On Leftist Solidarity

Keith Burgess-Jackson (here) has suggested that I talk about leftist solidarity with respect to the slant of this blog. Specifically, aren’t I going against leftist solidarity in criticizing other leftists publicly and thus helping out the enemy, the conservatives?

I could say a lot in response to this. First, when I got my Ph.D., I was a socialist going into academia, which is dominated by liberals and leftists. Nevertheless, I was treated very shabbily. Why treat one of your own so poorly? I just didn’t notice much leftist solidarity in connection with the way I was treated by the other leftists. That inclines me not to pay too much attention to some phantom leftist solidarity.

More generally, I’ve noticed that there isn’t much solidarity among liberal and leftist academics. It’s true that they can often have pleasant conversations because of a shared hatred of Bush, Sarah Palin, and conservatives generally. But beyond that, there can be a lot of anger towards other liberals and leftists. There is one fellow in particular I know who often complains about other academics, and I always know when he’s complaining about another leftist because he doesn’t mention the person’s politics. If it’s a conservative, he’ll mention that right away, but if it’s a leftist, he’ll complain about other things.

I’ve heard stories of feminists screaming at each other, a liberal psychology professor complaining about how the leftists in his department bend the rules to get the people they want hired, squabbles over how harshly to punish plagiarists, and many other such tales. All this is from one small institution, Kenyon College. I’m sure there’s nothing special in this respect about Kenyon and that there are similar tales to be told at other places. So, the solidarity of the left is an illusion.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as a self-critical leftist that is the sort of thinking I’ve left behind. I agree with conservatives on some things and disagree with them on others, and I don't feel a bit inclined to keep quiet about this. Those leftists who are bothered by it haven't yet become self-critical, and when they do, it is likely they won't be bothered by it, either.

Another thing to be said is that by promoting leftist solidarity over leftist self-criticism, the left has made many problems for itself. For example, the left insisted on communism as a solution to the workers’ exploitation under capitalism, but communism turned out to be so brutal that it generated a huge negative reaction, a reaction that didn’t help them at all. In the Sixties, the left moved in a new direction and inadvertently hurt a lot of poor whites in doing so. Those people began voting Republican, which in turn hurt the left. Finally, the left’s failure to deal with the Muslim problem in Europe has led to the election of a number of right-wing politicians, politicians who wouldn’t otherwise have been elected if leftists had just acted sensibly.

What I mean by “acting sensibly” is that leftists ought to embrace the liberals and leftists of the Muslim world and to attack the reactionaries of that same world. I’d like to see some solidarity on that policy, but the left insists on embracing all Muslims instead. In fact, they seem to prefer the reactionaries. They’re hopeless.

Comments

[Mattie]

Alas, I fear you've wasted your time.

Since you are a leftist, in Mr. Burgess-Jackson's view you "aren't as smart as conservatives" (http://keithburgess-jackson.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/ad-hominem-attacks.html). I do not know whether he means "on the average" or "each individual conservative is smarter than each individual progressive"

The trap you fell into was the old when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife one, viz. "Mr Pepple, since leftists are homogenous and don't tolerate any dissent or criticism, aren't you worried that your dissent and criticism might be seen as not-leftist-enough?"

[Keith Burgess-Jackson]

Very brave of you to post anonymously, Mattie. When you get a little courage, John Pepple and I will talk to you. Both of us are brave enough to reveal ourselves when we talk. It's called taking responsibility for one's actions.

[Bradley J Borougerdi]

John. Do you think that conservatives are probably just as disagreeable to each other as progressives?

Also, I have a problem with interchanging the terms progressive and leftist - which I image you do (if not, I apologize). In fact, I think a lot of the disagreement within the "leftist" community most likely stems from this misrepresentation. Many leftist (whether they know it or not) are really conservatives but are in denial. Maybe they came to understand leftism out of emotion and without theoretical knowledge, contributing to a mislabelling of their ideas. I suspect that many conservatives masquerade as progressive, whether knowing or not. Understanding of the basic difference between the conservative and progressive mindsets, then, needs to be addressed more thoroughly before making the liguistic connection.

[Mattie]

My actual given name isn't important or interesting; it would only be useful in an ad hominem or ad feminem argument.

You're free to ignore me, of course. Mr. Pepple is free to decide for himself whether my statements (on their own merits) are worth responding to.

[Keith Burgess-Jackson]

But you are a coward, Mattie. Why not just admit it? You know who I am, and you know who John Pepple is, but we don't know who you are. You are talking to us with a bag over your head. Your parents must be very proud of you!

[Mattie]

My parents taught me that it's not always prudent to disclose personally-identifiable information to people on the internet. They're very proud.

And yes, I know who you are. The more learn, the *less likely I am to use my real name.

[John Pepple]

Thanks for the interesting post, Bradley. I don't have much data to work on regarding your query about whether conservatives are similar to progressives in being disagreeable to each other. Someone else will have to answer it.

As for your assertion that many leftists are conservatives but are in denial, I'll have to think about that. I was trying to think of someone who I thought might fight that description, but no one comes to mind right now.

[Borepatch]

I also have noticed a lot of anger on the left. Some, but not as much on the right.

Of course, the right is always referred to as "angry", while the left is called something like "passionate". Whatever.

And some consistency from the left would be very nice indeed. You could also talk about how conservative women are treated, which is generally pretty disgraceful.

Keith here managed to get at least one (if not both) of these in his exchange with Mattie.

I used to proudly consider myself a leftist. No more.

[John Pepple]

Borepatch: "Of course, the right is always referred to as "angry", while the left is called something like "passionate"." Interesting observation. I'll have to remember that one.

"And some consistency from the left would be very nice indeed." I'm always bashing the left for their inconsistency on Islam. See today's post.

" You could also talk about how conservative women are treated, which is generally pretty disgraceful." In my post on Poor People's Leftism, I mentioned that those who adhere to Rich People's Leftism hate Sarah Palin, while those of us who adhere to Poor People's Leftism have no problems with her. See here:

http://iwantanewleft.typepad.com/i-want-a-new-left/2010/07/rich-peoples-leftism-vs-poor-peoples-leftism.html

[Keith Burgess-Jackson]

Your parents raised a coward, Mattie. You do not have the courage of your convictions. You are like a child who throws stones at cars from behind a tree, and then runs when a car stops. Grow up and take responsibility for your beliefs,your values, and your actions.

[Alrenous]

I think I will just indulge a little here.

"The trap you fell into was the old when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife one"

Even I just accept that Keith was trying for a trap, it didn't work. This is a good, well thought out and straightforward post. Even if Keith was attempting to trap, it would have just make him look bad. Moreover considering his respectful treatment of John, I consider it unlikely.

"My actual given name isn't important or interesting; it would only be useful in an ad hominem or ad feminem argument."

Is correct. For the sake of argument let me simply allow Keith's cowardice charge.

The assertion is either true, well supported, and cowardly, or false and cowardly, or poorly supported and cowardly.

Excuse me but,

"I have noticed both personally and professionally that progressives ("leftists") prefer (1) impugning the integrity of those with whom they disagree"

Who said this again?

Argument don't become more true or more relevant because you attach your real name to them. Moreover the real name is useless unless you're actually going to track down their address and mail them something, or some similar waste of time.

[Shox R4]

Happiness is intrinsic, it's an internal thing.