Lefty Internal Politics: How to Talk About This Stuff?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

I've been thinking about an issue that has come up a few times recently, but reflects a problem that I've experienced quite a bit over the past decade when trying to call out specific actions or factions on the left that I find illiberal, problematic, counterproductive, or just annoying.

The issue is that it’s rather hard to isolate specific factions to critique, because they're not distinguished by any formal group affiliation, social movement, or ideological framework. As such, there's no good language to single such people out! 

(Let’s get it out of the way: Yes, the right wing is horrible, obviously worse! But condemning the worst shouldn’t meaning playing down lesser shitty stuff. We don’t excuse robberies simply because murder is worse. Especially because it means more that we maintain our own standards. When is it okay to have a serious discussion about internal critiques?)

The potentially good news is that there are at least some signs that people are getting weary of these people, or are at least grudgingly acknowledging that puritanical approaches don’t get you very far. But regardless of how circumstances have changed or might change any further, I thought it important to bring up how hard it can be to talk about this stuff!

In the past I've tried to tie it to certain labels (Woke or Critical Theory fanatics, for instance) but then most people pushed back on the ways in which those terms are misused, or the exceptions that don't fit my characterization. More than anything, people use the fact that the term is abused on the right as evidence that I'm simply rehashing right wing propaganda, rather than hear the substance of what I'm saying as a valid critique from the inside.

More recently, I've tried to be more careful in my language, trying to zero in on "the loudest" or the "the most illiberal" of X movement, but even there people seem to ignore the qualifications and fixate on the mention of "X movement" as some sort of attempt to paint the whole movement in a bad light. Recently, I mentioned the loudest assholes under the BLM banner doing asshole things, and got accused of demonizing BLM as a whole.

Why is it so hard to talk about this stuff? Why is there seemingly no good language available to critique the worst parts of the left?

Here are some guesses as to why the matter is murkier than it should be.

1) Orthodoxy in Action. When I was growing up, my parent’s church never thought of themselves as fundamentalist or evangelical, they simply thought of themselves as Christian. As for liberals, well, they were not true Christians! In right wing politics today, the loudest and most obnoxious people similarly don’t distinguish themselves with a unique label. Instead, they assert that they are the real Americans, the real conservatives; and any conservative who disagrees is a RINO, etc. Similarly, the people on the left who engage in purist orthodoxy don’t have a special name for themselves, they’re just more likely to call out those who disagree with them as bigots, gatekeepers of privilege, secret conservatives, or some other type of “Other” to enforce the us vs them dynamic. It’s in their interest to use the socially accepted signifiers available to them, and so essentially they hide in plain sight, save for their actions.

2) Disorganized collectives. The left has long had a suspicion of hierarchy, and tend to idealize egalitarian social structures. As such, activist movements--especially in the age of social media--tend to be more amorphous collectives than tightly run ships, serving as very different things for different people. Even if people rally around a common language (such as "Black Lives Matter"), the strategies and tactics employed are up to the individuals or groups at any given place or time. It's not surprising that the loudest and most morally indignant voices often get to define what a movement is for the broader public in our social media dominated era. But my broader point here is that the lack of a top-down mission or message for a movement leads to a lot of quibbling over what the movement is or isn't. Right wing distortions certainly make things worse, but I think the quibbling would be there no matter what, because there's no one answer.

3) Slacktivism. Activism is a big part of the left’s cultural heritage, and is at least as old as the first labor unions. Most people with a leftward slant have some affinity for the ideals of activism, even radical activism, at least as a way to seem edgier than we often really are. But still, a lot of the time, what we’re really talking about is slacktivism, the lazier, more performative cousin to traditional activism. Obviously social media makes collective mobilization much, much easier than the conventional face-to-face route, but in practice it’s usually internet pile-ons or boycotts based on some symbolic criteria that are not to their liking. It’s not only slacktivism that has problems, but a lot of the problem does in fact take the form of slacktivism rather than activism come from hard work and practical action.

4) “Discourse” as Activism. I mentioned symbolic criteria above, and this obsession with language, performance, platforms, and “discourse” all comes, in some way or another, from critical theory, which has absolutely dominated academic activism in recent decades. It’s even permeated the entire culture to the point where people regurgitate academic jargon without even realizing it. Critical theory has its place in academic thought, but its ubiquity sans alternatives is a problem. Especially because it’s come to warp people’s expectations about what constitutes meaningful activism. Perhaps it was originally due to frustrations stemming from roadblocks to substantive economic reform, but at some point the predominant focus of academics and the activists inspired by them came to be changing and perfecting the culture, through language and other signifiers. Unfortunately, this approach leads to a lot of micro-managing how people express themselves, and a whole lot of performative pandering in lieu of changes that actually make people safer, better cared for, etc. And certainly the most obnoxious people on the left are the ones most obsessed with this superficial symbolic stuff, and the ones most likely to regurgitate critical theory concepts to enforce their orthodoxy.

