Everything collapses, yes. But not everything collapses quite so badly as it does in Bolshevik Revolutions.

I don't feel like one really needs an answer to this question, because I'm not committed to the preservation of a single society in the abstract, or even of humanity as a whole – we're all gong to die too, of course, and humanity itself isn't something to be eternally enshrined, but will pass away. What is important is to disavow atrocity when it's in front of you, and go step by step. The wheel turns. This is, incidentally, something that I think rationalist philosophies generally are less capable of understanding.

Yes, I think it comes down to an individual stance. And I think being an adult is probably finding a way to balance the two tendencies and knowing which tendency to indulge when. And this sounds like your initial defense of conservatives - empirically reacting to problems as they arise. But then, I guess there's a point, where you can't really decide one way or another - the situation doesn't tell you - and you still have to act.

Relevant to the race question and delusions of the approach of the left.

survive the encounter - i know it has a very specific meaning here - but survive the encounter sounds about right.

I suppose on the points he makes I'd just say that my experience is different with the left. I'd say that Killer Mike is partially correct about leftists, depending on the leftist group. It's important to not get lost in rhetorical dreams in turning political beliefs into action. And there are people who won't necessarily draw out the conclusions of the words they are saying.

Of course you've said that your beliefs about the left are confirmed by experience too, and I'm more than willing to concede that experience is far from all encompassing or representative.

But when he listed those skills -- I was like, well, yes! (and it's actually very very hard to organize politically along those skills)


However, I tend to think of race, and the politics of race, as a different issue from left/right too. Leftists care about race, for sure, but I'd say it's a bit odd to frame the issues of race as strictly leftist issues. There's the dialogue of race within leftist circles, there's a dialogue of race within other circles, and there's a dialogue on race within different racial groups and within their own racial groups. The biggest lack of dialogue on race, by my lights, is actually between groups.

There are both liberal and conservative political proposals and beliefs about race, and at the end of the day black people organize regardless of party or political ideology in order to obtain power and pursue self-interest. I don't mean that in a negative way -- I tend to think that this is what politics not only is about but should be about (not always, but tend to). This is only to say that the politics of race, as I view them, are not strictly leftist, though race is certainly a part of leftist concerns in general (however that happens to manifest in a particular setting or group).

The skills like hunting, etc. could be metaphorically recast as any sort of independence or knowhow for survival apart from the system you are raving for dismantling. I.e., you want something overthrown because it displeases you, but you are ignorant of how it actually functions or why, and the way in which your survival is bound up in it.

Just restricting myself to the characterization of leftism, then: Even metaphorically -- this is what I mean by I think our experiences are just different. I can say I have seen what you describe. I can say I've participated in it, and will probably do so again.

But, in my experience, there's more than that, too.

Let's take capitalism. Do communists dream big dreams? Yes. Why not, after all? But do they recognize them as dreams? Well, depends on the communist. And, after all, an American communist is of course trained to live within a capitalist society, they just believe that communism -- whatever that happens to be -- is better than capitalism.

But how could that be unless they had some notion of how it functions and why? And wouldn't a self-critical communist also come to realize, at some point, they are very much part and parcel to the system of capitalism and they don't know how to survive in a communist system?

On that latter point, especially -- I mean, in my experience, leftists are poignantly aware of that fact.

Hence why I agree with Mike -- he's bringing his analysis of society back to the level of survival, which is in fact the sorts of things you would have to think about in any society. It doesn't have to be hunting, as you note, but just know-how to live in that society. And sometimes the better choice in the moment is to have "more lawyers" and fewer "revolutionaries", just to keep with the communist drift. (that wouldn't mean they are political revolutionaries if they are lawyers -- but they may still harbor communist sentiments, at least).


But, I'm willing to say that these are merely what I've seen, and isn't necessarily representative of the left. But I see leftists in not just idealist terms, but much more pragmatic and earthly terms too, just going off of what I have experienced.

Leftism is in principle committed to deep reality denial, in my view, and generally demoralizes people by telling them to revel in being weak, ugly, victimized, self-abasing, and trapped in victimhood. It's a philosophy of resentment and isn't compatible with self-respect or maturity. — The Great Whatever

It seems to me that Kurt Vonnegut wrote a story satirizing this. (OK, here I did a Google: it was "Harrison Bergeron", published in a sci fi magazine in 1961.) Vonnegut wrote...

In the year 2081, amendments to the Constitution dictate that all Americans are fully equal and not allowed to be smarter, better-looking, or more physically able than anyone else. The Handicapper General's agents enforce the equality laws, forcing citizens to wear "handicaps": masks for those who are too beautiful, radios inside the ears of intelligent people, and heavy weights for the strong or athletic. — Vonnegut

There is a sub-culture of resentment out there, no doubt--self-centered people whining and nattering about the various impositions they have to suffer under.

