Book Review: “Savage Mules”

Perrin can definitely be funny, and it is probably worth my while to find a copy of the book and read it, but I can’t help but wonder if another LBO-Talk alum’s description of Dennis is accurate. There really isn’t any “Left” in America to speak of, so we’re kind of stuck with the Democratic Party with all its faults and short-comings.

What I’d like to know is, what would Perrin have us hapless Dems do? There are plenty of folks in this country (myself included) who would love a leftist electoral alternative, but have chosen to sign up with the next best thing rather than be shut out of power completely. If anyone else has a better idea, I’d love to hear it.

If anyone else has a better idea, I’d love to hear it.

Me too. But the system is so thoroughly rigged that I really don’t see one.

Also, the populace has been so brainwashed into cherishing its delusions of imperial grandeur (i.e. American “strength” and “leadership”, not to mention “making gas cheap again so we can afford to drive our SUVs” and “keeping us safe from scary brown people with bombs”) that a non-aggressive foreign policy is genuinely highly unpopular. There’s a strong positive feedback loop between the pseudo-(small d) democratic political system and the general culture, strongly reinforced by the corporate-monopoly media, that keeps it that way. I just don’t don’t see how you could even make a dent in that cycle. I seriously don’t think anything will ever do so short of total defeat and humiliation a la Germany and Japan in 1945.

Oh and I’m not an LBO alumnus. I’m still there, virtually.

a) what would Perrin have us hapless Dems do?

Build The Party, if I recall the WRP line correctly.

b) in order to shoehorn JFK into an overall narrative of bloodthirsty Dems

No need for that shoehorn – the shoe fits. The VietNam direction in 1963 was inwards and upwards.

c) the populace has been so brainwashed into cherishing its delusions of imperial grandeur … that a non-aggressive foreign policy is genuinely highly unpopular

Unpopular is not the same as wrong, of course. See a) above

It’s probably time to give up on the “false consciousness” meme

Personally I’d be grateful if people stopped using the term “meme”.

“in the current media environment (which seems to be dominated by a suffocating mix of unquestioning idolatry from the left and half-baked smears from the right)”

I haven’t read the book, but the opinion above seems to be Daniel’s, so is fair game. *What* “unquestioning idolatry from the left”? I have to say that as far as observation goes, that’s nonsense. Remember FISA? Who is supposed to be idolizing whom? I don’t know, but let’s say it’s Obama — the rest of the Democratic party is an unconvincing target for idolatry. I wasn’t disappointed in Obama about FISA, but that was because I was already pre-cynicized. The attitude of the netroots about him is, basically, that he’s going to win, and that he’s better than the alternative. That’s not idolatry.

This notion that supporters of the Democratic party are unquestioning idolators has always been what a few fringe leftists like to tell themselves in order to justify their own ineffectuality. I heard it over and over at each stage of growth of the netroots. “Oh, they’re a tiny group of middle class people who like to hear themselves talk, and who do nothing but raise money, and will never affect the Democratic Party.” “Oh, they’ll never participate in primaries to try to drive the party to the left, they’ll just ratify whatever the party does, and keep quiet.” There’s nothing difficult about contrarianism if you don’t bother to ever check it against reality, after all.

I don’t think anyone would answer ‘no’

You’d be surprised…

Build The Party, if I recall the WRP line correctly.

It seems the WRP hasn’t quite cornered the market on that particular slogan.

The attitude of the netroots about him is, basically, that he’s going to win, and that he’s better than the alternative. That’s not idolatry.

Exactly. Despite my disgust for the current state of our politics, I still identify as a Democrat because they’re the only game in town-the only alternative on offer truly is even worse. But I prefer to use my very limited supply of political $$ to help genuinely progressive Congressional candidates rather than send them to Obama- who is certainly managing more than fine without me. Trying to make the Democratic Party incrementally better is the best we can do under current conditions.

It’s possible to note that the Netroots are not very critical of the DP without the hyperbole of “idolators.” The fuss over FISA, which I respect and share, is pretty exceptional so far.

Dennis notwithstanding, it’s still possible to be optimistic. With strong majorities on the Hill and a Dem in the WH, we could look forward to more initiative. But if you never ask (complain) you never get.

I’m not trying to relieve them of responsibility for their views, if that’s where you’re going. But where I live and work I’m surrounded by typical conservatives, so I’m pretty familiar with their mentality- this is not just theoretical for me. And I can tell you for a fact from talking to them that if it were not for the right-wing noise machine echoing in their heads, a significant number of them could be moved a considerable distance. Sometimes one can even make headway regardless, but it quickly becomes apparent that the years of crapola they’ve been fed by the likes of Limbaugh and O’Reilly has a very real effect and significantly increases their resistance to re-thinking their positions.

And I can tell you for a fact from talking to them that if it were not for the right-wing noise machine echoing in their heads, a significant number of them could be moved a considerable distance. Sometimes one can even make headway regardless, but it quickly becomes apparent that the years of crapola they’ve been fed by the likes of Limbaugh and O’Reilly has a very real effect and significantly increases their resistance to re-thinking their positions.

Maybe, though speculating on what someone *would* do in the absence of some other factor doesn’t strike me as the strongest evidence, but in any case people can choose whether or not to listen/participate, etc. I note that the right-wing noise machine’s message about Iraq has been pretty consistent over the last few years, but a substantial proportion of the American public had changed their mind about it.

I think calling their loyalty “idolatry” is rather unfair to partisans everywhere, but the Netroots are essentially defined by their loyalty to the Democratic Party. That loyalty, plus a certain set of strategic and tactical commitments, is what unites them, rather than any particular ideological or policy views. The Netroots often criticize the Democrats (the latest FISA spat is far from unique). But they never seriously consider voting for or supporting anyone but the Democrats, and tend to be very suspicious of any political action that does not take place within the Democratic Party (see their frequent ire aimed at single-issue groups, especially when such groups endorse anyone who isn’t a Democrat).

