Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Anti-Capitalist Ecology versus ''Neo-Primitivist'' BULL
An Anti-capitalist/ Eco-Socialist reply to Ted Kassinsky and the religion of ''neo-primitivism''.
ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM
6. ‘’Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. ‘’
It would be an over-generalization to place “all” leftists or ecology activists in a singular category. There exists idelogical diversity within the different sections of the global left and ecology movements. Assuming that activists in the left and ecology movements could be monolithically classified as a ‘’psychological type’’ - the nature of ‘’leftist psychology’’ (whatever that means) would vary from context to context , because the psychological state of a person (politics aside) is always going to be influenced to an extent by external socio-cultural factors. That one honestly (meaning without exhibiting an a-priori hostility against activists in the socialist or ecology movements) adquires the impression that there exist particular ideosincracies and particular dispositions among certain sectors of the United States / Noth American left DOES NOT EQUAL that the political disposition and possible ideosincracies of different sections of the the global left and ecology movements will necessarily be correspondent…the world of the left is bigger than the United States. Perhaps unfairly, but to most Leftists outside the United States the “American” left is actually conservative and capitulationist. It has yet to transition from left Jacobinism to Social –Democracy. The ‘’American Left’’ is the worlds least advanced , despite the fact that it has provent to be one of the most innovative and creative sections of the global movement for social and ecological solutions.
7. ‘’But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.) ‘’
The idea that ‘’leftism’’ can be classified as a ‘’psychological type’’ is highly controversial. There is no ‘’leftism’’ – but there is a Left. It would be inappropriate to say that The Left amounts to just socialism. There exist also non-socialist anti-capitalists. In reality; The Left is a global network of anti-capitalist , ‘’radical democrat’’, socialist activist projects and initiatives that interact with each other and with allies in the ecology and identity and community based new social movements ; in the process of engaging in active and proactive resistance to the social and ecological degradation that has resulted from the global application of neo-liberal corporate capitalist monetarism. There exists a dynamic theoretical and praxis diversity in context of what could be called The Left.
8. ‘’Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century. ‘’
Perhaps it would also be useful to add a cultural dimension to the problem , since the ideosincracies and political disposition of ‘’leftists’’ ( assuming this is a valid category) would vary in relation to cultural, political and geographic context . I dispute the premise that there is such a thing as ‘’leftist psychological tendencies’’ . Before any analysis can be done on this premise; it would have to be corraborated with data from results of impartial scientific studies directly related to the question.
9. ‘’The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.’’
By this highly subjective standard; it could also be said that there are some positive ‘’psychological tendencies’’ have to exist in the minds of people that risk social and economic exclusion and face political backlash as a result of acting to denounce and organize against an economic, political and cultural situation that justifies and perpetuates social injustice, social degradation, racism , homophobia, sexism, global poverty and ecological degradation.
ON FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. ‘’By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.’’
It is true that many people on the left feel depressed and demoralised as a result of the neoliberal globalisation process that has been artificially imposed in the world since 1989 and at the resulting cultural hegemony of monetarist rationality – feelings of anger at the negative and degrading impact of these phenomena on society and ecology cannot be confused with feelings of inferiority – it is perfectly right to feel angry about it. If anything, the recent anti-capitalist movilisations in Seattle, Prague, Quebec City , Genoa , Buenos Aires , etc…in the 1999-2001 period give lie to the idea that ‘’leftists’’ (whatever that means) as a whole ‘’suffer’’ from ‘’feelings of powerlessness’’. If anything the global Left is more dynamic and active than ever.
11. ‘’When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours.We merely point out the hypersensitivity of left anthropologists.)’’
To say that an “Indian” is actually a Native American or that a “Black” person is actually an African-American is not “politically correct” – it is simply correct. These assertions have absolutely nothing to do with psychology – it is a matter of counciouly attempting to eliminate from the cultural discourse the racist, sexist and homophobic biases that are entrenched in the “American” psyche and that are replicated in the language and whose purpose is to stigmatize people. The problem with “political correctness” is not that it exists (ed ? ) as a tendency, but that it was made the primary focus of leftist activism in the United States in the Clinton period – at the expense of more crucial economic and political issues. Furthermore – ‘’political correctness’’ tendencies ( negative - from the perspective of The Left) are also found on the right ; specially the Christian fundamentalist wing of the Republican party. The original advocates of anti-bias terminology where members of historically marginalised and excluded groups who ( in context of academic environments ) became rightly tired of the structural stigmatization implied in the use of incorrect , insensitive and implicitly offensive terminology in the process of identifying aspects of their cultural identities.