**********

Richard Rorty once distinguished what he called the Reformist Left and the Cultural Left. The latter is the one that marinated itself in Critical Theory and was behind the many “consciousness raising” exercises that gave way to what people now call the Political Correctness of the 90s.

From this Cultural Left activism there eventually formed a broader cultural sentiment valuing Discourse as activism, especially once social media made mobilization so much easier. The new algorithms also amplified the loudest spouting the wackiest orthodox rhetoric, giving them outsize presence and influence.

But because the orthodox are steeped in the language and the cultural signifiers of the left, maybe they often just sound like people full of passion to a lot of others on the left. Okay, maybe some are a little nutty, but so what? They’re not harming anyone, certainly not like the extremists on the right are. Why are you so focused on bringing down our side when the other side is so much worse? Just whose side are you on??

And with that, the orthodox have another person on their side of the line that they drew in the first place.

Hopefully not as much anymore, but the dynamic is still out there.

Anyway, your thoughts on this topic are welcome, so long as they’re offered in good faith. Trollish comments will be ignored.

 

 

 

[maarsen]

On the right,  and on the left, there are always those people who are never happy until they can run other peoples lives, 'for their own good' of course. Could those people not be just dealt with a simple and elegant way, saving the rest of us so much turmoil?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, maarsen said:

On the right,  and on the left, there are always those people who are never happy until they can run other peoples lives, 'for their own good' of course. Could those people not be just dealt with a simple and elegant way, saving the rest of us so much turmoil?

That's the million dollar question. I think people just have to ignore the most obnoxious orthodox takes, but it's much easier said than done, especially because we still exist in this social-media saturated culture where the hottest angriest takes often rise up to frame an argument for everyone else.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[maarsen]

Well the the solution is evident. Let's all be hot and angry over all those who try to interfere in other lives. But politely so as I am Canadian.

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

it’s rather hard to isolate specific factions to critique, because they're not distinguished by any formal group affiliation, social movement, or ideological framework

Whereas They are formally affiliated, have multiple social movements, and more than one, but a single overarching ideological framework -- which is to destroy all democracy, have white xtian cis male rule everywhere, and kill with impunity everyone else.

Thus it's pointless to worry and concern and angst and 'be fair, the left does it too' because as you yourself pointed out, when it comes to all of this including killing people with impunity, protected by being a cop and politicos, the left does not do it too. Get over it.

Over and OUT.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Zorral

[DMC]

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But condemning the worst shouldn’t meaning playing down lesser shitty stuff.

Yeah, the problem isn't that many play down the shitty stuff that the left does.  I have my own issues with the left and when it bothers me I say so.  Your problem is in relation to how often you've posted in political-related threads over the recent weeks/months, it's all you can talk about.  Or at least a ridiculously high percentage.  

For someone that claims to want to hear from all sides and accept all perspectives, you sure do spend a lot of space just whining about the left and telling them they should shut up.

3 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

In the past I've tried to tie it to certain labels (Woke or Critical Theory fanatics, for instance)

See, right there.  Do I subscribe to critical race theory?  No, it's frankly something I'm not that interested in.  But reflexively labeling anyone that does "fanatics" reveals your own bias. 

Critical theory is just that - examining aspects of history, institutions, etc. from a critical perspective.  That in and of itself doesn't make anyone a "fanatic."  I will grant that what comes out of it often leads to ideas or practical solutions I often either disagree with or are not politically viable, but you are the one acting in bad faith by dismissing such thought out of hand.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

40 minutes ago, DMC said:

Your problem is in relation to how often you've posted in political-related threads over the recent weeks/months, it's all you can talk about.  Or at least a ridiculously high percentage.  

Do you think that perhaps my persistence has to do with the resistance and bad faith assumptions that I get from such previous attempts? Or is it because I'm a troll. Maybe if you actually threw me a bone and engaged like a normal person rather than get so defensive I wouldn't have have needed to put in more effort to that effect. Kudos for this effort here, which is at least trying to level with me.

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

just whining about the left and telling them they should shut up.

It's true I do whine about the left, but when have I told people to shut up? Also, I think you're noticing certain of my comments rather than all of them. I make it quite clear who the enemy is. The obnoxious factions on the left are more the obstacle making the fight against the right all the worse.