But they never seriously consider voting for or supporting anyone but the Democrats

Because it’s useless at best, but more likely counterproductive. Nader brought us Bush. The real problem, as far as I can see, is that the Netroots have no real bargaining power, as opposed to e.g. the unions.

“I think calling their loyalty “idolatry” is rather unfair to partisans everywhere, but the Netroots are essentially defined by their loyalty to the Democratic Party.”

Loyalty and idolatry are two very different things, especially in the context of the “current media environment”, which was what the original sentence was about. But even “loyalty” isn’t quite the right word. It’s like talking about someone’s loyalty to mathematics. If you’re in a system that, mathematically, is set up so that only one of two large parties can win elections, then of course you have to be “loyal” to one of them if you want to participate in electoral politics.

Interesting. All these sweeping assertions of the ‘false consciousness’ of non-Leftist Americans and not a hint of insight into the possibility of a Leftist false consciousness. That’s doubtlessly one of those things that’s impossible-by-definition, like the idea that the non-Left might have some reasons for believing as it does and the right, as responsible adults, to come to those conclusions.

are still critical to preventing further movement towards the Right

But that’s not obvious at all. I’ll say: Democratic party loyalists, all they do is allowing the Democratic party to move further to the right, and that, in turn, forces the Republicans to move to the right yet again. It’s the Naderists and such who slow down the sliding. That’s because liberalism has no cornerstone, it can only exist as a compromise between radical doctrines. If there’s vacuum on the left, they’ll move to the right.

I thought Christopher Hitchens was an irresponsible loose cannon back when he was a lefty as well. I remember an article of his called “The Chorus and Cassandra,” a blanket defense of Noam Chomsky for a number of things that in my view fully deserved criticism: e.g. the disgraceful petition on behalf of Faurisson. I’m not sure Hitchens has really changed all that much.

Interesting. All these sweeping assertions of the ‘false consciousness’ of non-Leftist Americans and not a hint of insight into the possibility of a Leftist false consciousness. That’s doubtlessly one of those things that’s impossible-by-definition, like the idea that the non-Left might have some reasons for believing as it does and the right, as responsible adults, to come to those

Somebody just hasn’t been following the discussion very closely…

“Democrats are simply, like the Republicans, an arm of the American ruling class.”
As are “liberal” academics including most of the authors of this blog. Perrin apparently discusses the assaults on Lebanon and Gaza. Little discussion of the former that I know of here, and none on the latter.
On iraq, no discussion of the nationalist insurgency as such. No discussion of the similarities between Maliki and Abbas, as puppets of an occupying force. No discussion of Iran as a people; as a culture. No mention on blogs as to why the American embassy in Tehran was overrun. “Embassies are sacrosanct!” quoth Josh Marshall. The founding of Israel was “a necessary crime…” “The world owed the Jews” again Marshall. Yes, quotes. No discussion of the Dayton Plan for a force of Palestinian “Contras.” No sandniggers in on the debate at all. Joshua Marshall and Matthew Yglesias get respect, but no As’ad AbuKhalil and no Sinan Antoon. Am I supposed to take Kevin Drum seriously on Iraq? Brad DeLong seriously as an intellectual? Tyler Cowen… on morality!!?? Is Henry Farrell “on the left” just because he says so? Rationalism and self-reporting: sorry but it’s not enough.

The question of the day is still why Tony Judt is to the left of Robert Reich.
If you want to know why there’s no left wing in the country [meaning in this context any real argument for social democracy (best you can do)] then look at who your friends are.
Look in the god damn mirror.

PersonFromPorlock discovers this incredible conundrum: People think that their own opinions are right, and contrary opinions are wrong. And yet, if someone can be wrong in their opinions, the very people who think that they are right could be the ones who are wrong! Puzzling, but true.

I don’t much care whether the terms might sound patronizing of people whose consciousness you deem false

Agreed. It’s hard to see how it’s patronizing to admit that, human nature being what it is, people on the whole are susceptible to being misled a calculated, organized, and well-financed campaign to deceive them.

I suppose I have a problem with all the assumptions underlying the idea that the “left” can automatically attack the war state generated by Democrats and Republicans cause war is icky. The war state also generated the social democratic state in the U.S. – and, given the fact that about 40 percent of the GDP is spent by the Fed. government and the states, one can only deny that that is there by being utterly blind. Hell, the American government spends twice the EU average on higher education. Our Social democracy is a thing of patches – but what created it was war. And war created the civil rights movement in the South, an underdeveloped area of the country that was shoveled into modernity via being spoonfed by the Pentagon after WWII – there’s a reason for all those bases in the South – which of course meant that it became a place to invest in by the late fifties, save for the inconvenient apartheid.

Of course, the U.S. isn’t alone in this. Swedish social democracy rests on Sweden’s long history of being a super-duper weapons exporter. And the colonial wealth that allowed the British Labour party to grow, basing itself on what Engels called the “aristocratic” labour sector, did not come when Indians decided to reach into their pockets and help their liverpool brethren. The war state and social democracy have been joined at the hip since, well, since the French revolution saved itself by militarizing in the mid 1790s.

This isn’t to defend the war state – it is a plea for less dumb analysis. The very idea that the Dems are rightist capitalist imperialists, while, say, the SPD has a history full of sweetness and light (going back to those patriotic demonstrations by its socialist predecessor when the Kaiser declared war in 1914) is a pretty silly comparison. There have been a few Jaures types, but mostly, not, in any western society. The tooth fairy did not rain down all that European wealth.

Because they hold positions-we-don’t-like that are demonstrably opposed to their own interests?

Demonstrably to whom? You? That’s all part of the patronizing bit: “You’re not smart enough to understand what’s best for you.” Please.

I don’t much care whether the terms might sound patronizing of people whose consciousness you deem false

Such a statement is one of the reasons why the American left (and the Democrats as part of that) have never met a victory we couldn’t turn into a defeat.

the alternative is to insist that the broad middle of the populace collectively decided some time ago that the richest 0.1% just weren’t rich enough, and have been working diligently and in full knowledge since then to rectify matters.