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
The original advocates of anti-bias terminology where Feminist and Afro-Centric academics who where implicit members of the traditionally marginalised groups in question. These individuals sought to utilise their positions of influence in academic circles to promote cultural sensitivity, diversity and combat implicit biases in the cultural discourse. Their purpose WAS to influence the culture as a whole – including people of European descent in the middle classes.
13. “Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).”
Intense identification is the essence Solidarity. It is entirely appropriate for Leftists to identify with the stuggle of Womyn, Ethnic Minorities and Gays’ given that these groups have historically suffered systematic exclusion in the culture. Intense identification with their struggle is what leads activists to demand affirmative efforts toward their political and economic enfranchisement and empowerment.
14. ‘’Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. ‘’
Strength and ability have nothing to do with gender. The factors that underlie empowerment and the ability to act have more to do with the person and the circumstances that condition her interactions with the economic-cultural aggregate. Objectively speaking, a womyn is as capable as any male and certainly some womyn surpass many males in strenght – physical, emotional and intellectual. Leftists refuse to deny and obscure the historically and statistically verifiable FACT of womyns exclusion and disempowerment in context of patriarchal capitalism .
15. ‘’Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful’’
The West is “strong” today as a result of centuries of plunder and exploitation of colored people worldwide – from the crusades, to the slave trade, to the era of imperialism, to the neoliberal globalisation of today.From the day of its “successful” founding as a glorified tax evasion scheme; the mercantile and slave owning aristocracies who founded the USA proceeded to build ‘’The Land of The Free’’ (sic.) on the backs of black slaves, South/East European immigrant laborers, Chinese “coolie” labor and over he dead bodies of Native American people.These are historically verifiable FACTS. The Left is correct in expressing revulsion at this history and at attempts to bury it. No one in the Left (except perhaps for its Stalinist and Maoist distortion), denies that there where serious structural flaws with and mistakes made in the “Communist” bloc – there have been extensive critiques of the Eastern Bloc made by Left Communists, Feminists, Democratic Socialists, Anarchists, Ecologists and Trotskyists at least since the 1921 Krondstandt uprising ! Honest socialists and leftists have assimilated these critiques over the years and have incorporated the issues the critiques raise into their discourse – in general the left today is radical-democratic , pro-ecology and fully councious about issues of identity.
16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
Words like “self confidence” , “self reliance” , “optimism”and “initiative” played a central role in the Jubilee 2000 anti-debt campaign and the massive anti-capitalist movilisations that occurred worldwide in the 1999 to 2001 period. It is true that the term “enterprise” is not a part of the vocabulary of the left - that particular idiom belongs in the vocabulary of the monetarist apologist for capitalism. It is meant to romanticize the institutions of organised capitalism and as such it should be appropriately deried by the left. The left appropriately is oppossed to individualism because the mythology of the “self reliant”, “rugged” individual - a parochial fetish of “Americanism” – exists to justify systematic attacks on social infrastructures and the public interest. The fundamental premise of individualism is freedom of the capitalist from social “interference” – this “freedom” is what entitles him to trample on people and planet in the process of capital accumulation. The left is social but not collectivist – it generally recognises the distinction between individuality and individualism. We opposse privatisation because it is implicitly anti-social and anti-democratic. Based on the understanding that wealth is a aggregate social creation and on the demand for the extension of democracy to the economic and cultural sphere; the left agrees that short of guaranteeing employment at living wages or the right to a living income indexed to inflation the State should then establish and maintain a comprehensive social wage system that materially guarantees social and economic human rights to housing, healthcare , education and access to cultural/recreation. Individual entitlement to social and economic human rights guarantees are codified under international law in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights of 1948. Moves by neo-liberal regimes to dismantle social wage systems are in essence in violation of internationally agreed human rights standards. The left is generally oppossed to competition because it promotes social conflict, divides people and nations against one another and implies waste of time, and resources. The fetish that competition leads to innovation and quality is a myth. In any case, “competition” becomes moot in the age of the transnational olygopoly , microsoft, the massed media and monopolised banking. As an alternative to competition the left stands for cooperation , social solidarity and mutual aid.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