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

But reflexively labeling anyone that does "fanatics" reveals your own bias. 

But...did you actually read the substance of this post here? I don't criticize Critical Theory in and of itself.

Should I quote here for easy access?

I mentioned symbolic criteria above, and this obsession with language, performance, platforms, and “discourse” all comes, in some way or another, from critical theory, which has absolutely dominated academic activism in recent decades. It’s even permeated the entire culture to the point where people regurgitate academic jargon without even realizing it. Critical theory has its place in academic thought, but its ubiquity sans alternatives is a problem. Especially because it’s come to warp people’s expectations about what constitutes meaningful activism. Perhaps it was originally due to frustrations stemming from roadblocks to substantive economic reform, but at some point the predominant focus of academics and the activists inspired by them came to be changing and perfecting the culture, through language and other signifiers. Unfortunately, this approach leads to a lot of micro-managing how people express themselves, and a whole lot of performative pandering in lieu of changes that actually make people safer, better cared for, etc. And certainly the most obnoxious people on the left are the ones most obsessed with this superficial symbolic stuff, and the ones most likely to regurgitate critical theory concepts to enforce their orthodoxy."

You can disagree with that statement, but at least read my damn comments before dragging me.

I also said as much in an earlier comment to Kalnest Oblank, who probably ignored that comment as well.

I amazed by how such strong certainties can be drawn from hasty readings of stuff I say.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

@DMC if I do have a gripe against actual Critical Theorists, it's the opposite of the people I'm talking about here. They are sometimes almost too dedicated to nuance and complication. But in general I very much like that attention to nuance. What's irritating about the orthodox people who abuse it is that they use concepts related to nuance (like microaggression) or complication (like intersectionality) as bludgeons, stripping them of any sense of nuance.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Kalbear]

It's also telling that using the label 'woke' for criticizing lefties is using verbatim the far right sloganing and terminology. As pointed out that's hardly unbiased. 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

3 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

It's also telling that using the label 'woke' for criticizing lefties is using verbatim the far right sloganing and terminology. As pointed out that's hardly unbiased. 

Okay, but given that I mention that in the fucking topic post, and ask "then what term should I use?" maybe you can give some  suggestions for alternatives?

 

From the first comment:

More than anything, people use the fact that the term is abused on the right as evidence that I'm simply rehashing right wing propaganda, rather than hear the substance of what I'm saying as a valid critique from the inside.

Edited May 24, 2023 by Phylum of Alexandria

[Phylum of Alexandria]

You guys are either just profoundly lazy, or rendered utterly stupid by your mistrust of me.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

Whereas They are formally affiliated, have multiple social movements, and more than one, but a single overarching ideological framework -- which is to destroy all democracy, have white xtian cis male rule everywhere, and kill with impunity everyone else.

Thus it's pointless to worry and concern and angst and 'be fair, the left does it too' because as you yourself pointed out, when it comes to all of this including killing people with impunity, protected by being a cop and politicos, the left does not do it too. Get over it.

My point is that the fellowship doesn't stand a chance against Sauron if different factions of humans are calling one another orcs. I don't think the orthodox left types are orcs; they're just blind with fear. But they still pose a problem for the larger fight, which is why I'm compelled to speak about.

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Do you think that perhaps my persistence has to do with the resistance and bad faith assumptions that I get from such previous attempts?

I dunno, I'm not a psychologist, but you're the one that felt the need to create an entire new thread - completely unprovoked - devoted to whining about leftists.

12 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Maybe if you actually threw me a bone and engaged like a normal person rather than get so defensive I wouldn't have have needed to put in more effort to that effect.

I'm not being defensive.  Frankly I don't care one way or another.  You asked a question and I responded to it based on how I've gauged your submissions over the past few weeks/months.  As you yourself said, you're free to ignore me.

15 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's true I do whine about the left, but when have I told people to shut up?

The discussion the other week in the US politics thread, your entire line of argument was the left should not say what they believe because it's bad politics.  I happen to agree with some of what you were asserting, but your tone and position boiled down to the left should shut up for the good of the party.

Which, btw, is ultimately the logical conclusion to your OP here.  Anyone that disagrees with you on the left should keep their mouth shut because they're demonstrating too much orthodoxy or "discourse as activism" or "slacktivism" or whatever dumbass term you want to invent to complain about them further.

21 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Should I quote here for easy access?