See and this is exactly it: your definition of the best interests of the broad middle of the populace is entirely economic. They may believe that their best interests include things non-economic. Wouldn’t it be nice to find out, instead of just broad-brushing them with the tar of “false consciousness”?

The Faurisson affair was a long time ago and anyone in the opinion business would bet that the details are forgotten now; hence the opportunists, pedlars of the New York Times line, … old wives of both sexes, stuffed shirts, hollow men with headpieces stuffed with straw, bird-wits, lookers-under-beds, trained seals, creeping Jesuses, … policemen, leaders of white mouse factions and noted connoisseurs of bread and butter (how I honour Hugh MacDiarmid) think it’s safe to add a bit of turps to the dried-out old smear and give it another go. So, for the sake of the robust assertion of an honest point of view: this is the stuff.

Ignore Seth Edenbaum long enough and he might go away, but the questions he’s asking won’t.
But since the answers to them are fairly obvious, maybe we should just assume them as already answered, then extrapolate that on out to larger venues like the Democratic Party and American society as a whole, and be done.

The answer to the broad vague question of why there is no real functioning American left is its membership was exterminated, and the remnants of its membership after that consistently denied voice and access to democratic power.

Three different modes were employed, one during the Great Depression, another during WW2, and the third during the 1950’s. By the 60’s the left was starved skeletal and consisted mostly of naive thrill-seeking college kids. Who then got the shit beat out of them and either became radicals and went underground, or gave up and went home. Or graduated.

The astonishing thing to me is the people who accept readily that the obscenely repressive techniques that were delivered, with hands-on instruction for their use to Latin American fascists by covert American governmental agencies, and who accept that uncounted thousands of leftists in those countries were violently exterminated, that the same people who believe all that did take place somehow manage to believe it never happened here.

That nothing like that ever happened here. That the same American shadow agencies, that engineered and enabled the nightmares of El Salvador and Guatemala and Chile and Argentina and more, turned out to believe so strongly and firmly in democracy they never did anything more repressive in the US than a few National Guard policing actions, like at Kent State and Berkeley. And maybe a couple things like dropping Fred Hampton.

One wonders if the absence of a radical left in America may be due to native temperament, that we’re just too nice as a people to get all that upset about politics.

Pretending that process of extermination never happened here, couldn’t happen here, isn’t happening here, makes lengthy discussion of what to do about things almost realistic, and lot more comfortable, doesn’t it?

If I understand correctly the “false-consciousness” thing, any kind of ideology that distracts you from the class struggle is false-consciousness. Since “class struggle” is never discussed, subject of one of the strongest taboos in American society, one could argue that pretty much all consciousness out there is false-consciousness.

I don’t know. Looking at the history of the Democratic Party before, say, 1960, doesn’t give you much insight at all into the current state of the party. It is obviously true that the historical party was involved in some very bad stuff, but that has little to do with the current party.

What you need to know is that the the Vietnam War made the Democrats the de facto dove party (relative to the hawks); the Civil Rights movement made the Democrats the de facto civil rights party; and second wave feminism made the Democrats the de facto feminist party. All of these developments had the effect of splintering the former New Deal coalition.

Then the 12 long years of Reagan-Bush pushed the national Democrats further to the center on economic issues.

The combined effects of Vietnam, McGovern, Carter & the hostage crisis, the first Gulf War, and 9-11 pushed many democrats further to the right on foreign policy issues.

What you have today is a not entirely coherent party that is made up various constuencies that often do not see eye to eye on important issues.

And because the U.S. has a first past the post system, Diverger’s Law suggests that the Democrats will be the only game in town for those who are left of center.

Total: See and this is exactly it: your definition of the best interests of the broad middle of the populace is entirely economic.

Corrected: See and this is exactly it: your definition of the best interests of the broad middle of the populace as presented in a single blog comment is entirely economic.

I’m getting the impression you don’t really understand the limits of the medium here, Total.

Is it just me, or is it not really, really naive to accept on its own terms the charge that only liberals and radicals use the concept of “false consciousness” to criticize their political opponents? Conservatives do this all the goddamn time. They just don’t use terms like “false consciousness” or “ideologiekritik.” Consider, for example, a pair of columns by George Will (trust me, this will only take a few seconds; it won’t hurt too badly):

In his 4-15-08 Post column, commenting on Obama’s “bitter” comment, Will trots out all the familiar charges against liberals as being “condescending.” He even brings up the “false consciousness” meme in order to cast it in liberals’ teeth as snobbery.

Now, just two days earlier, in a column about the housing crisis (inaccurately so-called, according to Will), he had had this to say about the nation’s whiners (sound familiar?):

So can we at least cut the crap?

Whatever one thinks of “false consciousness”, Dennis isn’t one to let ordinary Americans off the hook, as anyone who reads his blog regularly would know. I don’t think he believes the Chomskyan notion that if only ordinary Americans knew what was done in their name, they’d all be shocked and appalled. Well, some might, but others wouldn’t.

I’m a little confused about the “false consciousness” debate here. For those of us who accept that the US government has murdered or helped to murder a lot of people, it is kind of important to understand why most people aren’t more outraged about it. There are several possibilities–

1. They are outraged and, like me, don’t do much about it except write an occasional letter to some congressperson or newspaper or worse, a blog comment post.

2. They don’t know what’s done in their name.

3. They do know, or at least they know enough, and they support it because

A) They rationalize it as the least bad choice
B) They enjoy the vicarious pleasures of kicking foreign butt.
C) They believe that crime pays and we benefit from this
D) Some other reason.

Which one of these would be “false consciousness”?

“It’s built on an ancient and largely anachronistic theory of class struggle that isn’t very relevant to our socio-economic structure anymore.”

Bullshit. Just because the working class is too ashamed to call itself by that name doesn’t mean that’s not precisely what they are.
And self-serving forms of argument will always be in vogue. People love to point out others’ glass houses, but nobody wants to admit they live in one. False consciousness exists. “True” consciousness doesn’t. And the best laid plans won’t make it so. They’ll always be room for delusion.