There is no way the contention that ‘’Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair’’ could be materially verified. Material verification of the validity of this claim would require some sort of impartially gathered statistical information. Further, I would be inclined to question the validity of claims that what one or a few particular persons (leftist or not) might be or claim to be inclined towards in terms of tastes for particular art forms bears any relevance to the economic, political and social-cultural discourse articulated by them.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly. ''
Modern Leftist Intelligentsia seek to employ reason , science and materialist analysis as a means to the end of arriving to as clear a determination as possible of what constitutes the ‘’objective reality’’ of everyday life (specially of marginalized social and economic groups) and the ecological, social-cultural, economic and political conditions and context of existence (personal and collective) under corporate capitalism. They do this in order to arrive to a clear a picture as possible of reality that would allow activists to focus organizing efforts and target campaigns. It is precisely because ‘’one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined’’ that Leftist Intelligentsia insist that interpretations of reality are relative to perspective. There is no ‘’objective analysis’’ possible from Humans because all analysis that comes from Humans will be tainted by cultural (and political) bias. All Humans (including Ted Kassinsky ) are intrinsically emotional and will always therefore be to one extent or the other ‘’emotionally involved’’ (negatively or positively) in everything they do – that includes articulation of anti-establishment discourses. It is entirely appropriate for people to feel angry about social injustice and environmental degradation. The Left seeks to canalize that very healthy anger into efforts that could result in the transformation of society in a direction of economic democracy and ecological sustainability. There will never be absolute knowledge of ‘’truth’’. There can only be approximations to the ‘’truth’’, theories of what might be ‘’truth’’. All of these theories of ‘’truth’’ remain valid only for so long before other (newer) theories come along to supercede them. This process happens constantly in Science, Arts and The Humanities as new discoveries are made, technology improves, or new information is gathered that forces alteration in existing theories of what might be ‘’truth’’. The Left is not hostile to research in Genetics per se. What the Left is rightfully hostile to is the attempt by corporate capitalist entities to hijack genetics research to manufacture products that would make society dependent on them – a perfect example are genetically modified seeds. The Left does not say that ‘’ the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it’’ is the fault of society. What the Left is saying is that the economic and social-cultural system of corporate capitalism and the political structures designed to manage its cohesion act to prevent, deform and arrest the ability of persons (specially women, ethnic minorities and the poor) to pursue their own initiatives for self-actualization on an autonomous basis.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
The left is social but not ‘’collectivist’’ – it fully recognizes the distinction between individuality and individualism. The Left stands for mutualism and cooperation. This is because the left stands by the principle that humans are social and cooperative beings and NOT egoist and competitive. It is a credit to Leftists that they in general are not prone to imitating persons who might be perceived as ‘’braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor’’. That kind of person is probably a tool and apologist of the corporate capitalist system that creates global poverty and ecological degradation. Choosing not to follow this archetype as a model for interaction in the social-cultural and political landscape DOES NOT equal having ‘’feelings of inferiority’’. It equals having managed to retain their Human dignity in context of a social-cultural reality that works to degrade Human dignity.
20. ‘’Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. ‘’
Demonstrating against neoliberal globalisation, war and racism in a culture permeated by ideologies that justify these evils is not ‘’masochistic’’ – rather it is courageous. Persons who exercise their alleged rights to free speech and assembly in order to demonstrate opposition to the global capitalist system cannot be blamed for attacks , assaults and abuse perpetrated upon them by the police and racists. The simple act of demonstrating against capitalism or racism does not equal ‘’intentional provocation’’ . It is false to assert that the Left prefers ‘’masochistic tactics’’ because demonstrating is not a masochistic act – it is an act of political defiance. The act is political – not personal. To assert the gross generalisation that ‘’self hatred is a leftist trait’’ would require some sort of empirical evidence.
