Is it because I'm not north American that I find it hard to understand this thread? Bill Maher is one of those comedians who doesn't travel well, I think it's one of those things about being divided by a common language.

So I'm a leftist; I'm a strong supporter of universal human rights; and philosophically I am a sort of moral relativist. David Vellemann outlines the kind of view I go with: that different social groups can, indeed will, have incompatible moralities, but their moral concerns are thematically linked. Rational-based negotiation then remains the best way of trying to resolve moral differences.

The argument here seems much more political than philosophical. Who are the 'leftists' who under attack here? Why hasn't anyone quoted any of them? What is the corrective moral view: Maher is a comedian so he has every right not to have an answer, but are people in general arguing for moral objectivism, or what? — mcdoodle

Perhaps, I can see that. So by "Leftist" it is a fluid and over-used term so is confusing. First off, you can be a "left" political leaning person and not be Leftist as I (and Maher) is using the term. More recently people like Maher have been using Leftist or "people on the left" in contrast to "old-school liberal". Now this is even more confusing because there is such thing as Classical Liberal from the 18th century (which is like Adam Smith libertarian economics yet moderate/liberal socially). No, what Maher means by "old-school liberal" is the general "moderate liberals" that are referred to in politics in the 20th century. That is people who are economically liberal but usually, moderately so (they agree we need some social safety nets and that government has some role in helping the economy), but also as a matter of domestic and foreign policy are very pro-individual rights. That is to say, freedom of speech is of utmost importance. That means, for example, the culture on college campuses that run-out conservative speakers or people that have differing views than the often very left-leaning administration/professors/student-body is a very bad thing as it curbs that very important element of freedom of speech and exchange in ideas. They also tend to see universal rights as binding, and not one-way. That is to say, regimes that repress minorities (religions, views, ethnicities), and represses freedom of speech, are to be condemned outright. That is to say, a political entity like the Iranian government or Hezbollah are bad, and should be condemned. It is also pro-Western in terms of it rather former colonies of the world (aka "third-world countries") should adopt Western notions of universal rights, freedom of speech, etc. Policies that promote and protect this, even at the behest of repressing the anti-Western notions, are favored in foreign policy.

On the other hand, in this newer terminology, we have the "Leftists". That is to say, they are also "liberal" certainly in their economic outlook, and socially, but they are more severely critical of points of view that differ. These are the people on college campuses that run out the guest speakers, for example. As far as former colonies (aka the "third world"), they think in terms of cultural relativism. They care less that for example, Iran or Middle Eastern cultures are repressive towards minorities, women, free speech, etc. and are more in favor of the fact that they are "non-Western" and thus this should be respected (even if they don't necessarily agree).

Leftists also tend to take on Marxist views. Usually this is not consciously. Many don't know this is the origins of their thought. Here is a good example of the origins:

In the mid-19th century, Karl Marx mentioned imperialism to be part of the prehistory of the capitalist mode of production in Das Kapital (1867–1894). Much more important was Vladimir Lenin, who defined imperialism as "the highest stage of capitalism", the economic stage in which monopoly finance capital becomes the dominant application of capital.[35] As such, said financial and economic circumstances impelled national governments and private business corporations to worldwide competition for control of natural resources and human labour by means of colonialism.[36]

The Leninist views of imperialism and related theories, such as dependency theory, address the economic dominance and exploitation of a country, rather than the military and the political dominance of a people, their country and its natural resources. Hence, the primary purpose of imperialism is economic exploitation, rather than mere control of either a country or of a region. The Marxist and the Leninist denotation thus differs from the usual political science denotation of imperialism as the direct control (intervention, occupation and rule) characteristic of colonial and neo-colonial empires as used in the realm of international relations.[37][36]

In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1917), Lenin outlined the five features of capitalist development that lead to imperialism:

Concentration of production and capital leading to the dominance of national and multinational monopolies and cartels.
Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been replaced by finance capital, with the industrial capitalists increasingly reliant on capital provided by monopolistic financial institutions. "Again and again, the final word in the development of banking is monopoly".
The export of the aforementioned finance capital is emphasized over the export of goods.
The economic division of the world by multinational cartels.
The political division of the world into colonies by the great powers, in which the great powers monopolise investment.[38]
Generally, the relationship among Marxist-Leninists and radical, left-wing organisations who are anti-war, often involves persuading such political activists to progress from pacifism to anti-imperialism—that is, to progress from the opposition of war, in general, to the condemnation of the capitalist economic system, in particular.[39]

In the 20th century, the Soviet Union represented themselves as the foremost enemy of imperialism and thus politically and financially supported Third World revolutionary organisations who fought for national independence. This was accomplished through the export of both financial capital and Soviet military apparatuses, with the Soviet Union sending military advisors to Ethiopia, Angola, Egypt and Afghanistan.

