internet is a risk for them, because of our Total Degradation web sites which are awaiting the clicks of their innocent (but ever so curious) babes.
And how does Donald Trump fit into all this you, you ask? Heh, heh, heh...
"NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco.
Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.
NIXON: Jesus Christ."
I didn't make t up. From his recordings.
Of course you didn't make it up. At least back then they weren't messing around with all this inclusive, opinion-neutral inclusive language bullshit. People's feelings were upfront and openly expressed, which made for faster more accurate communication. "Faggy" -- hey, I know instantly and exactly what he means, where I stand, and whether I should just leave or not. Identifying faggy fags clarified all sorts of things. For one thing, he was keeping track of where all the faggy fags were. I very much wanted to know where faggy fags were in 1968, and just couldn't find them. I should have just called up Dick and said, "Hey, Dick -- where is the best place to find a bunch of fags?" It would have saved me a lot of time.
EDIT: Not that that is a bad thing. It just would've been nice to know that ahead of time. I'm reading it now. Will post more later.
I'm still inclined to say what I said before. I don't think the essay is promoting authoritarianism -- and I think there are other ways of pursuing political aims than by authoritarian means. That's why I was introducing the term "conviction"; so I could agree with you that tolerance is not a panacea of political goodness, but I could differentiate this from proposing that we should have more authoritarian personalities in the world.
I don't think that authoritarian personalities help. And I don't think that liberation requires authoritarianism. Even by militant means. I wouldn't endorse fighting for a clean society, or for protection from the undesirable. I'd say it's very much the opposite -- that authoritarian sentiments are quite prevalent, and it is this prevalence which inhibits emancipatory politics.
There's a fair amount of liberation that did happen as a result of military action (or so it would seem), for instance the American Civil War. Are you arguing that military action is never required?
I think today's liberalism is tomorrow's conservatism. Here's an answer to MLK's dream speech: "It's time to stop singing and start swinging."
The U.S. military, for example, is not built out of conscription but is voluntary. Like, it's as close to a voluntary social contract that you get in the U.S. -- signing your agreement in pentuplets. I wouldn't say that this is the only way to have a voluntary force I'm just using the example to demonstrate the principle.
Or the Black Panther's use of armed self-defense -- clearly a use of militant force, but not an authoritarian one but the opposite.
This isn't to say that you won't find authoritarian streaks in various real-life scenarios, even in these particular examples I'm giving. These were huge movements and organizations involving lots of people across large time spans, and there is no doubt in my mind that people have authoritarian attitudes. But we need not endorse these attitudes or ask for more of them -- and even in acting in a militant organization you can work against authoritarian attitudes. (In fact ever since William Caley, in the U.S. Army, each soldier is held accountable for their individual actions -- it is your duty to disobey an illegal order)
Other than that... I'm willing to concede that militant action is varied and complex. Really, the core of the question that prompted the OP is: isn't it true that there comes a time when action is necessary and any further attempts to talk things through is merely covertly accepting the status quo?
What do you make of the Spanish revolution, then?
Quoting Mongrel
OK. Yeah. I have no problem agreeing with that.
Though it's worth noting that "action" can cover a lot. Like, a lot. It's hard to over-emphasize this, IMO. There's a handy book called From Dictatorships to Democracy which I don't mean to endorse, but if you flip to pdf-page 87 there's a nice list of actions people can take just to begin stimulating the imagination on what "action" can entail.
Also, I think Arendt is pertinent here. Marcuse was a believer in deliberation, so I've been lead to believe by my betters. And so his emphasis on the difference between speech and action in that essay makes sense because he wanted an eternal discussion (at least, if I understand my betters with respect to Marcuse). But Arendt (who I am more familiar with) includes speech as action. And the debate over what action is, followed by what good action is, is a worthwhile, intricate, and interesting topic in its own right (another reason I was sort of mentally bogged down in the complexities).
Failed because they couldn't defend themselves. How do you assess it?
Quoting Moliere
This is probably where we diverge. Sometimes speeches and other forms of communication are potent. The opposite can also be true. Talk is cheap. :)
I see it more as a proof of concept, and something to learn from.
Quoting Mongrel
Well, it's important to imbed her notion of action in the wider philosophy as well. Speech as action only happens with others in the public. A military conflict she explicitly designates as work as opposed to action because of the thing-character which the enemy takes on (thereby eliminating the public world between people).
I'd note that I think that it's fair to say many (though I could not say with what relative frequency, only that it's many) political expressions within the framework of representationalism take a similar role.
Talk can be cheap. But it's also fair to say that the denigration of talk can destroy what is worth pursuing. Malcolm X, above, for instance -- that is a wonderful speech happening with people.
Nobody's advocating silence. Malcolm X's point was that those who imagine that the democratic government of the US, with its ample talk, would ever solve the problems of the black community were chumps. He advised black nationalism.