21.’’ Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.’’
Once more assertions relative to the alleged psychological disposition of ‘’leftists’’ are made without offering a shred of empirical evidence. The activities of most left oriented organisations are directed towards empowering and informing marginalised people about the potential they have to collectively counter the institutionalised modes of exclusion that exist to keep them in their state. It is not socialists or the left who first asserted that affirmative action would be ‘’good for blacks’’. The demand for affirmative action came from African American people themselves in the course of fighting for Civil Rights and against segregation. African Americans should not be expected to be less dogmatic than white supremacists or racists (and their representatives in government) who are never willing to compromise of to offer any consessions. You are correctthat the goal of socialists and the left is not to ‘’help blacks’’. The role of socialists and the left is to support African Americans as they themselves decide what course of action to take in order to counter endemic racism. Hostility among most decent thinking people (of any ethnic background) towards the prejudices of white supremacists in the European-American community is only natural given the history. It generalised hostility towards white supremacy makes the white supremacists angry then so be it.
22. ‘’If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.’’
But your society DOES have plenty of problems. That is the point. The United States is not the ‘’democratic utopia’’ it claims to be. Even if we chose to ignore the overgeneralisations contained in the statement; at present there is no empirical way of knowing how an undefined group of ‘’leftists’’would react towards a society that had ‘’no social problems’’ ; furthermore; a concrete definition of what ‘’social problems’’ constitute would have to be provided. The above point is non-sensical.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism. ''
This statement is contadictory and irrational. On the one hand you admit that your statements ‘’do not pretend to be accurate’’ – yet you assert them to be ‘’indications of a general tendency of leftism’’ - without a shred of evidence.
So which way is it Ted ?.
***
Semper Indomitus !
Anticapitalist blog >>>
http://www.redsquare2.blogspot.com/
6. ‘’Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general. ‘’
It would be an over-generalization to place “all” leftists or ecology activists in a singular category. There exists idelogical diversity within the different sections of the global left and ecology movements. Assuming that activists in the left and ecology movements could be monolithically classified as a ‘’psychological type’’ - the nature of ‘’leftist psychology’’ (whatever that means) would vary from context to context , because the psychological state of a person (politics aside) is always going to be influenced to an extent by external socio-cultural factors. That one honestly (meaning without exhibiting an a-priori hostility against activists in the socialist or ecology movements) adquires the impression that there exist particular ideosincracies and particular dispositions among certain sectors of the United States / Noth American left DOES NOT EQUAL that the political disposition and possible ideosincracies of different sections of the the global left and ecology movements will necessarily be correspondent…the world of the left is bigger than the United States. Perhaps unfairly, but to most Leftists outside the United States the “American” left is actually conservative and capitulationist. It has yet to transition from left Jacobinism to Social –Democracy. The ‘’American Left’’ is the worlds least advanced , despite the fact that it has provent to be one of the most innovative and creative sections of the global movement for social and ecological solutions.
7. ‘’But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.) ‘’
The idea that ‘’leftism’’ can be classified as a ‘’psychological type’’ is highly controversial. There is no ‘’leftism’’ – but there is a Left. It would be inappropriate to say that The Left amounts to just socialism. There exist also non-socialist anti-capitalists. In reality; The Left is a global network of anti-capitalist , ‘’radical democrat’’, socialist activist projects and initiatives that interact with each other and with allies in the ecology and identity and community based new social movements ; in the process of engaging in active and proactive resistance to the social and ecological degradation that has resulted from the global application of neo-liberal corporate capitalist monetarism. There exists a dynamic theoretical and praxis diversity in context of what could be called The Left.
8. ‘’Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century. ‘’
Perhaps it would also be useful to add a cultural dimension to the problem , since the ideosincracies and political disposition of ‘’leftists’’ ( assuming this is a valid category) would vary in relation to cultural, political and geographic context . I dispute the premise that there is such a thing as ‘’leftist psychological tendencies’’ . Before any analysis can be done on this premise; it would have to be corraborated with data from results of impartial scientific studies directly related to the question.