However, anarchists as well as many other Marxist organizations, have characterized Soviet foreign policy as imperialism and cited it as evidence that the philosophy of Marxism would not resolve and eliminate imperialism. Mao Zedong developed the theory that the Soviet Union was a social imperialist nation, a socialist people with tendencies to imperialism, an important aspect of Maoist analysis of the history of the Soviet Union.[40] Contemporarily, the term "anti-imperialism" is most commonly applied by Marxist-Leninists, and political organisations of like ideological persuasion who oppose capitalism, present a class analysis of society and the like.[41]

About the nature of imperialism and how to oppose and defeat it, Che Guevara said:
imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism—and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world, is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capitals, raw materials, technicians, and cheap labor, and to which they export new capitals—instruments of domination—arms and all kinds of articles; thus submerging us in an absolute dependence.
— Che Guevara, Message to the Tricontinental, 1967 — Anti-imperialism

So that is its origins, but what of it now? No one is really speaking in terms of Marxism, right? Well, not really. What happened was, this got translated into viewing the world in terms of only the "big bad West" and the "underdog". The victimizers (the West), and the victims (the Rest). But this directly conflicts with the "old-school" liberal notions that the West actually is morally "right" in its views (of universal rights being more important than things like religious matters, that freedom of speech is important and above and beyond cultural traditions, etc.). But "Leftists" are willing to support repressive cultural traits and regimes that want to put this in place, because they are viewed as the "underdog". Thus, anything "anti-West" or at least, "the underdog" is good or right in some way. And thus, they are supported simply because they are seen as the underdog. But you see, it's obviously not that black-and-white. Sometimes, the underdog, the little guy, is wrong, and should be condemned. It's not just a matter that they are right because they are the little guy.

And so this brings me to the contradictions of the left. They would never want to live under regimes of these "underdogs" but they support them none-the-less. They will even support terrorist acts and asymmetrical forms of warfare that leads to large losses of life and harm, because it is disrupting the Western regime.

But one of my points was that this is a fantasy to think that nation-states are "liberating" themselves from anything. Because even the notion of a nation-state, is a WESTERN notion. It is ALL the WEST. Even the ways of fighting the WEST are the WEST. You can't get out of it. It's all contradiction and genetic fallacy. Even the fact that there are nation-states, is a Western thing.

In a previous post, I gave a whirlwind summary of world history of European (West) domination of the rest of the world, basically writing the very rules which they will exist. The Middle East and Africa is purely now a European fiction. So any attempts at any individual country "liberating" itself, is also buying into that fiction. It is not fully understanding the history of how all of this was created. Nationalism in the Middle East (the big conflict now) is just a continuation of Nationalism from Europe. The very territories of the "nations" of the Middle East, is just the lines drawn by Europe.

which does not help describe who you’re talking about or what the problem is. — kudos

The problem here involves a socio-political orientation that is wrought with contradictions. Namely that it criticizes western civilization for being this incredible monolithic structure of oppression, while fighting that very oppression with uniquely Western ideals like equal rights and social progress. Schop said it in the OP.

(Only the West has to abide by rights but no one else even though everyone else was basically colonized, uses the technology of the west and are forced into the post-WW2 reality of “nation-states” rather than sprawling multi-ethnic empires or tribal units that proceeded it)? Isn’t it true you can’t have it both ways, you either have universal rights and liberal principles are a thing or they are not. — schopenhauer1

There is also the contradiction in which they speak about marginalization of groups as the worst form of oppression, yet they are themselves consistently guilty of marginalizing groups they pretend to defend. There are more.

But doing this makes your argument about cultural power as opposed to knowledge or wisdom, and it is thus not really philosophy. — kudos

I didn't come up with that, I'm just trying to keep up with how leftists think. It was a famous wise Leftist that wrote:

There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations. — Foucault

“What have the Romans ever done for us?” — I like sushi

I recently read an article about the frequency of thoughts about Rome. Apparently many males think about the Roman Empire quite a bit -- at least once a day. I like thinking about various aspects of the Roman Empire.

I mean, after all, who does not believe in collectivism and egalitarianism? — kudos

Nobody is denying that collectivism and egalitarianism aren't viable concepts, it is how they are prioritized and the level of commitment to realizing these things that make one a leftist.

The problem here involves a socio-political orientation that is wrought with contradictions. Namely that it criticizes western civilization for being this incredible monolithic structure of oppression, while fighting that very oppression with uniquely Western ideals like equal rights and social progress.

Okay so you’re talking about hypocrites basically. I still don’t see what this has to do with democratic or liberal politics besides some incidental particularity or correlation of the present day.

I didn't come up with that, I'm just trying to keep up with how leftists think. It was a famous wise Leftist that wrote…

Good quote. It seems as if your concern is with an abstract idea of freedom, but it’s halfway to inappropriately becoming about politics. You’re defining a difference, ‘I do not believe this (set of notions), and there is a group who has this ethos.’ Then adding, ‘Therefore, if you subscribe to this ethos you are a part of this group.’ It is a logical fallacy that you are likely used to seeing used against you, as it is the ‘old way’ of doing business. Just be clear that this is business and not much more.