I’m not writing very well on this one. Too many stupid mistakes.
I’m just not having any fun I guess.
I’m out.

Concepts like “media bias,” “manufactured consent,” or “propaganda” are more useful because they point out information problems or attempts to mislead people and it’s reasonable to think that some people would change their views if they had access to different information.

Well, yeah, that’s certainly what I at least was talking about, or attempting to. And please notice that the actual phrase”f.c” was a red herring tossed into the thread by total , not by any of the people trying to discuss the matters mentioned in what I just quoted from you.

@64: We may be talking past each other to some extent, but: Duverger’s Law states that a polity with first-past-the-post elections will develop exactly two electable parties. In Duverger’s world, British politics is still a contest between the Conservative and Liberal parties, with probably no other parties holding seats in Great Britain; Northern Ireland is divided between a single Unionist party and some mushy party that unites Nationalists with liberals who don’t really care; and Canadian socialists consistently vote Liberal out of a despair of other options. Since this is not our world, the electoral system alone can’t possibly be the deciding factor in the utter domination of American politics by two parties.

Also, even if we accept that the Republicans completely co-opted the Whigs’ voter base (something that certainly didn’t happen in the South), Duverger’s Law says nothing about why the Republican Party emerged with a different platform than the Whigs. Or what the hell the deal was with the American Party or the Constitutional Union Party (itself a group mostly of rump Whigs who refused outright to have anything to do with the Republicans).

Some may think it is patronising for middle classes to bring up “false consciousness”. I disagree. It’s not just the workers who suffer from the syndrome; the middle classes are targets – not victims, targets – of it too. And the attempt of the American media to downplay the existence of class is just one example.

“The middle class is disappearing,” says Sanders. “In real ways we’re becoming more like a third-world country.”

Here’s the thing: nobody needs me or Bernie Sanders to tell them that it sucks out there and that times are tougher economically in this country than perhaps they’ve been for quite a long time. We’ve all seen the stats — median income has declined by almost $2,500 over the past seven years, we have a zero personal savings rate in America for the first time since the Great Depression, and 5 million people have slipped below the poverty level since the beginning of the decade. And stats aside, most everyone out there knows what the deal is. If you’re reading this and you had to drive to work today or pay a credit card bill in the last few weeks you know better than I do for sure how fucked up things have gotten. I hear talk from people out on the campaign trail about mortgages and bankruptcies and bill collectors that are enough to make your ass clench with 100 percent pure panic.

None of this is a secret. Here, however, is something that is a secret: that this is a class issue that is being intentionally downplayed by a political/media consensus bent on selling the public a version of reality where class resentments, or class distinctions even, do not exist. Our “national debate” is always a thing where we do not talk about things like haves and have-nots, rich and poor, employers versus employees. But we increasingly live in a society where all the political action is happening on one side of the line separating all those groups, to the detriment of the people on the other side.

Matt Taibbi: Economic Realities Are Killing Our Era of Fantasy Politics.

69: Sorry, but if you sign your name to something, you render yourself accountable for what it says.

What Chomsky signed his name to was a thousand-word statement about the affair that Faurisson’s publisher, without Chomsky’s knowledge (as I understand it), attached to Faurisson’s book. In any case, to say that Faurisson’s civil rights were violated — which is all that Chomsky said, and which is beyond dispute — is obviously not to endorse Faurisson’s beliefs. It really is dispiriting to consider all the illogic and/or bad faith that has gone into ignoring this.

No, please, not another Faurisson-go-round. Please give me hope that if I live for another two decades, we won’t still be discussing, I don’t know, Ward Churchill.

It only addresses the economic interests of people and thus is indicative of a very limited vision – people care about tons of other stuff.

You don’t understand, guys. The ‘economic interests’ is more like a basis of classical liberalism, milton-friedmanism.

In marxism you have ‘class-consciousness’ and ‘false-consciousness’, because what you are, everything that happens to you is fully determined by the socio-economic system, you are a product of that system. It’s the difference between one single accurate world-view and all the bullshit world-views out there.

Imagine, for simplicity’s sake, that you’re a slave in chains. All your family are slaves, all your friends are slaves, pretty much all the people you know are slaves. What is the single factor that defines your consciousness? Is it the size of your ration (your ‘economic interests’)? Is it that the new Mexican slaves are lazy and you have to do more work because of that? Is it that your slave-master is an asshole who tortures you for fun? Is it the yucky homosexual slaves? Atheist slaves, muslim slaves? Or is it the institution of slavery?

So, if they give a vote, should you be voting for doubling your ration or for the elimination of the institution of slavery?

Now, if you, people, think that you are not a product of the socio-economic system, that what’s in your head – your consciousness – is pretty much independent and autonomous (implanted directly by God, for example) – that’s fine, otherwise, I think, you’ll have to admit that it makes at least some sense.

It doesn’t matter, Dave, you don’t need to yearn for a revolution. The idea is that as long as you understand that the socio-economic system is the foundation, the underlying cause of everything else – then you’re OK, you are not a dupe, you are well equipped to analyze everything that floats above, any given political phenomenon.

I know, it may sound a bit arrogant, but consider the ‘evolution vs creationism’ debate – are the Darwinists too arrogant to insist that their world-view is the correct one, the only correct one? Well, it’s exactly the same kinda thing here; only apropos of society instead of biology.

I don’t think there is any right and wrong here, just like there is nothing right or wrong/justified or unjustified in prehistoric fish growing legs or something. It may be wrong for an individuals to make up stories to fool people, but as far as societal evolution goes – given enough time religious beliefs and various bullshit ideologies will certainly emerge. There’s no right and wrong, it’s a deterministic process described by the law of large numbers.

Revolutionary movements and various unsuccessful evolutionary developments, dead-end branches are also predetermined and inevitable.