Compare how things would be now if people had followed Malcolm X's lead in this to how things are now. What do you think?
My kinship tends to be more towards the BPP, but they were socialists so that's only natural. Also, Black nationalism -- from my perspective, again, and more talking locally now too -- seems to have morphed into a mixture between black representation and the ownership of black businesses. Maybe it'll work, I'm uncertain, but I have my doubts because what I've noticed is that there's the black representatives who are then co-opted by white institutions and capitalism. But you still have all the results of hundreds of years of exploitation affecting black communities, and you still have black workers who don't benefit from these sorts of reforms.
But is that what would have happened if more people followed Malcolm X? I really don't know. I was more just using him as a reference since you posted one of his speeches that I admire to try and demonstrate what "speech" can mean, when it is not empty
This sounds like it should be in a novel, funny. Homosexuality meets Fight Club.
Perhaps, but I think you can only understand that as if 'left' & 'right' express historical moments and not fundamental positions. So yes, the liberal of the 1940's would probably be considered a conservative today. A fundamentalist is always a fundamentalist, Anthony Scalia will always be a conservative.
I am not sure sure where to place Malcolm X, or MLK for that matter. They were certainly radical for their time but were their ideas or goals radical left? The goal of the radical left, as I understand it, is the destruction of class in society. History thus far has shown this goal is much worse than that of classes in society. Think of Hitler's attempt at a classless society, or Stalin's attempt, in each they trying annihilate those who they felt stood in the way of their goal. Today the left has moved right, towards socialism, it's only possible path.
X and King both wanted to improve the conditions of the people they identified with, Blacks in America. People who at that time, were treated differently from the rest of the population. It was and still is systemic in society, the major difference is that most understand that it was and still is an unacceptable bias in a free society. Then society as a whole was not trying to come to grips with it as an issue because they did not see it as a major issue prior to men/women like X & King.
Malcolm X wanted people to stand up for themselves, to protect themselves, to free themselves by whatever means necessary. Blacks and Whites could understand where Malcolm X was coming from. King had the same goal but refused to consider violence as necessary or moral nor as an effective means to reach their goal of freedom. He believed that there is great strength in weakness, non-violence because he believed in the ultimate humanity of man. For him non-violence was not passive, it is active, and a powerful force. Perhaps why the FBI considered him the most dangerous man in America at that time.
I'd classify MLK as a civil rights activist. That puts his views in line with those of a 19th Century Liberal. So it makes sense that his point was that the US needed to live up to its own creed (which is basically an expression of some of the more lofty aspects of 19th Century Liberalism.... bla bla bla.)
I think Malcolm X would be offended at attempts to classify him by categories created in Europe. I read Black Nationalism as a call for black people to rise up and take ownership of their circumstances. Malcolm X doesn't so much attempt to achieve his goal by creating guilt in white people (he says that they're right to look out for themselves) His view was that black people needed to shake off the "Uncle Tom" persona and learn to defend themselves, their families, and their communities (which implies separation.)
I think they did have different attitudes about violence, but I don't think they had the same end goal. MLK saw black people as inheritors of the vision of the free society which was present at the founding of the USA. Malcolm X actually sounds a lot like Ronald Reagan talking about the USSR: he said that people who embrace detente are leading us into slavery. IOW, MLK's dream is a lie.
I've thought that the difference between Left and Right is that leftists promote the health of society over the health of the individual. Rightists do the opposite. 19th Century liberals were rightist, btw. 19th Century conservatives condoned aristocracy and noblesse oblige (so in some ways, they were kin to leftists.)
One interesting difference between Malcolm X and MLK were how they lived their religions. MLK preached, and he utilized biblical foundations in his political rhetoric and as an intergral part of his life. Malcolm was a Muslim, but unlike MLK, he clearly severed religion from politics.
Where MLK envisioned an ideal, a utopia (hey didn't you do a thread about Utopia's) An ideal must be a fiction or a lie or it becomes real, and eo ipso no longer ideal.
Malcolm wanted a community of blacks who would work together, share the same culture, economy and life. He talked about sitting at the same table with a white man, both as free independent men.
I wonder about the 'left'/'right' political directions. There appears to be many varying types of Populism in our current world politics. I am in agreement with a populism that pits the population regardless of its political leanings against an establishment that rules by virtue of its plutarchy. Italy's M5S is a good example of a populist movement that incorporates left and right into its program. They have a decent shot of taking over Italy's political structure in the next round of elections, which is amazing given their short record.
Brexit was an immense sign that left/right is leaving something very big out of the picture. Look at results of the primaries in America. We end up with two candidates that nobody can stand. 9% of the population (% of those who can vote) made the initial choice for the balance of the voters (around 100 million in toto so 9 million).
It's late.
The world's never going to be perfect. I learn that every now and then. Then I forget it again.
I think every time leftism has had a chance to demonstrate itself, it failed. It's lame without some rightism. I think the opposite is also true.