There is also the contradiction in which they speak about marginalization of groups as the worst form of oppression, yet they are themselves consistently guilty of marginalizing groups they pretend to defend. There are more. — Merkwurdichliebe

:up:
Indeed, now it's called "woke mob". That is to say, their "tolerance" has turned into "intolerance" of other opinions. It is an inability to understand the freedom of speech space. It does happen on both sides, but the Right never claimed to be completely for "tolerance". So, the contradiction happens more on the left.

I should mention, and I guess for @mcdoodle too, that the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin).

Leftist morality reduces all good and evil to oppressed and oppressor (as you aptly tied to marxism). It runs into the contradiction because it is collectivist, and it applies its relativistic morality only to groups, so that we inevitably find many of these groups to be both oppressor and oppressed. And here we see the classical moral dilemma.

Of course they try to weasel out of this with the idea of intersectionality so that they will not have to admit the evil of one type of oppressor over another, after all, an oppressor of any kind is equally evil in all cases and it is never ok to sympathize with the oppressor. The only thing more evil than the oppressor is the one that oppresses along multiple dimensions, and the more dimensions the more evil. They have unanimously distinguished the west as indisputably having more structures of oppression than any other entity in existence. But this still does not address the moral dilemma.

Because of the leftist emphasis on the group, the morality can never be localized to single cases. In other words, for example, moralizing about the oppression of women does not stop when defending an oppressed nation that actively oppresses women. No, the rights of women are supposed to be universally respected in all places, at all times - wherever oppression of women is possibile, it is relevant... no exceptions. But, alas, this is not the case.

If leftists weren't so full of shit, they would respect their intersectional logic and raise hell over the oppression of women within particular nations that are colonized. But then, this would make them, ipso facto, on the side of the western colonial oppressor, which is a big no-no. This is why so many leftists are capable of siding with a group like Hamas while entirely dismissing the plight of Palestinian women that are directly oppressed by Hamas. But then this places them on the side of the western patriarchy, which is equally evil to the western colonizer. It is perplexing. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't have more to add to that. Nuanced. The "dilemma" and contradictions you discuss are well-stated and laid out here.

It seems as if your concern is with an abstract idea of freedom, but it’s halfway to inappropriately becoming about politics. You’re defining a difference, ‘I do not believe this (set of notions), and there is a group who has this ethos.’ Then adding, ‘Therefore, if you subscribe to this ethos you are a part of this group.’ It is a logical fallacy that you are likely used to seeing used against you, as it is the ‘old way’ of doing business. Just be clear that this is business and not much more. — kudos

I have nothing against the "old way". It's not perfect, but it's reliable. I have no problem calling it "just business".

Leftism is more of an orientation or disposition than a group. However, there are indeed leftist groups (Socialist International, Antifa, Democratic Socialists of America, Black Lives Matter, &c.) committed to counteracting what they see as the oppressive structures of the West.

And, I'm not saying I don't believe in the leftist "set of notions", I'm saying that I have noticed countless contradictions in that "set of notions" which make it an absolutetly untenable position. And, I am not arguing that if a person genuinely subscribes to that "set of notions" then it makes them a proper leftist, even though that is true. I am arguing that proper leftists are so deluded with their ideological obsession that they are willing to consciously ignore the unmistakably recognizable contradictions ...so much so that almost every position they occupy appears dishonest and false. For when a Leftist is called out to reconcile his contradictions, he will never address it directly, but will always change the subject in a way that projects his contradictions onto his opponent in some way. It is unfortunate, almost nothing from a Leftist can be accepted on good faith any longer.

Even my position, that I have put forth here, is never directly addressed by any Leftist (probably because, I being a reformed Leftist, understand their position better than them). It seems like they are always trying to hurl my points back at me, as if I'm the leftist holding all the contradictions...but I am only highlighting the contradictions.

I should mention, and I guess for mcdoodle too, that the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin). — schopenhauer1

Yep. Richard Rorty posited a distinction between a cultural left and a reformist left - the latter being a more traditional progressive agenda concerned with working people, the minimum wage, health care, housing costs - economic gains which would improve the situation of diverse communities. The cultural left is concerned with identity politics, culture and sociology. Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps.

Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps. — Tom Storm

Yes, :up:. I think he’s right on there and that threat becomes imperative. I’ll have more to say later but wanted to acknowledge that comment.

I am arguing that proper leftists are so deluded with their ideological obsession that they are willing to consciously ignore the unmistakably recognizable contradictions ...so much so that almost every position they occupy appears dishonest and false.

I get what you're saying, and I have encountered such type of thinking, but don't see any evidence that it is answerable solely to a liberal mindset. How can you tell that their coincidence is not related to some common factor? Or maybe you are just defining these faults to be Leftism. Furthermore, can the political dividing lines you are drawing not equally incite individuals to take on those roles knowingly in order to prove their difference from your side, as per some similar ethical idea they wish to abide by that belongs to the other's domain?

The cultural left is concerned with identity politics, culture and sociology. Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps. — Tom Storm

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. Just as you have have populists on both on the right and left.