Also Dave it’s hard to see how most of what you have written has any bearing specifically on the question of ‘false consciousness’, rather than just giving expression, for the millionth time, to your all-consuming loathing of revolutionary politics…

everything that happens to you is fully determined by the socio-economic system

abb1, this sort of vulgo-marxist reductionist and deterministic basis-überbau nonsense has been decisively refuted by none other than Engels himself (e.g. Letter to J. Bloch, 1890):

I qualify your first major proposition as follows: According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance [Engels’ emphasis] the determining factor of history. Neither Marx nor I ever maintained more. Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis but the various factors of the superstructure – the political forms of the class struggles and its results – constitutions, etc., established by victorious classes after hard-won battles – legal forms, and even the reflexes of all these real struggles in the brain of the participants, political, jural, philosophical theories, religious conceptions and their further development into systematic dogmas – all these exercise an influence upon the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine for the most part their form. There is a reciprocity between all these factors in which, finally, through the endless array of contingencies (i.e., of things and events whose inner connection with one another is so remote, or so incapable of proof, that we may neglect it, regarding it as nonexistent) the economic movement asserts itself as necessary.

history is so made that the end-result always arises out of the conflict of many individual wills, in which every will is itself the product of a host of special conditions of life. Consequently there exist innumerable intersecting forces, an infinite group of parallelograms of forces which give rise to one resultant product – the historical event.
This again may itself be viewed as the product of a force acting as a whole without consciousness or volition. (…) But from the fact that the wills of individuals – who desire what the constitution of their body as well as external circumstances, in the last instance economic (either personal or social) impel them to desire – do not get what they wish, but fuse into an average or common resultant, from all that one has no right to conclude that they equal zero. On the contrary, every will contributes to the resultant and is in so far included within it.

Marx and I are partly responsible for the fact that at times our disciples have laid more weight upon the economic factor than belongs to it. We were compelled to emphasize this main principle in opposition; to our opponents who denied it, and there wasn’t always time, place and occasion to do justice to the other factors in the reciprocal interaction. But just as soon as it was a matter of the presentation of an historical chapter, that is to say, of practical application, things became quite different; there, no error was possible. Unfortunately it is only too frequent that a person believes he has completely understood a new theory and is capable of applying it when he has taken over its fundamental ideas – but it isn’t always true. And from this reproach I cannot spare many of the recent “Marxists”.

engels, darling, sweetie, to quote you on me: “giving expression, for the millionth time, to your all-consuming loathing of revolutionary politics…”

if only you knew what I knew, you would find that as amusing as I do. But as for the present, there are no “revolutionary politics”, there are only deluded idiots, small numbers thereof, who still think that, at some miraculous point in the future, everyone will suddenly start agreeing with them.

Unless, that is, you are one of the sad, sick bastards who thinks that the majority who don’t agree with you will just have to be liquidated?

ciao, mmwah!

Dave, argument isn’t really your forte, is it?

How is it different from what I said? The socio-economic system is the foundation, is it not?

That’s not what you said and I hate to repeat your own words to you, but I guess I have to:

everything that happens to you is fully determined by the socio-economic system

This is wrong according to Engels, in fact such a view is exactly what he criticizes in this letter:

Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase.

Novakant, I preempted your explanation. Yes, this one particular phrase of mine could be interpreted as “to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor”, but please rest assured that it meant ‘in the last instance it is the determining factor of history’. Obviously. I am vulgar, but not that vulgar.

In responses to my post, geo & Donald Johnson seem to have missed an important fact: Chomsky quite knowingly signed his name in 1979 to the following petition:

“Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the “Holocaust” question.
Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.
We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.
We strongly support Professor Faurisson’s just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights. ”

This, and nothing else, is the document I was referring to. And there’s no bad faith here in saying that Chomsky was a bonehead for putting his name on such a document. It is clearly more than a defense of Faurisson’s free speech rights. It contains all-too typical denialist rhetoric, such as putting “Holocaust” in quotation marks, as well as suggesting there’s something called “the ‘Holocaust’ question.” The question-begging characterization of Faurisson’s ravings as “findings” is also typical of the same dishonest rhetoric.

Note, by the way, that I am NOT accusing Chomsky himself of being a denialist. I’m saying only that it was atrocious judgment to put his name on a piece of denialist propaganda. And the offense, I think, was only compounded in Chomsky’s later writings on the subject, in which he seems completely incapable of grasping why signing this thing was so stupid.

My point, that Chomsky exercised poor judgment, may not be the most interesting in the world; but the only bad faith I see is in the continued efforts to defend that poor judgment with irrelevant appeals to free speech.

A further matter, which I won’t emphasize here because I can’t independently confirm the allegation: the late Pierre Vidal-Naquet, who criticized Chomsky’s signing of the petition without accusing Chomsky himself of being a denialist, asserted that an important claim in the petition was false: namely that Faurisson had been barred from public libraries and archives. According to Vidal-Naquet, Faurisson had been barred from the CENTRE POUR DOCUMENTATION JUIVE, a private archive, because its directors (entirely understandably) were tired of the uses to which he was putting their hospitality. I don’t know whether Vidal-Naquet was right here or not. If he was right, Chomsky’s judgment would of course look even worse than it already does.

Who argues any more, when you can abuse?

Most people who comment here.

can anyone tell the difference?

Yes.

“Note, by the way, that I am NOT accusing Chomsky himself of being a denialist. I’m saying only that it was atrocious judgment to put his name on a piece of denialist propaganda.”

I’m not in complete agreement, but IMO he did show bad judgment in this business. Since we’re boring the rest, you can have the last substantive word on this, at least for my part.

How can defending the freedom of expression show bad judgment?

Give up?

I tell you how – when you’re defending the freedom of expression practiced by the popular and the powerful.