You can, but I read your entire post.  Even in what you re-quoted and highlighted, you still dismiss anyone bringing it up as "regurgitation."  As if you have any idea why other people believe what they believe.  You don't want to have a true exchange of ideas, you just want to complain about anyone having ideas you disagree with as "regurgitating" academia, or being too "woke," or whatever lipstick you wanna put on that pig.

20 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

What's irritating about the orthodox people who abuse it is that they use concepts related to nuance (like microaggression) or complication (like intersectionality) as bludgeons, stripping them of any sense of nuance.

Not sure how you use intersectionality as a "bludgeon," but yeah, agreed oftentimes people can get out of hand about "microaggressions," which if you ask me is a pretty stupid term in the first place.  Again, my problem is you doing exactly what you are purporting to complain about.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

I'm not being defensive.  Frankly I don't care one way or another.  You asked a question and I responded to it based on how I've gauged your submissions over the past few weeks/months.  As you yourself said, you're free to ignore me.

Read my comment again: I was calling your initial reaction to my previous comments defensive. I gave you kudos for at least trying to level with me here.

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

The discussion the other week in the US politics thread, your entire line of argument was the left should not say what they believe because it's bad politics.  I happen to agree with some of what you were asserting, but your tone and position boiled down to the left should shut up for the good of the party.

I'm sorry, it's one thing to find complaints annoying. It's another to conflate a complaint or worry with a particular style of engagement with a demand that people shut up. *shrug* Agree to disagree?

5 minutes ago, DMC said:

Which, btw, is ultimately the logical conclusion to your OP here.  Anyone that disagrees with you on the left should keep their mouth shut because they're demonstrating too much orthodoxy or "discourse as activism" or "slacktivism" or whatever dumbass term you want to invent to complain about them further.

Well first, I didn't invent the terms slacktivism or capital-d Discourse. But you're drawing a line that I did not draw. Could you maybe inform me of a way to critique something that I find problematic in a way that you don't find to be orthodox? I'm open to suggestions.

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

You can, but I read your entire post.  Even in what you re-quoted and highlighted, you still dismiss anyone bringing it up as "regurgitation."

False. The people who regurgitate it are the ones who clearly misuse the concepts. People who use the presence of micro-aggressions as red lines to call people out. Or people who use the notion of intersectionality ("speaking as an X-Y-Z") to shut others down when they disagree. That's using the concept as a bludgeon, it's a clear misuse of the original idea (which can in fact be quite handy to understand complicated circumstances), and it's evidence that they're regurgitating academic stuff without thinking about it.

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

You don't want to have a true exchange of ideas, you just want to complain about anyone having ideas you disagree with as "regurgitating" academia, or being too "woke," or whatever lipstick you wanna put on that pig.

Again, this is an unfair portrait of what I'm saying. I want an exchange of ideas. It's the people who don't accept exchanges of ideas that I am literally trying to focus on. And if you don't like "woke" or another term, how do you propose I talk about it? Given that that was the very point of my topic post?

[Larry of the Lawn]

24 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

My point is that the fellowship doesn't stand a chance against Sauron if different factions of humans are calling one another orcs. I don't think the orthodox left types are orcs; they're just blind with fear. But they still pose a problem for the larger fight, which is why I'm compelled to speak about.

The problem with the left is, it's made of people.  There are bunch of different factions in the Not Right-wing US that all have their own orthodoxies, reflexive responses, stuff they're defensive about, times when they act tribal or "illiberal".  Another issue is trying to play the blame game when most of the "problems" come from the fact that you're dealing with people rather than some Ideal Rational Being.  

The set of people who vote Dem is a big tent and they don't necessarily share the same goals or policy preferences beyond the common denominator of "definitely not what Republicans are trying to do.". 

Add on top of that probably 95% of people don't really think about politics that much and just don't care and certainly aren't going to be trying to come up with a coherent strategy. 

Add on top of that among the people who do care and whose job is studying and caring about shit they are often so siloed off, super-focused on one particular special niche policy issue that you have all these autonomous NGOs, think-tanks, and activist groups with incredible understanding of one thing but much less of a structure organizing all these little parts.  But the power structures they're battling tend to be the same big groups (the dictatorship of the shareholder, energy companies, big pharma, the insurance industry, corporations and jobs that depend on the carceral state, the MIC), etc.  

Maybe the best thing to do about lefty infighting or whatever is to just ignore it?

 

Edited May 24, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[Phylum of Alexandria]

Just now, Madame deVenoge said:

Have to say, you’re not winning friends and influencing people with statements like that.

Probably not. But I too can get dumb when provoked into anger.