9. ‘’The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.’’
By this highly subjective standard; it could also be said that there are some positive ‘’psychological tendencies’’ have to exist in the minds of people that risk social and economic exclusion and face political backlash as a result of acting to denounce and organize against an economic, political and cultural situation that justifies and perpetuates social injustice, social degradation, racism , homophobia, sexism, global poverty and ecological degradation.
ON FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY
10. ‘’By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.’’
It is true that many people on the left feel depressed and demoralised as a result of the neoliberal globalisation process that has been artificially imposed in the world since 1989 and at the resulting cultural hegemony of monetarist rationality – feelings of anger at the negative and degrading impact of these phenomena on society and ecology cannot be confused with feelings of inferiority – it is perfectly right to feel angry about it. If anything, the recent anti-capitalist movilisations in Seattle, Prague, Quebec City , Genoa , Buenos Aires , etc…in the 1999-2001 period give lie to the idea that ‘’leftists’’ (whatever that means) as a whole ‘’suffer’’ from ‘’feelings of powerlessness’’. If anything the global Left is more dynamic and active than ever.
11. ‘’When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours.We merely point out the hypersensitivity of left anthropologists.)’’
To say that an “Indian” is actually a Native American or that a “Black” person is actually an African-American is not “politically correct” – it is simply correct. These assertions have absolutely nothing to do with psychology – it is a matter of counciouly attempting to eliminate from the cultural discourse the racist, sexist and homophobic biases that are entrenched in the “American” psyche and that are replicated in the language and whose purpose is to stigmatize people. The problem with “political correctness” is not that it exists (ed ? ) as a tendency, but that it was made the primary focus of leftist activism in the United States in the Clinton period – at the expense of more crucial economic and political issues. Furthermore – ‘’political correctness’’ tendencies ( negative - from the perspective of The Left) are also found on the right ; specially the Christian fundamentalist wing of the Republican party. The original advocates of anti-bias terminology where members of historically marginalised and excluded groups who ( in context of academic environments ) became rightly tired of the structural stigmatization implied in the use of incorrect , insensitive and implicitly offensive terminology in the process of identifying aspects of their cultural identities.
12. Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males from middle-class families.
The original advocates of anti-bias terminology where Feminist and Afro-Centric academics who where implicit members of the traditionally marginalised groups in question. These individuals sought to utilise their positions of influence in academic circles to promote cultural sensitivity, diversity and combat implicit biases in the cultural discourse. Their purpose WAS to influence the culture as a whole – including people of European descent in the middle classes.
13. “Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).”
Intense identification is the essence Solidarity. It is entirely appropriate for Leftists to identify with the stuggle of Womyn, Ethnic Minorities and Gays’ given that these groups have historically suffered systematic exclusion in the culture. Intense identification with their struggle is what leads activists to demand affirmative efforts toward their political and economic enfranchisement and empowerment.
14. ‘’Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men. ‘’
Strength and ability have nothing to do with gender. The factors that underlie empowerment and the ability to act have more to do with the person and the circumstances that condition her interactions with the economic-cultural aggregate. Objectively speaking, a womyn is as capable as any male and certainly some womyn surpass many males in strenght – physical, emotional and intellectual. Leftists refuse to deny and obscure the historically and statistically verifiable FACT of womyns exclusion and disempowerment in context of patriarchal capitalism .
15. ‘’Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful’’
The West is “strong” today as a result of centuries of plunder and exploitation of colored people worldwide – from the crusades, to the slave trade, to the era of imperialism, to the neoliberal globalisation of today.From the day of its “successful” founding as a glorified tax evasion scheme; the mercantile and slave owning aristocracies who founded the USA proceeded to build ‘’The Land of The Free’’ (sic.) on the backs of black slaves, South/East European immigrant laborers, Chinese “coolie” labor and over he dead bodies of Native American people.These are historically verifiable FACTS. The Left is correct in expressing revulsion at this history and at attempts to bury it. No one in the Left (except perhaps for its Stalinist and Maoist distortion), denies that there where serious structural flaws with and mistakes made in the “Communist” bloc – there have been extensive critiques of the Eastern Bloc made by Left Communists, Feminists, Democratic Socialists, Anarchists, Ecologists and Trotskyists at least since the 1921 Krondstandt uprising ! Honest socialists and leftists have assimilated these critiques over the years and have incorporated the issues the critiques raise into their discourse – in general the left today is radical-democratic , pro-ecology and fully councious about issues of identity.
16. Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative", "enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
Words like “self confidence” , “self reliance” , “optimism”and “initiative” played a central role in the Jubilee 2000 anti-debt campaign and the massive anti-capitalist movilisations that occurred worldwide in the 1999 to 2001 period. It is true that the term “enterprise” is not a part of the vocabulary of the left - that particular idiom belongs in the vocabulary of the monetarist apologist for capitalism. It is meant to romanticize the institutions of organised capitalism and as such it should be appropriately deried by the left. The left appropriately is oppossed to individualism because the mythology of the “self reliant”, “rugged” individual - a parochial fetish of “Americanism” – exists to justify systematic attacks on social infrastructures and the public interest. The fundamental premise of individualism is freedom of the capitalist from social “interference” – this “freedom” is what entitles him to trample on people and planet in the process of capital accumulation. The left is social but not collectivist – it generally recognises the distinction between individuality and individualism. We opposse privatisation because it is implicitly anti-social and anti-democratic. Based on the understanding that wealth is a aggregate social creation and on the demand for the extension of democracy to the economic and cultural sphere; the left agrees that short of guaranteeing employment at living wages or the right to a living income indexed to inflation the State should then establish and maintain a comprehensive social wage system that materially guarantees social and economic human rights to housing, healthcare , education and access to cultural/recreation. Individual entitlement to social and economic human rights guarantees are codified under international law in the United Nations Declaration of Human rights of 1948. Moves by neo-liberal regimes to dismantle social wage systems are in essence in violation of internationally agreed human rights standards. The left is generally oppossed to competition because it promotes social conflict, divides people and nations against one another and implies waste of time, and resources. The fetish that competition leads to innovation and quality is a myth. In any case, “competition” becomes moot in the age of the transnational olygopoly , microsoft, the massed media and monopolised banking. As an alternative to competition the left stands for cooperation , social solidarity and mutual aid.
17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
There is no way the contention that ‘’Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair’’ could be materially verified. Material verification of the validity of this claim would require some sort of impartially gathered statistical information. Further, I would be inclined to question the validity of claims that what one or a few particular persons (leftist or not) might be or claim to be inclined towards in terms of tastes for particular art forms bears any relevance to the economic, political and social-cultural discourse articulated by them.
18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly. ''
Modern Leftist Intelligentsia seek to employ reason , science and materialist analysis as a means to the end of arriving to as clear a determination as possible of what constitutes the ‘’objective reality’’ of everyday life (specially of marginalized social and economic groups) and the ecological, social-cultural, economic and political conditions and context of existence (personal and collective) under corporate capitalism. They do this in order to arrive to a clear a picture as possible of reality that would allow activists to focus organizing efforts and target campaigns. It is precisely because ‘’one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined’’ that Leftist Intelligentsia insist that interpretations of reality are relative to perspective. There is no ‘’objective analysis’’ possible from Humans because all analysis that comes from Humans will be tainted by cultural (and political) bias. All Humans (including Ted Kassinsky ) are intrinsically emotional and will always therefore be to one extent or the other ‘’emotionally involved’’ (negatively or positively) in everything they do – that includes articulation of anti-establishment discourses. It is entirely appropriate for people to feel angry about social injustice and environmental degradation. The Left seeks to canalize that very healthy anger into efforts that could result in the transformation of society in a direction of economic democracy and ecological sustainability. There will never be absolute knowledge of ‘’truth’’. There can only be approximations to the ‘’truth’’, theories of what might be ‘’truth’’. All of these theories of ‘’truth’’ remain valid only for so long before other (newer) theories come along to supercede them. This process happens constantly in Science, Arts and The Humanities as new discoveries are made, technology improves, or new information is gathered that forces alteration in existing theories of what might be ‘’truth’’. The Left is not hostile to research in Genetics per se. What the Left is rightfully hostile to is the attempt by corporate capitalist entities to hijack genetics research to manufacture products that would make society dependent on them – a perfect example are genetically modified seeds. The Left does not say that ‘’ the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it’’ is the fault of society. What the Left is saying is that the economic and social-cultural system of corporate capitalism and the political structures designed to manage its cohesion act to prevent, deform and arrest the ability of persons (specially women, ethnic minorities and the poor) to pursue their own initiatives for self-actualization on an autonomous basis.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
The left is social but not ‘’collectivist’’ – it fully recognizes the distinction between individuality and individualism. The Left stands for mutualism and cooperation. This is because the left stands by the principle that humans are social and cooperative beings and NOT egoist and competitive. It is a credit to Leftists that they in general are not prone to imitating persons who might be perceived as ‘’braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor’’. That kind of person is probably a tool and apologist of the corporate capitalist system that creates global poverty and ecological degradation. Choosing not to follow this archetype as a model for interaction in the social-cultural and political landscape DOES NOT equal having ‘’feelings of inferiority’’. It equals having managed to retain their Human dignity in context of a social-cultural reality that works to degrade Human dignity.