You are quite right that this posture is not compatible with self-respect or maturity.

Is this leftist? I suppose it is, if you call the reformers who wrote the Americans with Disabilities Act leftists. By extension, I suppose, you could arrive at the view that the whole business of being handicapped, deficient, victimized as a way of life is "leftist". "Leftist" serves you as a bucket into which you are tossing a lot of unpleasant stuff. I'd prefer you get a different bucket to collect all this stuff in, because my "leftist" bucket has different stuff and it gets confusing to me as to which garbage we are talking about.

We real leftists do complain a lot, that is true, but mostly it's about the deep institutions of the economy and politics.

How would a conservative end slavery, if not with the death of hundreds of thousands of people? Well, I'm not a miracle-worker, but here is a suggestion: buy out the slave owners' trade and release the slaves. It'd be a lot less expensive than a war, too. Then destroy the infrastructure that makes holding slaves economically viable, and once the whole institution has atrophied, sneak legislation in that outlaws it. — The Great Whatever

Like we could end the world drug trade by buying out cannabis, opium, and cocaine farmers, and closing down all the factories that make the precursors to methamphetamine? Supposing that this could be done, we can't overlook the fact that there is a demand market that pulls these substances in. How does a conservative solve that side of the problem?

Slavery couldn't be 'bought out' like one railroad could buy out a competitor and thereby get rid of it because...

The value of slaves was the largest asset in the pre-civil war country. There wasn't enough cash in the US to carry out such a maneuver.

The production of a high volume of raw cotton at a low price depended on slavery (at the time, in the US south).

The economics of slave production were deeply entangled in England's textile industry, and northern banking, shipping, and wholesale interests.

Slave states (the Confederacy) were not only pro-slave, they were also against centralized government, any kind of governmental regulation, industrialism, and social mobility. (For instance, southern states didn't want to cooperate with each other even on railroads; each state built short, non-connecting lines.)

The Civil War was not just about ending slavery; it was also about denying states the prerogative of leaving the union (California secessionists, take note).

War is preferable to a financial solution IF you have a lot of disposable men (the North had more than the South), and if war will be profitable to manufacturers, bankers, financiers, etc. (it was very profitable).

The North intended to pursue a Hamiltonian future of strong central government, large infrastructure investment, industrialism, and social development. The South liked it's Jeffersonian agrarian, conservative values, ideas about chivalry, personal honor, personal independence, and so on. The secessionists departure was a watershed, make-or-break moment.

Cf. Thorongil's comments on the professor who would prefer Islamic theocracy to living in America: I take it he's telling the truth about that, anyway! — The Great Whatever

I am, I assure you. My fellow grad students who took the class can confirm it, as it's a running joke between us.

I doubt the professor reads this forum, so I can give a bit more detail. We were talking about one of the caliphates one day in relation to Foucault. According to Foucault, power in liberal democracies is highly diffuse and invisible, meaning that it infects all aspects of life without one necessarily realizing it, instead of being concentrated at the top or seen in the form of visible institutions. This makes the people in such societies more oppressed, dominated, surveilled, and punished than in other societies. So the professor concluded, based on this line of reasoning, and with a smile at first, that he would prefer to live in said caliphate than in modern day America. When pressed, he doubled down on his assertion.

He needs to read more British dystopian novels. It's technology he's complaining about, not liberal democracy.

I don't feel particularly oppressed despite all the diffusions of power. I can go wherever I want (money permitting), buy whatever I want, say what I want, organize protests, start a business, associate with whom I want, report my own news, run for office, move where I want, etc.

Is there a little too much surveillance and commercialism? Yeah, but it seems mostly aimed at creating more effective ads than denying me any rights. Would I feel more free in an Amish community? I doubt it. Have there been plenty of other societies which were less free? Absolutely. Could the political situation be reformed to make our votes count more? Most likely. But is it better than most political situations in the history of the world? Most likely.

Less, I would say.

I don't feel particularly oppressed — Marchesk

Hummmmmmmmm.

I can go wherever I want (money permitting) — Marchesk

Which means you can't go wherever you want...

buy whatever I want, — Marchesk

Money permitting...

say what I want — Marchesk

Holler 'fire!' in a crowded space and see then if you can indeed say whatever you please.

organize protests, — Marchesk

If they're peaceful.

start a business — Marchesk

I do love me some lemonade.

associate with whom I want — Marchesk

Terrorists wouldn't like you very much.

report my own news — Marchesk

Unless you slander.

run for office — Marchesk

But win? Hmm.

move where I want — Marchesk

A big fat nope to bodily movement. If I tried to "freely move" across some farmer's land around here I'd be shot, tits up dead.

Well I think we all agree the remarks of Thorongil's professor are pretty dumb, and, if rendered accurately in the anecdote, suggest a pretty facile reading. But it's not like there's nothing in Foucault that lends itself to this kind of thinking. Are you familiar with F's take on on the Iranian Revolution?

