I think it's foolish to have synchronic political labels for oneself, or to adopt a narrow synchronic political identity ("I am a socialist", "I am an anarchist", "I am a social democrat", "I am a liberal", and so on). I know almost everyone takes this for granted, but the vast majority of people are fools. There are, in fact, many reasons why it is a bad idea to adopt a narrow synchronic political identity (with the caveat that this argument assumes (rightly) that the majority of the population will maintain narrow synchronic political identities, and the caveat that this argument is really only addressed to broadly left-wing people like me (being 'left-wing' is not a narrow synchronic political identity)).
Persuasion:
If one is trying to convince a right-wing person that they have mistaken beliefs, one is going to have far more success if one identifies oneself as a centrist who merely wants to chip away at the edges ("You're so right about the problem of welfare dependency, but I'm just not sure that's the right way of going about fixing it"/"Yes, Islamic extremism is a big problem and a lot of Islamic immigrants have regressive social views that are incompatible with liberal democracy, but I think some of the anti-Islamic rhetoric goes too far and might actually help fuel terrorism"). If one wants to convince a self-professed "socialist" that they have mistaken beliefs, one is going to have far more success if one identifies oneself as a comrade, a fellow socialist who simply takes a slightly different position on certain matters ("I know, I am also fucking disgusted by the hold the Neoliberal establishment has on politics - I am appalled at the inequality in America, the corrosion of democracy, inaction on climate change, the toll of US imperialism abroad.. But I still don't think it's a good idea to preach "revolution". A better world requires a hell of a fucking lot of work and highly broad-based co-operation."). And so on. Strategy is important. Diplomacy is key. It is, of course, extremely hard to repress one's passion, zeal, indignation, and despair at injustice, and there are obviously many circumstances in which it is not right to do so (making people furious, zealous and indignant is crucial for getting them to actually do things, like joining protests, which is something that Popper ignores and Pinker ignores (and most liberal and all right-wing intellectuals ignore)). But in all circumstances where you do really think it might be both possible and desirable to persuade someone - or at least get them to budge a bit on some of their hard-line stances - it is obviously desirable to drop as many ideological trappings and identity signals as possible.
Political labels always have poisonous connotations to some that one cannot control:This is related to the above point. If you call yourself a socialist, you will immediately alienate and repel vast numbers of people. It doesn't matter if you completely reject Stalinist totalitarianism - it doesn't even matter if you completely, unequivocally, passionately reject state socialism and Stalinist or Maoist central planning (perhaps you just use socialism to mean "social democracy" or you're a "libertarian socialist" who has extremely high (unjustified) hopes for humanity) - because the vast majority of people will not give you the opportunity to explain yourself. If you call yourself an anarchist, you will immediately be regarded as literally a complete idiot by 95% of the population, because you will associate yourself with low-IQ teenagers who put graffiti on walls. If you call yourself a conservative, the reaction among roughly half of the population will be disdain or hostility.
Circumstances in the World Change:
This is by far the most important point. I have come to the conclusion that, in every time and place, there are always issues on which anti-establishment activism is admirable and right. Right now, I think it is morally laudable and makes perfect sense to be a climate-change activist. I think it is morally laudable and makes perfect sense to be a Greens party member in the US who does lots of door-knocking and such (although I think it is better that even Greens party members vote for H. Clinton in swing states). I think that, when it was still clearly possible that Corbyn's popularity could be revived, it was morally laudable and made perfect sense to join Momentum. I think it was morally laudable and made perfect sense to be part of Occupy Wall St. I think that in the sixties, it was morally laudable and made perfect sense to assist the Civil Rights movement, and to join resistance to the war in Vietnam, and to become a feminist activist. I think that Russell and Einstein's anti-nuclear activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Bertrand Russell's conscientious objection was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Gandhi's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Mary Wollstonecraft's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Thomas Paine's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Martin Luther's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that St Francis of Assisi's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. I think that Jesus Christ's activism was morally laudable and made perfect sense. An anarchist might say that makes me an anarchist. A revolutionary socialist might say that makes me a revolutionary socialist. But I will only ever call myself an anarchist if I encounter a reasonable person who herself identifies as an anarchist, and I am definitely not a revolutionary socialist, because I don't believe in revolution (well, I mean, I think the Spanish Revolution might have been justified, but the situation in Catalonia at that time, and the anarcho-syndicalist movements that existed in that time and place, has no other 20th Century parallel, so far as I'm aware).
Here's the thing: whether or not one is an activist, one must also spend a lot of one's time living and talking and arguing as anything but an activist. When it comes to defeating Trump, I think that people like me might often be justified in literally pretending to be Neoliberals (or at least more Neoliberal than we actually are), especially if we want to persuade Trump voters to vote for Clinton (because Trump is seen by many Trump voters as a lesser evil, just as the Left sees Clinton as a lesser evil). When it came to Brexit, I am still agnostic about whether being a Lexiter (like Steve Keen or Michael Hudson) or a reluctant Remainer (like Yanis Varoufakis) was the better strategic move - but either way, both involved significant and necessary ideological compromises. Whilst I certainly agree with the sentiment of Einstein's famous line that "nationalism is the measles of mankind", I think that it may be necessary to tap into nationalist sentiment in order to make social democracy appealing and move people away from right-wing nationalist parties towards left-wing economic-nationalist parties. I think that Greens parties all over the world should try to limit their infection by cosmopolitan Identity Politics as much as possible (without alienating too many of their cosmopolitan constituents or becoming callous towards important issues of race and sex), and spend as much time as possible simply talking about the devastation of Neoliberal economics and their alternative Post-Keynesian vision. I think that we have to actually stop mass immigration, and that anti-Neoliberal leftists should accept that multiculturalism does corrode social capital and cohesion, and talk about it when in forums with the target audience (in a maximally sensitive, though still recognisably "honest", way).
Different times really do call for a significant readjustment of political goals. I think that, in the late 60s or early 70s, it made sense to see as a relatively short-term ideal vision an anti-imperialist world with social democracy and a growing degree of workplace democracy. But the Neoliberal assault of the intervening decades has made this a literally insane relatively short-term ideal vision (yes, one shouldn't even entertain this as an ideal vision for the relatively short-term, because ideal visions still have to be minimally plausible). Social democracy itself - deficit-spending economics, funding for public education and healthcare, private debt relief, re-regulation of the financial sector, investment in green technology - is now the relatively short-term ideal vision. This vision is not at all a likely one, just as it wasn't at all likely that the Western world was just going to keep becoming more just and free in the late 60s - but at least it's a short-term ideal vision that one can rationally strive towards without feeling oneself a totally delusional Utopian. In the early 1930s, it made little sense and was dangerous for radical leftists to still see establishment liberals as their enemies, and in the US today, as the election approaches, the same thing obtains. One must downgrade one's zeal when the occasion calls.
The fact is, civilisation is tenuous. Sometimes we ought to cling to the establishment against chaos. It is always the right time to chip away at parts of it, but only if one can manage this without creating chaos. Things are tricky. Politics requires dynamism, changeability.
To put it as pithily as I can manage: in politics, we should be Heracliteans not Parmenideans.
One finds similar arguments made here by the excellent (although definitely flawed) political philosopher, John Gray: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/john-gray-friedrich-hayek-i-knew-and-what-he-got-right-and-wrong
No comments:
Post a Comment