You basically can make the division between those that promote and love the polarization and then those old school people who care about getting things done.

You basically can make the division between those that promote and love the polarization and then those old school people who care about getting things done. — ssu

:up:

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. — ssu

All political groups have their divisions and schisms. The interesting part is identifying who they are and what they want. I'm often struck by how the Right has a radical free market arm which doesn't seem to care what gets destroyed or sold in the process, and a somewhat separate conservative tradition, which seeks to venerate certain expressions of culture and tradition.

I don't doubt that all divisions are sincere. In other words, they all think they are working to get things done.

I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. Just as you have have populists on both on the right and left. — ssu

The right does have it's issues and contradictions, which definitely should be highlighted. But I see all the cultural wars originating from the Left. The Right merely joined in because it is witless. The right has no big issues with culture, there is "US" :strong: and then there are "them" :shade: It is the left that has made culture and identity into an issue. It can be traced to Antonio Gramsci, up through the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and beyond.

While the Right is championing "US" (whoever "US" is), trying to make a better world for "US" despite "them", the left is endlessly identifying oppressed groups for whom it can champion against whoever it deems as the oppressor of said group"

How can you tell that their coincidence is not related to some common factor? Or maybe you are just defining these faults to be Leftism. — kudos

I don't think it is a coincidence, i think it is intentional, although many leftists may be unaware of the rationale beneath it all. If it were otherwise, I would expect them to address their contradictions head on, instead of avoiding them and changing the subject every time it comes up.

Furthermore, can the political dividing lines you are drawing not equally incite individuals to take on those roles knowingly in order to prove their difference from your side, as per some similar ethical idea they wish to abide by that belongs to the other's domain? — kudos

Im not sure. Could you give me an example of how this might appear?

It is an inability to understand the freedom of speech space. It does happen on both sides, but the Right never claimed to be completely for "tolerance". So, the contradiction happens more on the left. — schopenhauer1

Don't forget that the concept of "tolerance" is also an oppressive Western invention, which somehow doesn't matter when they are pushing it.

The right generally has a clear red line for what it will tolerate. The left has a virtual spiderweb of constantly shifting and intersecting red lines of tolerance, all with the potential for conflict, this is why free speech is so often restricted on the Left.

Such antagonism to free speech for the purpose of enforcing tolerance is a classically bad omen. Moreover, it highlights the left's antagonism toward liberalism, after all, what is more central to liberalism than free speech?

the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin). — schopenhauer1

Well stated. However, I don't think the leftist roots of the woke mob are in any way "vaguely marxist". No, the similarities between the Marxian academic theorizing and the political activism of the left is too closely correlated for it to be a coincident...it is unquestionably Marxist.

What I am talking about is a narrative. As an example, say you are a college student who upon starting your term meet friends with extreme views on institutional racism. When the topic comes up you mention your views towards admission processes in favour of 'blind' or non-compensatory techniques. In their eyes you become a racist, but maybe not to yourself. Meanwhile, their friends all agree and pretty soon everyone looks at you with disgust as if you are constantly thinking racist thoughts. Being constantly forced to operate within this environment, do you think you might start to take your difference from their view as an affirmation of it? Your belief that they are wrong transforms in what it was meant to be all along: a belief – instilled by your enemy – that you are different from them under the lines they themselves have demarcated.

Haven't you seen similar villain narratives, where a social group hints that it wants your evil to legitimate their good? One would be surprised at what any person can become when they are immersed in a set of such opposing ideas.

Being constantly forced to operate within this environment, do you think you might start to take your difference from their view as an affirmation of it? Your belief that they are wrong transforms in what it was meant to be all along: a belief – instilled by your enemy – that you are different from them under the lines they themselves have demarcated. — kudos

It really all depends. If one has been given sufficiently justified reason to change his opinion, perhaps he should. But if one has only been presented with nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, never. The left these days seems to deal in nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, and everything they say feels scripted and phoney - untrustworthy.

Haven't you seen similar villain narratives, where a social group hints that it wants your evil to legitimate their good? — kudos

I have experienced two events in which I saw this weird dynamic. Post 9-11 and Covid. If you didn't want to bomb all the muslims, you were a traitor. If your didn't maskup and lockdown, you were a murderous troglodyte. I was both, and proudly, as you can imagine.

Still, the leftist never addresses his own contradictions, and this failure of the leftist to face its faults (not to mention the underhanded strategies it utilizes to avoid it) is all the reason anyone needs to reject the leftist agenda.

Your Op was well drawn and has brought in solid interesting discussion. I rarely see Maher doing his shtick but I liked the clip you posted.

I am getting old and I don't have much time for the woke left. In all, it seems like there are some very non-polemical a-political trends at work.

"Everybody says" that politics is getting more extreme -- from the screwy woke left to the screwy fascist right. More extreme and more contentious, less civil, less thoughtful, less accommodating (not to very different positions, but often to only slightly different positions. Why?