To me, the phrase "Islamic government" seemed to point to two orders of things.

"A utopia," some told me without any pejorative implication. "An ideal," most of them said to me. At any rate, it is something very old and also very far into the future, a notion of coming back to what Islam was at the time of the Prophet, but also of advancing toward a luminous and distant point where it would be possible to renew fidelity rather than maintain obedience. In pursuit of this ideal, the distrust of legalism seemed to me to be essential, along with a faith in the creativity of Islam.

A religious authority explained to me that it would require long work by civil and religious experts, scholars, and believers in order to shed light on all the problems to which the Quran never claimed to give a precise response. But one can find some general directions here: Islam values work; no one can be deprived of the fruits of his labor; what must belong to all (water, the subsoil) shall not be appropriated by anyone. With respect to liberties, they will be respected to the extent that their exercise will not harm others; minorities will be protected and free to live as they please on the condition that they do not injure the majority; between men and women there will not be inequality with respect to rights, but difference, since there is a natural difference. With respect to politics, decisions should be made by the majority, the leaders should be responsible to the people, and each person, as it is laid out in the Quran, should be able to stand up and hold accountable he who governs.

It is often said that the definitions of an Islamic government are imprecise. On the contrary, they seemed to me to have a familiar but, I must say, not too reassuring clarity. "These are basic formulas for democracy, whether bourgeois or revolutionary," I said. "Since the eighteenth century now, we have not ceased to repeat them, and you know where they have led." But I immediately received the following reply: "The Quran had enunciated them way before your philosophers, and if the Christian and industrialized West lost their meaning, Islam will know how to preserve their value and their efficacy."

When Iranians speak of Islamic government; when, under the threat of bullets, they transform it into a slogan of the streets; when they reject in its name, perhaps at the risk of a bloodbath, deals arranged by parties and politicians, they have other things on their minds than these formulas from everywhere and nowhere. They also have other things in their hearts. I believe that they are thinking about a reality that is very near to them, since they themselves are its active agents.

It is first and foremost about a movement that aims to give a permanent role in political life to the traditional structures of Islamic society. An Islamic government is what will allow the continuing activity of the thousands of political centers that have been spawned in mosques and religious communities in order to resist the shah's regime. I was given an example. Ten years ago, an earthquake hit Ferdows. The entire city had to be reconstructed, but since the plan that had been selected was not to the satisfaction of most of the peasants and the small artisans, they seceded. Under the guidance of a religious leader, they went on to found their city a little further away. They had collected funds in the entire region. They had collectively chosen places to settle, arranged a water supply, and organized cooperatives. They had called their city Islamiyeh. The earthquake had been an opportunity to use religious structures not only as centers of resistance, but also as sources for political creation. This is what one dreams about [songe] when one speaks of Islamic government....

....At the dawn of history, Persia invented the state and conferred its models on Islam. Its administrators staffed the caliphate. But from this same Islam, it derived a religion that gave to its people infinite resources to resist state power. In this will for an "Islamic government," should one see a reconciliation, a contradiction, or the threshold of something new?

The other question concerns this little corner of the earth whose land, both above and below the surface, has strategic importance at a global level. For the people who inhabit this land, what is the point of searching, even at the cost of their own lives, for this thing whose possibility we have forgotten since the Renaissance and the great crisis of Christianity, a political spirituality. I can already hear the French laughing, but I know that they are wrong. — Foucault

- excerpts from What are the Iranians Dreaming About? - 1978

America lacks spirituality in its politics, yeah. I think the Amish and Mormons have something like this, though some would argue that they (mostly the Mormons) have it in a repulsive way. Maybe in some respects, but I think there's an underlying jealousy in that criticism. No one, I take it, is afraid of Amish totalitarianism – or is that naive?

The closest thing to spirituality mainstream America has is Game of Thrones, which is like, okay, man can't live on Mountain Dew alone.

Personally, I would not elect to live in any sort of Islamic state, and would consider fleeing if the Muslim population got too large. I just think it's not safe to be a non-Muslim anywhere, with a Muslim majority, ever.

They would not end it at all. Such a conservative free their slaves and... everyone else's would keep doing what tradition and power dictated.

Now there are many alternatives than a "magic" and immediate cure to slavery, to getting up and saying: "It's wrong. Cast it out with violence tomorrow," but any of the alternatives end in making a disruptive ethical proclamation in public.

If I just talk about freeing my slave with my close friends, they're going to ask why I did it, and if I answer honestly and without burying my own ethical concerns, I will raise the problem with the given tradition. Now, if they do the same as me, our limited ideas will grow into a movement. We will become public and the established tradition will react.

We'll either have repression of our idea or, if we have a will and power to survive, war. Unless, we've built up a culture which accepts changes without jumping to war to defend tradition, culture or an idea.