“Chomsky: “One who defends the right of free expression incurs no special responsibility to study or even be acquainted with the views expressed. I have, for example, frequently gone well beyond signing petitions in support of East European dissidents subjected to repression or threats, often knowing little and caring less about their views (which in some cases I find obnoxious, a matter of complete irrelevance that I never mention in this connection). I recall no criticism of this stand. ”

I’ve read that too and it’s fairly persuasive, but still, in this case (and for all I know, the cases of some of those Eastern Europeans he mentions), there is an obligation on the part of the person typing up the free speech petition not to misrepresent what Faurisson is saying. In the case of Faurisson, whoever typed that petition went much further than was necessary, making it out that Faurisson was a scholar doing legitimate research on the Holocaust. Chomsky and others who might have signed that petition in good faith were made to look like Faurisson’s allies. Shouldn’t Chomsky be irritated by that?

“The model of intellectualism as expertise elides the earlier questions of preference. The myth of individual self-invention renders such questions irrelevant, renders history irrelevant. The subject imagines himself founded not on preferences developed in infantile experience, as reaction and response, but as something generated solely by himself, godlike, and yet impersonal, objective, Platonic. ”

False consciousness is Chomsky’s rationalist assumptions as to the roots of human behavior. It’s abb1’s simplistic assumptions concerning the US; it’s Engels’ conflation of his own righteous anger with thoughtful analysis; it’s Henry Farrell’s knee-jerk fixation on libertarianism as a means of escape from the backwards reactionary communalism of his country of birth. It’s Miracle Max’s disgust with Gangsta Rap and effusive praise for the psycho killer revenge porn of Dexter, which allows him to vent his frustrations at the world and the idiot adolescent blogosphere from the comforts of a rec room in suburban Maryland. The most violent rap is flooded with tragedy. Dexter by comparison is more the cynical marketing of symptom . It’s corporate gangsta-pop.
And Max is one of the good guys. What makes DD and Max and Perrin bearable is that all of them start from and cultivate their own subjectivity, using reason as a tool to argue what they believe: in fact what they assume, and hope. You’ll never hear any of them claim “Reason made me an asshole” or “The numbers made me do it.” And they’re all assholes too. God luv’em.

What are the economics of the passive voice?
Assume: People act out of self-interest.

What is the economics of the ambiguities of the the world?
Observe: People are greedy, and yet they’re often torn. Many, even most, are raised not to be greedy so live negotiating the anxiety of multiple and conflicting obligations.

But if they have multiple obligations, then people are not free, and don’t people want freedom?
By and large, people don’t want freedom, they want respect. Freedom is an invention, in fact, an illusion. It’s an idea and an idée fixe, never a reality. People who celebrate it are celebrating themselves. As it exists in this world it’s the freedom of newborn babies laughing and rolling around in their own shit and sociopaths who kill without anger or regret.

The logic of the passive voice: The assumption that people are monads does not begin with observation but the preference for monadism. Show the supposedly impersonal logic for what it is: taste, sensibility, reaction, and you’ll begin to reconstitute society as social in origin.
Max, put down that computer manual and pick up some Philip Roth. Better yet, read Armies of the Night. And drink more.

Observe: educated liberals act largely out of self-interest but have feel-good hobbies and the most engaged ones the best intentions. Working class conservatives act in their personal lives of out obligation that liberals disdain. Working class conservatives, like educated liberals, recognize the false consciousness of others. You follow me now?
Liberals are idealists. Working class conservatives are hardened cynics.
end of the lesson.

geo wrote:

“I don’t know what “legitimate” (as opposed to “illegitimate”?) research is, but the petition only says “extensive” research. “Findings” means “results,” period, as Chomsky has pointed out many times; it does not imply anything about the correctness of the findings. Consult a dictionary. As for the quotation marks around “Holocaust,” I agree they shouldn’t be there. I don’t at all agree, though, that that makes the petition “denialist propaganda.””
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please give it up before you really embarrass yourself. If you can read “Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the ‘Holocaust’ question,” and not recognize it as denialist propaganda, you know nothing about the subject and you’re unqualified to express an opinion. In the interests, however, of furthering your education, I’ll refer you to this document: “The Irrational Vocabulary of the American Professorial Class with Regard to the Holocaust Question,” delivered by Holocaust denier Bradley Smith at Tehran in 2006: http://www.codoh.com/newsite/articles/bradleysmith/adoc04a.html(The Crookedtimber moderators will thank me for not reproducing it here). “Holocaust question,” with or without quotes around “Holocaust,” means one thing and one thing only where denialists are involved.

As for “findings,” you know very well that it conveys an impression of objective validity. One is unlikely to say or write: “As a result of his schizophrenia, he made findings [or: he found] that the Virgin Mary had been to see him about renting an apartment.” If your dictionary hasn’t alerted you to this fact, get a new one.

Working class conservatives are hardened cynics.

Another word for cynicism is despair. People on the left sometimes seem to think you can raise the consciousness of the working class by words and intellectual argument. No, I don’t think so. The way one brings another over to your side is not through words but through behavior. Treat them as co-equal human beings and you might get somewhere. Case in point:

Markos Moulitsas – Bitter

Down in Austin I did a short segment on MSNBC’s Road to the White House where I was asked such tripe as “what would Obama die for” and “can Obama win without the left?” I did the interview from a remote studio — just a room with a camera, several backdrops depending on the kind of interview, and a satellite uplink to the network. The networks pay these studios for the time guests are on.

That, in a nutshell, is what Kristol and Ponnuru and Lowry and every conservative in this country fears the most.

The way forward is not achieved by brow beating, ridicule and belittling our opponents. Give them a stake in success. Let them believe that it is actually possible for a better world to exist. Give them a reason to let go of their despair.

So, put the world to rights yet?

“As for “findings,” you know very well that it conveys an impression of objective validity. One is unlikely to say or write: “As a result of his schizophrenia, he made findings [or: he found] that the Virgin Mary had been to see him about renting an apartment.” If your dictionary hasn’t alerted you to this fact, get a new one.”

Has my dictionary alerted me to the fact? Perhaps schizophrenia afflicts not only the subject of the example but its author too. Speaking for myself, I “find” that my dictionary has no agency of its own and so alerts me to nothing. I will say that, whatever its connotations in Aaron’s (apparently wild) mind, the word findings refers literally to something ascertained. So Ptolemy “found” that the sun circled the earth. Alas, he was wrong.