Perhaps it's a result of a reasonably free society where the bar to entry into political debate has been lowered by technology. Anybody can get on one social media platform or another and babble away about anything. The Elite are still the elite and still run things, but the proles now have big megaphones to express themselves.

"Post modernism" seems to have mentally unhinged many on the the left. Up until... what? the 1950s? 60s? the now old left seemed firmly anchored in reality. They may have been dull, but they were accounting for real material forces.

The "public attention span" is only so long, and there is stiff competition to get one's views heard, to dominate the stage. This alone leads to exaggerated claims -- attention bait in the crowded market place.

A lot of what we see on the news seems to be "public performance". This isn't new, of course. Over the decades, maybe a century, people have learned how to effectively demonstrate anger, rage, grief, resentment, outrage, and so on.

People in politics have to work fairly hard to differentiate themselves. This is true for Republican Party candidates and the woke left, as well. Getting noticed can lead to absurdities (like the famous drag queen story hour).

I'm sort of a relativist. I heartily disapprove of slavery (chattel slavery or wage slavery), for instance, but it's conceivable that slave holders didn't feel guilty about owning slaves, any more than capitalists feel guilty for paying very low wages. Similarly, people leaving England to colonize New England mostly felt quite justified before God. They felt plenty of guilt, but it wasn't for being colonizers.

I don't look at "empire" -- colonialism -- as it was practiced in the 17th - 20th century as a moral evil. Certainly not very nice, certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, certainly took away more than was given, certainly relied on sticks (guns) much, much more than on carrots. The Romans required a steady flow of goods from its colonies to feed everyone, England, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Russia -- everybody who COULD -- wanted to tap into (for them) new resources. Finding, acquiring, holding on to, and exploiting resources is a well-established practice, everywhere on every continent, wherever it could be managed, by any group who could pull it off.

Western Civilization is not perfect, but it's the only civilization [people in the west] have got, and it is better than most. Those who are too good for this culture could emigrate to the East and to the south, to Russia, to the PRC, to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, or any number of places where the "woke left" would be sent to prison, reeducation centers, mental hospitals, or end up beheaded.

Perhaps it's a result of a reasonably free society where the bar to entry into political debate has been lowered by technology. Anybody can get on one social media platform or another and babble away about anything. The Elite are still the elite and still run things, but the proles now have big megaphones to express themselves. — BC

I couldn't help but think of Debord's idea of The Spectacle (sorry @Merkwurdichliebe, I brought in an architect of critical theory, but not Frankfurt, so perhaps allowed? :D). That is to say, I notice that most disruptions, even what would have seen as ridiculous and absurdly crazy disruptions (let's say in the US, invading the Capitol to stop the confirmation of an election), don't actually change much as people are so disconnected from the actual "doings" of politics, that it really doesn't matter. In fact, if Trump took over the US as dictator (in practice if not in name), would it affect anyone's daily life really? I mean most people never thought a presidential candidate in their lifetime would have said things like "the election was a lie", and cast that kind of doubt in their lifetime, but here we are, and many people go along with it, condone it. But really, has it disrupted much other than parlor talk?

In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Everything that was directly lived has moved away into a representation.
2.
The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. The specialization of images of the world is completed in the world of the autonomous image, where the liar has lied to himself. The spectacle in general, as the concrete inversion of life, is the autonomous movement of the non-living.

3.
The spectacle presents itself simultaneously as all of society, as part of society, and as instrument of unification. As a part of society it is specifically the sector which concentrates all gazing and all consciousness. Due to the very fact that this sector is separate, it is the common ground of the deceived gaze and of false consciousness, and the unification it achieves is nothing but an official language of generalized separation.

4.
The spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.

5.
The spectacle cannot be understood as an abuse of the world of vision, as a product of the techniques of mass dissemination of images. It is, rather, a Weltanschauung which has become actual, materially translated. It is a world vision which has become objectified.

6.
The spectacle grasped in its totality is both the result and the project of the existing mode of production. It is not a supplement to the real world, an additional decoration. It is the heart of the unrealism of the real society. In all its specific forms, as information or propaganda, as advertisement or direct entertainment consumption, the spectacle is the present model of socially dominant life. It is the omnipresent affirmation of the choice already made in production and its corollary consumption. The spectacle’s form and content are identically the total justification of the existing system’s conditions and goals. The spectacle is also the permanent presence of this justification, since it occupies the main part of the time lived outside of modern production. — Society of the Spectacle - Debord

That is to say, if you turn off your cable news (an ancient thing nowadays), put down your newspaper (an even more ancient thing), don't look at online media, and don't talk politics, are you really affected much as to what happens on "Capitol Hill"? Every so often it comes to you in taxes and ballots, but really, many are detached. I think of an office worker or mechanic or construction worker blissfully just doing their thing.

"Post modernism" seems to have mentally unhinged many on the the left. Up until... what? the 1950s? 60s? the now old left seemed firmly anchored in reality. They may have been dull, but they were accounting for real material forces.

The "public attention span" is only so long, and there is stiff competition to get one's views heard, to dominate the stage. This alone leads to exaggerated claims -- attention bait in the crowded market place.