Your reading of the Left is, well, ignorant. The idea it views images as a solution is an illusion created by only looking at wide-eyed advocates. For most of the Left, the question of oppression is descriptive, not utopian. We walk in the hall of mirrors which show us all the horrors. From our ivory towers, we watch and see all the different instances of oppression. And what use is it to avoiding them? Frequently none. A lot of the time we don't even pose a solution to and oppression we identify, but them I don't think that was really ever the point. Many of us know there isn't one, at least within the time frame people usually think in. Our project is a knowledge, for a limited impact on some oppressions.

What "progressivism" really does is disrupt our image of survival. Under it, our survival is no longer sacred. We destroy our myths that we, or our way of life, must always continue. It doesn't mean we must die, but it does mean we are not above death. The next generation may live utterly differently to how we do. There may even be no next generation at all. It's not really "nihilistic" or "tabla rasa" at all. What it cuts downs is the idea we are made by something other than ourselves (including our instincts and traditions), so we have no guarantee of survival. We may always by wiped out. The image of our own necessity is lost.

Are you saying that Foucault wouldn't accept the Iranian revolution while other, less canny thinkers would? Or that Foucault qua analyst of power wouldn't accept the revolution that Foucault qua wishful thinker would, if only briefly?

Descriptively, it's right. In the secular liberal democracy, who is more "oppressed" (here this means "has their values, ideas rejected and organisation of power rejected" ) then the spiritual theocrat who wants religion to be an integral part of politics and everyone's lives? Just about no-one.

Power is also diffuse (many different values respected, rather than everyone having to follow God) and "hidden" in a sense (everyone thinks even else is free to be the individual who they are-- the theocrat will be insulted with: "You aren't "oppressed. You are free to practice your individual religion").

Yes, 'spiritual theocrats' are oppressed by liberal democracies if, by 'oppressed,' we mean 'not allowed to be theocrats.' That's true.

Ok, gotcha. It does seem complicated though. What allowed someone so constantly on guard and critical to let his guard down, to think so wishfully? I don't think it can be chalked up entirely as a mere flight of fancy.

I doubt that he has.

Indeed, I think it's the critical mind that saw him make the argument. A description of secular democracy's "oppression" of a society where power is defined by religious belief, and how that might make the Iranian Revolution attractive to some, even if it did offer a warped image of those traditions and values. He's not thinking wishfully. He's describing relations and motivations of power.

I disagree - his analysis clearly exceeds the bounds of a neutral analysis of motivation.

Yeah, I am, that's why I'd take a comment such as the professor's as trolling.

That's an angle I hadn't considered, and it does make sense.

@Thorongil Is it possible he was trolling?

I'm talking about a government buyout of slaves, like what happened in England. I know I'm giving England a lot of cred lately.

For sure, the point is to describe what is lost for a point of view "oppressed" with secular liberal democracies. If he were "neutral" (whatever that supposed to mean), he would be hiding what was lost. He would not be honest about our rejection of the value and power structure in question. We would not understand that, in our values and power structure, we were putting down another and their values.

In the sense of power, the Iranian Revolution is similar to any other movement for change within our history. Those who's values and beliefs aren't respected within the power structure (theocracy in this case), imagine a world in which they are (often the "utopia" ) and rise up to change it.

The "oppressive" power structures in question is replaced by one that respects the values or beliefs in question, at least in some way (revelations differ in their degree of success).

This is all descriptive though. In saying this, he not making the argument the Iranian revolution is ethical, just that it driven by developing a society which respects a value or belief rather than repressing it.

No. I've interacted with him enough to know he's sincere.

What's the point of your reply? Any society consisting of more than one individual is going to entail limitations on absolute freedom. If one wants to be absolutely free, they can opt to live in the deep wilderness. Of course you lose the advantages of being in society, and thus the ability to do a great many things you can't on your own.

It looks like that essay is focused on the motivations behind the creation of an Islamic state... which can be beautiful. No more beautiful than the vision behind liberal democracy, though. In both cases the reality is screwed up.

I know... but that's not going to happen if everyone else behaves if they ought to own slaves. Even if you start privately and small, if it going to have an effect, it will become a movement that grows a public profile, one which is arguing people ought to give-up their slaves.

No doubt a buy-out would offer a way to avoid conflict in some circumstances, but would it have worked in the US? I mean would the government had the funds to buy out the many slaves? What happens when people say no to the buyout (and likely they would, given the social and economic place of slaves in the US)? And if the buyout isn't mandated, what does one do when the tradition of slavery continue to be passed down? Given the context of the US at the time, we end-up with a situation where any method of effective change is going to lock horns with the deeply embedded tradition. Does it mean war? Not necessary (that would be up to how people handle challenge to tradition), but the change will not occur with the presence of behaviour that slavery is a problem.