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
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Industrial capital as the dominant form of capital has been replaced by finance capital, with the industrial capitalists increasingly reliant on capital provided by monopolistic financial institutions.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
which does not help describe who you’re talking about or what the problem is. — kudos
(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
But doing this makes your argument about cultural power as opposed to knowledge or wisdom, and it is thus not really philosophy. — kudos
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 mean, after all, who does not believe in collectivism and egalitarianism? — 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.
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 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
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
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 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
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 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 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.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. — ssu
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
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
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
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
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
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
Haven't you seen similar villain narratives, where a social group hints that it wants your evil to legitimate their good? — kudos
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
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
"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
They felt plenty of guilt, but it wasn't for being colonizers. — BC
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
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
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
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.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
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.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
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
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
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
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
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
woke liberal — schopenhauer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.