The only question here is whether this is a valid principle: a person ought to have the right to utter non-violent speech without fear of prosecution. Aaron Bakers says no. Ok great!

Other than that, I agree, as always, with Seth.

Not next to impossible, Geo…

I don’t know any modern definition of the word (save, perhaps, Jonah G’s) that could include Holocaust denial.

Mark wrote:

“The only question here is whether this is a valid principle: a person ought to have the right to utter non-violent speech without fear of prosecution. Aaron Bakers says no. Ok great!”

How you can extract that from anything I’ve posted here is a profound mystery–but not a very interesting one.

As for findings: well, mistaken as they were, Ptolemy’s findings were certainly “conclusion[s] reached after an examination or consideration of facts.” Just what facts do you think led Faurisson to believe the Holocaust never happened?

geo:

I would agree that “to suggest that anyone signing the petition thereby committed himself to denying the Holocaust is absurd.” But it isn’t absurd to criticize someone for signing such a thing. That’s what I’ve done, and will continue to do.

“But it isn’t absurd to criticize someone for signing such a thing. That’s what I’ve done, and will continue to do.”

You’re a courageous man, Aaron. And not at all sententious.

“Ptolemy’s findings were certainly “conclusion[s] reached after an examination or consideration of facts.” Just what facts do you think led Faurisson to believe the Holocaust never happened?”

I don’t know. I’m not as versed in the ten-thousand year old Faurisson incident as you seem to be (nor, really, do I desire to be). But Faurisson undoubtedly looked at facts–surely he read at least a monograph–and then drew ridiculous conclusions, which were his findings, literally speaking.

As for your opinion on the validity of the principle (and fer chrissake, please cut the sniffy “not very interesting” shit–it’s like the fifth time it’s been used)–you seem to regard as far more problematic the wording of a petition than the prosecution of speech. And when a person puts his name forth in opposition to the prosecution and in defense of the principle, you think its a “disgrace” because in the defense the word “findings” was used correctly. Or perhaps you really do regard the prosecution of Faurisson as wrong but you have a stick up your ass for Chimpsky (wouldn’t be the first person). I could speculate endlessly, but in the end, you’re right, you aren’t very interesting.

Like seth says “I’m out”

Ho hum, Mark, sticks and stones. At least I attach my full (and real) name to what I write.

Also Seth I might add that if the best chance the American proletariat has to attain class consciousness, social democracy and/or Hope really does consist in downardly mobile bourgeois misanthropes like you delivering interminable obscurantist po-mo critiques of ‘the logic of rationalist formalism,’ etc leavened with liberal truisms (Man is a conflicted being who is torn between his natural greed and more noble motives? Gosh, how subversive…) then the American left is indeed well and truly fucked.

Critiquing of ‘the logic of rationalist formalism’ seems entirely appropriate for Crooked Timber. The single best thing that can be done for the American proletariat however is universal healthcare. If we can accomplish that I think we could turn this country around.Getting Obama to accept that won’t be easy though.

[name-calling, evidence-free rant]

Thank you Seth Edenbaum our guest lecturer on “tone.”

On Chomsky: as far as I can see he’s said or written nothing on Faurisson for ten years or so. My motivation for posting the original link to his defence [dated ‘Circa 1989-1991’] was just to make sure that Aaron Baker’s use of the word ‘disgraceful’ did not pass unchallenged.

Otherwise.one thing to add: to Rich Puchalsky (07.23.08 at 4:54 am), who said: No, please, not another Faurisson-go-round …

It’s always worth putting in a bit of time to nail a lie, particularly so in support of someone, like Chomsky, whose opponents seem to rely almost exclusively on misrepresentation, the drawing of false ‘logical’ conclusions and, when all else fails, bitter, name-calling, evidence-free rants.

On false consciousness: Western Dave @ 128 If FDR was so hot and bothered to bring the country into the war, why couldn’t he do it sooner by manufacturing some consent? ‘Do it sooner’ implies he did it eventually. Whenever the opportunity arises I like to point out that he didn’t really do it at all: Both Japan and Germany initiated hostilities against the USA.

Seth,

I seem to have more sympathy than most other commenters for your general views and rhetorical style, so let me try to explain where your view of Chomsky and the Faurisson business is amiss. I agree, to some extent, about his tone. But the reaction to his signing the petition was so voluminous, dishonest and/or obtuse that I think you ought to cut him considerable slack in this regard. As for not bothering to explain why an asshole should have a right to be an asshole — again, it might have been nice if he had, but since virtually every one of his readers accepts this basic tenet of the Enlightenment (Voltaire: “I disagree with what you say … “), or claims to, it is understandable that he didn’t re-argue the case for free speech from first principles. He *is* awfully busy.

As for your overall judgment, I could hardly disagree more. His critique of American foreign policy is peerless: detailed, accurate, and deep — purely as an intellectual construction, it’s a masterwork; and also, since American foreign policy has been a life-or-death matter for the rest of the world for the last sixty-plus years, a matter of real moral urgency. His and Edward Herman’s theory about “the manufacture of consent” is another intellectual masterwork. Chomsky is of course not responsible for all the attitudes of his admirers, but to associate him with “those who claim to represent reason, order, and science against the ignorance and barbarism of the peasants” gets the matter exactly backwards. He has written enough about the function and responsibility of intellectuals to make this an inexcusable — and really, incomprehensible — misreading. And your impression that he is arrogant and full of himself is a little hard to reconcile with the almost inexhaustible support he has given tiny activist groups, without prestige or resources, or with the fact that, despite being perhaps the most famous intellectual in the world, he replies, patiently and courteously, to every single email he is sent.

I may be lost and am certainly stupid sometimes, but I’m not ashamed to acknowledge that Chomsky is a hero of mine and to assert that he is one of history’s truly great men.

The relation of the US to Zionism is as emotionally complex as it is logically simple.