A lot of what we see on the news seems to be "public performance". This isn't new, of course. Over the decades, maybe a century, people have learned how to effectively demonstrate anger, rage, grief, resentment, outrage, and so on. — BC

More of the spectacle!

They felt plenty of guilt, but it wasn't for being colonizers. — BC

:lol:

I don't look at "empire" -- colonialism -- as it was practiced in the 17th - 20th century as a moral evil. Certainly not very nice, certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, certainly took away more than was given, certainly relied on sticks (guns) much, much more than on carrots. The Romans required a steady flow of goods from its colonies to feed everyone, England, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Russia -- everybody who COULD -- wanted to tap into (for them) new resources. Finding, acquiring, holding on to, and exploiting resources is a well-established practice, everywhere on every continent, wherever it could be managed, by any group who could pull it off. — BC

Yes, but what do you think of my idea earlier on the fact that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment. There is no getting out of the framework set up by the West.

That is to say, if you turn off your cable news (an ancient thing nowadays), put down your newspaper (an even more ancient thing), don't look at online media, and don't talk politics, are you really affected much as to what happens on "Capitol Hill"? Every so often it comes to you in taxes and ballots, but really, many are detached. I think of an office worker or mechanic or construction worker blissfully just doing their thing. — schopenhauer1

"The Economy" on which we all depend isn't managed from Capital Hill, 1600 Pennsylvania, or elsewhere in the District. And you are right: a lot of Americans are 'detached' from government / political affairs. Still, when I talk to people who do not listen, watch, or read the news, they often seem detached from reality to some degree.

I want to know what is going on in the world. The quality of life of many Americans has, or will be, conditioned by decisions that are made in Washington--not just taxes and elections.

I'll have to chew on Debord's Society of the Spectacle for a while.

Don't forget that the concept of "tolerance" is also an oppressive Western invention, which somehow doesn't matter when they are pushing it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Regarding tolerance, I’ve always found this to be a philosophical landmine:

Tolerance of intolerance results in intolerance. Ergo, those who favor tolerance must be intolerant of (i.e., oppress) intolerance if tolerance is to be preserved.

One can scoff at this affirmation as a bundle of equivocations and contradictions. And yet I still find it conveys a solid truth in day-to-day life. A democracy’s tolerance for fascism results in fascism at expense of all democratic tendencies. So called pacifists’ tolerance for warmongers results in war-mongering and war, this at expense of peaceful tendencies and the peace which the latter sustain. Or, is the person who abhors murder a hypocrite for refusing to tolerate the murder of an innocent and thereby killing/murdering the murderer … or should such a person allow the murder of the innocent to occur by not themselves murdering the murderer? Less drastically, the tolerant parent ends up with intolerant children if the parent is tolerant of their children’s intolerance. And so forth. To my mind, it’s a complex philosophical issue that can have widespread applications.

One can make of this what they will in terms of left vs. right arguments. But yes, this conundrum only affects those who like tolerance and dislike bigotry. Those who admit to being intolerant or else desire for bigotry (in their own favor of course) don’t have to address this paradox: How can one preserve tolerance in the absence of intolerance for intolerance?

All the same, civility, and a democratic civilization in general, is hard to come by in the absence of tolerance for other tolerant people who happen to be different than oneself.

I'm often struck by how the Right has a radical free market arm which doesn't seem to care what gets destroyed or sold in the process, and a somewhat separate conservative tradition, which seeks to venerate certain expressions of culture and tradition. — Tom Storm

Do note that technically conservatism can have various leanings as it refers to preserving traditional institutions, customs, and values. Now those values and institutions don't have to be right-wing.

Hence in curious way in the post-Soviet Russia the "left" and "right" wings of politics were changed from our point of the view the other way around with "leftists" being right wing and "the right" being the left. But it makes sense when you think that those wanting to preserve the "traditional institutions, customs, and values" were communists yearning back to the days of the Soviet Union!

It is the left that has made culture and identity into an issue. It can be traced to Antonio Gramsci, up through the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and beyond. — Merkwurdichliebe

Actually this is a narrative that the right wing engaged in the Culture Wars promotes. Because "the Left" has no underlying master plan, no agents of the Frankfurt School that have taken their time to spread like cancer into the academia and then over into business sector. Remember that here you do have really leftist people who do know their Marx so one should listen to them.

Perhaps it's simple easier to sell the idea that some cabal of leftist thinkers thought that after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism that the way into power would be through culture and education. Far more difficult would it be to tell that American institutions, both in education and in business, are so scared shitless about being called racist that they make overtures from adapting ideologies to simply parroting nonsense close to the left. All in the name of keeping good public relations.

I think a lot more realistic would be to assume that the left simply takes the issues that the next new generation of leftists take to heart and simply and feed them the older leftist thought. This is possible because of the political amnesia and ignorance of history. Leftist ideas and policies that have failed in the past suddenly appear to be new and fresh! And why not? People in their 30's or younger have not lived when there was a Soviet Union, when Marxism-Leninism was the official religion of the true staunch leftist. The left simply waits for the next batch of angry youth to take the streets, be they protesting the WTO, police brutality or whatever woke matter there is.