20. ‘’Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait. ‘’
Demonstrating against neoliberal globalisation, war and racism in a culture permeated by ideologies that justify these evils is not ‘’masochistic’’ – rather it is courageous. Persons who exercise their alleged rights to free speech and assembly in order to demonstrate opposition to the global capitalist system cannot be blamed for attacks , assaults and abuse perpetrated upon them by the police and racists. The simple act of demonstrating against capitalism or racism does not equal ‘’intentional provocation’’ . It is false to assert that the Left prefers ‘’masochistic tactics’’ because demonstrating is not a masochistic act – it is an act of political defiance. The act is political – not personal. To assert the gross generalisation that ‘’self hatred is a leftist trait’’ would require some sort of empirical evidence.
21.’’ Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.’’
Once more assertions relative to the alleged psychological disposition of ‘’leftists’’ are made without offering a shred of empirical evidence. The activities of most left oriented organisations are directed towards empowering and informing marginalised people about the potential they have to collectively counter the institutionalised modes of exclusion that exist to keep them in their state. It is not socialists or the left who first asserted that affirmative action would be ‘’good for blacks’’. The demand for affirmative action came from African American people themselves in the course of fighting for Civil Rights and against segregation. African Americans should not be expected to be less dogmatic than white supremacists or racists (and their representatives in government) who are never willing to compromise of to offer any consessions. You are correctthat the goal of socialists and the left is not to ‘’help blacks’’. The role of socialists and the left is to support African Americans as they themselves decide what course of action to take in order to counter endemic racism. Hostility among most decent thinking people (of any ethnic background) towards the prejudices of white supremacists in the European-American community is only natural given the history. It generalised hostility towards white supremacy makes the white supremacists angry then so be it.
22. ‘’If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.’’
But your society DOES have plenty of problems. That is the point. The United States is not the ‘’democratic utopia’’ it claims to be. Even if we chose to ignore the overgeneralisations contained in the statement; at present there is no empirical way of knowing how an undefined group of ‘’leftists’’would react towards a society that had ‘’no social problems’’ ; furthermore; a concrete definition of what ‘’social problems’’ constitute would have to be provided. The above point is non-sensical.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism. ''
This statement is contadictory and irrational. On the one hand you admit that your statements ‘’do not pretend to be accurate’’ – yet you assert them to be ‘’indications of a general tendency of leftism’’ - without a shred of evidence.
So which way is it Ted ?.
***
Semper Indomitus !
Anticapitalist blog >>>
http://www.redsquare2.blogspot.com/
For more information:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/redsquare2/
Add Your Comments
Latest Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Why the post begins on Item #6
Tue, Sep 26, 2006 9:25AM
Replies to Questions
Tue, Sep 26, 2006 9:22AM
Who is Ted Kassinsky?
Tue, Sep 19, 2006 4:20PM
Why does this begin with #6?
Thu, Sep 14, 2006 12:20PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$330.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network