[Phylum of Alexandria]

2 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

The problem with the left is, it's made of people.  There are bunch of different factions in the Not Right-wing US that all have their own orthodoxies, reflexive responses, stuff their defensive about, times when the act tribal or "illiberal".  Another issue is trying to play the blame game when most of the "problems" come from the fact that you're dealing with people rather than some Ideal Rational Being.  

The set of people who vote Dem is a big tent and they don't necessarily share the same goals or policy preferences beyond the common denominator of "definitely not what Republicans are trying to do.". 

Add on top of that probably 95% of people don't really think about politics that much and just don't care and certainly aren't going to be trying to come up with a coherent strategy. 

Add on top of that among the people who do care and whose job is studying and caring about shit they are often so siloed off, super-focused on one particular special niche policy issue that you have all these autonomous NGOs, think-tanks, and activist groups with incredible understanding of one thing but much less of a structure organizing all these little parts.  But the power structures they're battling tend to be the same big groups (the dictatorship of the shareholder, energy companies, big pharma, the insurance industry, corporations and jobs that depend on the carceral state, the MIC), etc.  

Maybe the best thing to do about lefty infighting or whatever is to just ignore it?

I agree with all of this, and I do tend to think that we should ignore the worst takes, but I guess I don't know how we do that practically speaking. Like, in the context of organization meetings, if there's a person who's in righteous orthodox mode, they will try to push their will onto the group. You have to engage them somehow in that context.

And online, sure. On a thread like this, that's easy to do. But social media virality in general does make it harder to ignore the hottest takes when they are the ones dominating the spotlight of conversation. Maybe it's gotten less relevant now, as the craziness of the right wing is on full display. I dunno.

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I agree with all of this, and I do tend to think that we should ignore the worst takes, but I guess I don't know how we do that practically speaking. Like, in the context of organization meetings, if there's a person who's in righteous orthodox mode, they will try to push their will onto the group. You have to engage them somehow in that context.

And online, sure. On a thread like this, that's easy to do. But social media virality in general does make it harder to ignore the hottest takes when they are the ones dominating the spotlight of conversation. Maybe it's gotten less relevant now, as the craziness of the right wing is on full display. I dunno.

I think describing a specific behavior or action you dislike is going to be more effective than making it about the identity or ideology of the person doing it:

"I know most BLM activists ( or insert whatever group here) are fine but a couple of the more extreme ones are just as orthodox and tribal as the chumps at the Federalist"

Isn't going to be as well received as 

"I think it's probably a bad idea to dox people or vandalize public property, no matter who is doing it".

Again though, I think this is an issue with humans in general, not just lefty internal politics.  

Edited May 24, 2023 by Larry of the Lake

[DMC]

43 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Could you maybe inform me of a way to critique something that I find problematic in a way that you don't find to be orthodox? I'm open to suggestions.

You can critique things whatever way you like.  I honestly do not care.  But you started this thread, at least ostensibly, asking for responses to your query.  The above is my honest response to your questions.  I understand it's not a response you would like, but thus is that nature of discussion boards.

46 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

The people who regurgitate it are the ones who clearly misuse the concepts. People who use the presence of micro-aggressions as red lines to call people out. Or people who use the notion of intersectionality ("speaking as an X-Y-Z") to shut others down when they disagree. That's using the concept as a bludgeon, it's a clear misuse of the original idea (which can in fact be quite handy to understand complicated circumstances), and it's evidence that they're regurgitating academic stuff without thinking about it.

Ok.  And who on this board is doing that?  Or has ever done that?  You keep on railing against "the left" as this amorphous scapegoat.  And, as pretty much everyone has allowed throughout these discussions, of course you're right that there are certain people like that.  But you continually harping on it for no apparent reason just smacks of whining for whining's sake.

49 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

It's the people who don't accept exchanges of ideas that I am literally trying to focus on.

Well, maybe try to engage with all of us that are not in any way what you describe and are on the message board you are posting on instead of complaining about these other people that none of us can defend because, ya know, it's not what any of us said or believe or engage in.

[Rippounet]

6 hours ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

But because the orthodox are steeped in the language and the cultural signifiers of the left, maybe they often just sound like people full of passion to a lot of others on the left. Okay, maybe some are a little nutty, but so what? They’re not harming anyone, certainly not like the extremists on the right are. Why are you so focused on bringing down our side when the other side is so much worse? Just whose side are you on??

And with that, the orthodox have another person on their side of the line that they drew in the first place.

Aren't you the one who's a little quick to draw (or embrace) an arbitrary line between the reformist/activist left and the cultural/slacktivist left? At a glance, I'd say you underestimate the potential of what you view as mere performative acts to bring about actual changes in society.