Thanks for the clarification, Schop. My puzzlement goes on, however, partly because I don't recognize the leftists I know, here in the north of England, in the 'leftists' who are being generalized over in this thread.

I'm a Green, and the big 'leftist' issue for me is facing up to global warming, and how we transition to a sustainable economy.

Once you're into that as a major area of policy other problems follow, for an anti-authoritarian leftist of my kind: how to rein in financial capital, which monetizes everything and obscures human and environmental value; how income and wealth is distributed, given existing inequalities and the likelihood that worldwide 'growth' is probably near its end (as opposed to 'development', which is always a must); how people are democratically involved in the whole process.

Europe is largely composed of social democracies, which are moving 'right'wards in some respects at the moment, but from a strong consensual basis, with welfare states, socialised medicine and relatively high taxes, owing little to Marx, especially the Leninist flavour. There are issues on which there is obviously a gulf between 'us' and the USA, the most obvious of which is abortion: apart from Poland and Hungary (and pockets of countries like Northern Ireland in the UK), abortion rights are widely accepted in Europe, and the USA's insistence for many decades on tying international aid to reproductive rights has been a source of disagreement about what 'Western civilization' means.

So these are the leftie issues for me, which no-one in this thread has mentioned.

This word 'woke' has caught on only in quite rightwing circles over here, though maybe that'll change. It seems a rather vague insult, like 'reactionary' used to be among liberal lefties (or indeed 'Fascist', which in my youth was a horrible slur). In the UK for instance the rightwing government have trumpeted freedom of speech, but in the last few weeks have been retreatiing to obvious things like 'Freedom of speech has its limits'; alas the first university free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed, appointed by the Tories, is known for believing that free speech includes being able to speak up for Palestinians. (Also trans rights has been less of a left/right issue here, and so for example I'm a supporter of Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who has been no-platformed for her critique of transgender rights)

My last point: is 'race' a mostly unspoken part of this debate? Bill Maher in the opening monologue said 'White' startlingly often to my ear. Brits don't do that so much any more. In the UK of course the staunchest defenders of Empire, and opponents of immigration by black and brown people, have in the last decade been Conservative black and brown ministers of state, so our debate over here has a different feel, but we too have some sort of reckoning to make with slavery and Empire. But perhaps that is an example of how woke I am, that I think such a reckoning is needed!

Tolerance of intolerance results in intolerance. Ergo, those who favor tolerance must be intolerant of (i.e., oppress) intolerance if tolerance is to be preserved. — javra

I love that paradox. It reminds me of the paradox of freedom, which may result in a free person restricting of the freedom of others, in which case, the freedom of restricting the freedom of others must be restricted. It seems that the more freedom is permitted, the more restrictions become necessary.

And so forth. To my mind, it’s a complex philosophical issue that can have widespread applications.

One can make of this what they will in terms of left vs. right arguments. But yes, this conundrum only affects those who like tolerance and dislike bigotry. Those who admit to being intolerant or else desire for bigotry (in their own favor of course) don’t have to address this paradox: How can one preserve tolerance in the absence of intolerance for intolerance?

All the same, civility, and a democratic civilization in general, is hard to come by in the absence of tolerance for other tolerant people who happen to be different than oneself. — javra

my point was in line with @schopenhauer1, "that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment." So that when voices from the Left claim that all Western civilization is a monolithic structure of oppression, then turn and begin advocating for the "tolerance" of oppressed minority groups (relying on a uniquely Western ethic), they highlight their contradiction.

The voices on the left who are constantly screaming about tolerance do not really care about tolerance. For them, it is an effective a political weapon because it is impossible to pin down due to its paradoxical nature (as you have shown). To win the debate, they will have no trouble calling your tolerance as intolerance, and their intolerance as tolerance, or when it suits them, calling tolerance as tolerance and intolerance as intolerance.

Perhaps it's simple easier to sell the idea that some cabal of leftist thinkers thought that after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism that the way into power would be through culture and education. Far more difficult would it be to tell that American institutions, both in education and in business, are so scared shitless about being called racist that they make overtures from adapting ideologies to simply parroting nonsense close to the left. All in the name of keeping good public relations. — ssu

Good point. This makes me wonder. If the latter is the actual case, and the former not, how is it that they come to be fearful of being called racist? From where does that notion of being called racist come from? Did the ceo's and directors of the myriad independent institutions and businesses all conveniently wake up one day and say to themselves: "I hope noboby thinks my company is racist."? And what is the source of those "adapting ideologies" or "parroting nonsense" that are relevant enough to integrate into a company's mission statement, and why would a company feel beholden to that source?

It appears much more orchestrated than coincidental.