I don’t think it’s that complex. Of course one can find unfathomable depths of complexity in pretty much anything; me deciding if I should take a dump at work or hold it till I get home is an incredibly complex emotional exercise, but why make a Greek tragedy out of it. What is simple logically shouldn’t be too complex.

geo,
Brian Leiter, Simon Blackburn, Richard Posner, Colin McGinn, the “New Atheists, ” all share Chomsky’s rationalism and his idealism. All more and more express contempt for democracy and the “illiterate” “irrational” majority. Chomsky is on record for his contempt for empiricism as a methodology, but empiricism, as a journalist, is what’s made him as famous as he is. Put that list of names above alongside the link to Kos above [Kos the hack political operative]. Perhaps Chomsky’s a good reporter because he thinks it’s just banality, so he shrugs and does his Joe Friday act. It’s a better model for the press then we have now: he doesn’t take himself seriously.
But Chomsky is a defender of democracy because of what he assumes about people and their behavior Those assumptions are ridiculously simple-minded, in fact self-serving, but he sticks with them, while those who share his modernist rationalism have replaced that naive hope with arch cynicism. But he seems oblivious.

Intellectually Chomsky is in a time warp; his idealism concerning humanity as such is as dated as his linguistics, but he’s still a hero to the young. Yet when he’s caught being sloppy or indulgent he never admits it. He tries to argue his way out of anything, even if it would he easier to just own up and move on. It’s the same with his philosophical arguments. His brilliant imagination is also thin and brittle. You can contextualize him, as a post war rationalist, and still value his insights. But you’ll always have to pick and choose what to keep and what to throw away. True with anybody actually. But context, history and ambiguity, empiricism, are not things he takes seriously. However good a reporter he is, his intellectual model as a thinker and a philosopher, and his model of the world, is deeply deeply flawed.

The Israel/Palestine vs. Clinton/Obama analogy was fairly poor, I agree. You cannot say that the non-US citizens at CT have an obligation to speak out about the Democratic primary. But you can say that both topics have a good record of degrading very quickly.

“The rest of the world” means every other country in the world including the EU, Iran, and Syria. I suppose that Obama is closer to consulting with these nations generally. I am sure that Seth has noticed that there is a schizoid tendency in right-wing Zionism. Right-wing Zionists want the US to continue to support Israel wholeheartedly but are almost proud of the scorn of the rest of the world. If you are an Israeli politician you need the help of the US and whoever is in power there. But it is obvious that the Israeli politician might think that this was not what Zionism was supposed to be about. A truly independent country can survive without alliances.

Maybe if #53 had started “Ignore Seth Edenbaum at your peril”…

At the risk or being labeled an acolyte, I’d observe that most of the content is slowly disappearing from the disagreement over Chomsky and that what remains is trivial, unsupported or juvenile.

“you’ll always have to pick and choose what to keep and what to throw away. True with anybody actually”

How could one disagree?

But “he never admits [being sloppy or indulgent.]” — You can’t support that statement.

So side from your dislike of the attitudes of some of those who “share Chomsky’s rationalism and his idealism” (something for which it is at the very best unclear how Chomsky is responsible), and your contempt for his assumptions about humanity (which you don’t give us any way to verify or examine), there’s nothing left but such rants as “context, history and ambiguity, empiricism, are not things he takes seriously.”

You were on to something back at #69.

I’m thoroughly disappointed that no one’s engaging Perrin’s arguments.

Perrin’s an angry clown, and a moralist. I’ve read him enough to understand his points, and I’ve made clear why it makes sense that DD would be the one to bring him up. And yes, serious earnest liberals are godawful, and Kos is on the tank for the democrats. But the best comment here still comes from Kos, though posted by someone else. And no one has mentioned that.

And while we’re discussing angry moralists, the fact remains that while up in heaven or The Aether or the land of The Forms, where truth is Truth and nothing else exists, John Brown is wrapped in silk and drinking tea with Moses while Abe Lincoln is washing their feet, in the real world Lincoln, the politician, the negotiator, the half-in/half-out guy, is the more important figure. Moralists have their place, they serve a purpose too in our Nada’s Nonexistent Plan, but what interests me is why I trust Markos Moulitsas, political player, intellectual middleweight and vulgar empiricist a hell of a lot more more than I trust John Quiggin and theories of creative capitalism.
The thing about moralists is they’re not really vulgar, they only use vulgarity to mock vulgarity. Deep down the hate it. The thing about rationalists is that they found their logics on their own imagined a priori orders. And those orders are never vulgar.
But politics is vulgar. Life is vulgar. The ideal world doesn’t exist and never will. I prefer angry idealism to idealistic optimism, Anti-Pangloss to Pangloss, but still with the Devil’s eye.
And Quiggin does not understand that in trying to reform the market as the market, all he’s doing is expanding it, and the role of instrumentalism in communiation and social life. The end of his logic is to say “Art is Commerce” and he’s too unobservant to realize it.
Art and commerce need each other as antagonists. Duty to oneself and duty to others are conflicting obligations. The conflict is what gives resilience. Quiggin et al offer reasoned reasonable mush:
Posner for pussies.
I propose a moratorium on the use of the term “creative.” Try replacing it with “observant” and see where it takes you. People these days are far too creative, and not nearly observant enough.
That’s what’s disappointing.

“But I prefer to use my very limited supply of political $$ to help genuinely progressive Congressional candidates rather than send them to Obama- who is certainly managing more than fine without me. Trying to make the Democratic Party incrementally better is the best we can do under current conditions.”

No you’re not. These are tags that politicians choose, they mean nothing. You will elect someone who convinced you he was a progressive, and then he will cave in. Remember Feinstein, remember Dodd, remember Obama himself.

Also, there are pressures that makes incremental change within the Democratic Party impossible or unrealistic.

It may be time to remember that the Democratic Party has been existing for more than a hundred years, and this country has always had progressive people like you.

It’s not time for gradualism. It’s time for radicalism.