I think a lot more realistic would be to assume that the left simply takes the issues that the next new generation of leftists take to heart and simply and feed them the older leftist thought. This is possible because of the political amnesia and ignorance of history. Leftist ideas and policies that have failed in the past suddenly appear to be new and fresh! And why not? People in their 30's or younger have not lived when there was a Soviet Union, when Marxism-Leninism was the official religion of the true staunch leftist. The left simply waits for the next batch of angry youth to take the streets, be they protesting the WTO, police brutality or whatever woke matter there is. — ssu

I have to agree. There is a strong line of leftist ideology, usually marxian thought, that has been developed over the past century that lays out the blueprint for what is to be Leftist activism. It is very explicit about actively and practically applying its theory in society. It has catalogued the problems, the goals, and the solutions, and has successfully fed it through the relevant institutions and media. Now we can see how all activists on the Left are echoing a uniform message (usually in ignorance of the underlying scholarship). There is no mistaking the similarity of content, only that one operates in offices, the other on the streets.

Again, hard to call it a coincidence, especially nowadays with everything we know about mass manipulaion and propaganda.

My puzzlement goes on, however, partly because I don't recognize the leftists I know, here in the north of England, in the 'leftists' who are being generalized over in this thread.

I'm a Green, and the big 'leftist' issue for me is facing up to global warming, and how we transition to a sustainable economy.

Once you're into that as a major area of policy other problems follow, for an anti-authoritarian leftist of my kind: how to rein in financial capital, which monetizes everything and obscures human and environmental value; how income and wealth is distributed, given existing inequalities and the likelihood that worldwide 'growth' is probably near its end (as opposed to 'development', which is always a must); how people are democratically involved in the whole process.

Europe is largely composed of social democracies, which are moving 'right'wards in some respects at the moment, but from a strong consensual basis, with welfare states, socialised medicine and relatively high taxes, owing little to Marx, especially the Leninist flavour. There are issues on which there is obviously a gulf between 'us' and the USA, the most obvious of which is abortion: apart from Poland and Hungary (and pockets of countries like Northern Ireland in the UK), abortion rights are widely accepted in Europe, and the USA's insistence for many decades on tying international aid to reproductive rights has been a source of disagreement about what 'Western civilization' means.

So these are the leftie issues for me, which no-one in this thread has mentioned.

This word 'woke' has caught on only in quite rightwing circles over here, though maybe that'll change. It seems a rather vague insult, like 'reactionary' used to be among liberal lefties (or indeed 'Fascist', which in my youth was a horrible slur). In the UK for instance the rightwing government have trumpeted freedom of speech, but in the last few weeks have been retreatiing to obvious things like 'Freedom of speech has its limits'; alas the first university free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed, appointed by the Tories, is known for believing that free speech includes being able to speak up for Palestinians. (Also trans rights has been less of a left/right issue here, and so for example I'm a supporter of Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who has been no-platformed for her critique of transgender rights)

My last point: is 'race' a mostly unspoken part of this debate? Bill Maher in the opening monologue said 'White' startlingly often to my ear. Brits don't do that so much any more. In the UK of course the staunchest defenders of Empire, and opponents of immigration by black and brown people, have in the last decade been Conservative black and brown ministers of state, so our debate over here has a different feel, but we too have some sort of reckoning to make with slavery and Empire. But perhaps that is an example of how woke I am, that I think such a reckoning is needed! — mcdoodle

As far as your last question, Maher is uniquely politically "incorrect". He says stuff that is often "off the cuff". Where in polite society, we would never mix "white" with simply "European-descended culturally significant figures", well, he just did there. You must remember, he had a show called "Politically Incorrect". And ironically (though predictably), after 9-11, he made a remark about US policy that got him kicked off ABC (syndicated TV). He reformulated to be on a premium cable show, “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, so is able to have a "freer" platform to talk about controversial ideas. And I must say, the ideas that are debated on that show are infinitely more interesting than soundbites on cable tv shows (including everything from BBC, CNN, whatever).

But perhaps @BC can elucidate more on his type of humor? I would say his brand of incorrectness is just as "offputting" in most polite society, which kind of makes him standout as an outlier. But maybe BC has a different take. He certainly, milks the idea of "old school liberal" and "woke liberal" for all he can to show a division in interests of the left. He often takes the Democrats to task for indulging in "woke liberal" talk to appease a progressive wing, which alienates "meat and potato" folk in the Midwest US, who then find refuge in Trump, who for whatever possible reason, they find more sane.

@BC

woke liberal — schopenhauer1

That term term is misleading. Woke is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, rather it is the activist branch of leftist ideology. It is as puritanical as right wing conservativism. It is certainly antagonistic towards free speech. And what it passes off as liberal progressivism is actually deconstructionist in nature. Progressivism implies a goal to improve on what is the case, pretty straightforward. However, the "woke" leftist views everything that is the case as a structure of oppression that must be obliterated, hence the woke version of progress is not to build and improve, but to tear down and destroy. Theoretically, it is a Leninist tactic ("the worse it is, the better") because it gives them more opportunity to highlight the failures of the oppressive state and push their illiberal agenda.