The regressive left in 2016 is increasingly made up of millennials, who have been profoundly influenced by, and steeped in, the core ideas of Postmodernism, which they have no doubt learned at universities.
However, many of these millennials do not consciously self-identity as Postmodernists, but that is only because they do not properly understand the philosophy of Postmodernism, lack an understanding of the history of the left and where their ideas have come from.
In point of fact, those on the regressive left often have these characteristics:
(1) intolerance of free speech and free expression;Now the trouble is that the conventional definition of the “regressive left” is mainly confined to (7) and (8), but the fact is that “Regressive leftists” often also subscribe to (1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6), or a selective combination thereof.
(2) strong influences from Postmodernism (even though many regressive leftists probably do not consciously self-identify as Postmodernists) and its related ideas such as cultural relativism, truth relativism, moral relativism, the idea that all cultures are equal etc.;
(3) probably some vulgar Marxism economics (though not necessarily);
(4) hatred of science, and bashing of “white male science”;
(5) anti-Enlightenment thinking and bizarrely irrational hostility to Western civilisation, including views on foreign policy influenced by Noam Chomsky;
(6) extreme social constructivism and the “blank slate” view of human beings, and extreme identity politics;
(7) incredible abuse of the word “racism,” and applying it to trivial things that are not inherently racist, such as wearing sombreros or “culturally insensitive” Halloween costumes.
(8) following from (7), identifying culture with race, and militant hostility to people who criticise immoral or illiberal religious or cultural ideas of non-white people.
And here is the fundamental point: ideas (7) and (8) can naturally emerge right out of ideas (1), (2), (4), (5) and (6).
Although Noam Chomsky has certainly influenced the regressive left as in (5), it is important to note that he rejects many aspects of their thinking, as shown here.
If the left is going to develop any rational, intellectually honest and effective political program, the regressive left needs to be utterly rejected and defeated.
LK you are doing really important work here by showing the true face of the regressive left and by trying to heal the rational left movement from its ashes thank you so much for that.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Daniel. At least someone appreciates this!
DeleteI also appreciate it. I have noted that one of the columns of modern right populism (Trump, Marine lepen, etc) are people that could have been left-wing, but have turned right because they disagree with the Regressive Left.
DeleteI'm curious about the Trump movement and I have spent a lot of time reading their forums, and I sadly have to admit that these forums have an ambience of freedom of though that you can't find any more in many modern left wing forums. What is more amazing, the main factor that seems to make people support these movements is the celebration of full freedom of though!
Anonymous, yes and it has been that way for at least 35 years. When I lived a year in rural Georgia I found people more open minded than at my elite Canadian University
DeleteJust out of curiosity, what are some of the Chomsky views that account for (5) above? Although I do applaud his contempt of postmodernism, which you always aptly note.
ReplyDelete(1) An unfair and unbalanced critique of US foreign policy.
Delete(2) His unwillingness to acknowledge that there is a lot of evil coming out of the non-Western world too.
(3) e.g., sometimes he has overlooked the terrible crimes of non-Western regimes.
Are you aware of Chomskys reasons for what you call his "bias"? Id be interested if you have a critique of thoose reasons?
DeleteTo be clear; i think these three descriptions of Chomsky's views are entirely false. Granted that (1) is true from a vulgar perspective where "balance" means that you only count critique as about or not about USFP and disregard the relevant moral context entirely. (Following this framework he is also an unashamed apologist for Ghengis Khan - not much critique of him)
DeleteAn excellent piece LK, but I don't think this is quite right:
ReplyDelete"The regressive left in 2016 is increasingly made up of millennials, who have been profoundly influenced by, and steeped in, the core ideas of Postmodernism, which they have no doubt learned at universities."
They arrive at university this way. They 'learned' it in high school and grade school. It is certainly a blight upon the modern university, but the problem is deeper than that, it's the whole culture of education now.
What scares me most about these guys is not what scares you: a right wing reaction a la Le Pen. what worries me most is the effect on those we want to integrate. I think a true liberal west can eat revanchist islam alive in the long run. But no-one will want to integrate to a cry baby culture that denies the most glaring moral judgments.
ken b the west will not able to assimilate islam in the long run without acknowledge thats it have to impose western values on immigrants.
DeleteKen, i completely agree on the dangers of bad ideas but you should not underestimate the damage that people like Le Pen can do. Politicians like that will steal money from intellectually healthy sectors and fund the intellectually rotten parts of society. The two problems are related and mutually reinforcing. And in the case of Le Pen, as an added bonus, you should also be concerned about French nukes. Because in the end, kleptocracy WILL degenerate into some kind of military-backed authoritarianism.
DeleteDaniel,
DeleteI agree completely. And a truly liberal and confident West would easily succeed because our values, systems, and culture are manifestly superior. The enlightenment was not just an aspect of the West, it was a huge improvement of it.
Coyne is anopther old leftie who is irritatingly partisan yet sees the problem and confronts it honestly. This post is directly on point here. https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/the-new-president-of-britains-national-union-of-students-is-problematic/
ReplyDeleteTry to build a decent Left from that!
I saw a (not very good) documentary on Gore Vidal and W F Buckley. Many times you see Vidal saying, very casually as if noting that the sun rises in the east, that people do and should have free speech, even guys he hates like Buckley. It was just *obvious* to the Left back then.
Note well: even Chomsky was a strong defender of free speech once, even for holocaust deniers.
Deleteken b thank you for this article its always nice as israeli to find moderate articles about israel which brave enough at least to criticize both sides in this conflict.
DeleteIndeed. And enlightenment values in general.
DeleteI really like Maajid Nawaz. He shows a strong understanding of values which are not only Western by historical development, but universal by applicability. His person and history are really a mixture of courage and intelligence. He has superior insight, unlike some of his fellow travelers like Wafa Sultan, who have put emotions before reason. By that I mean associating themselves with the likes of Pam Geller, David Horowitz, and other such specimens.
ReplyDeleteThis brings up a rather thorny issue, Islamophobia. I would like to ask the august owner and maintainer of this blog, LK, a couple of questions. The first would be how in his opinion can Islamophobia be recognized. The point made by Sam Harris and the like is that they're criticizing Islam and not the Muslims, but then when you go through a catalogue of statements made by Sam you don't get that picture, one example is below.
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world in which we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyond the reach of every peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit acts of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense. This is what the United States attempted in Afghanistan, and it is what we and other Western powers are bound to attempt, at an even greater cost to ourselves and innocents abroad, elsewhere in the Muslim world. We will continue to spill blood in what is, at bottom, a war of ideas."
I in fact remember LK calling for the prosecution of war criminals like Bush and Blair. So I ask, what is the difference (if there is one) between this view and theirs?
Wait, Vizor, if we had a violent neo-Nazi movement in the West, with lunatic neo-Nazi fanatics directly committing acts of violence, killing Jews and directly inciting other fascists to violence, you think that you could sit down and win them over by reasoned debate?
DeleteAnd before you answer, you might know "every peaceful means of persuasion" was tried with Hitler. It was called appeasement. How did that work out?
DeleteCertainly not. But the people who have no such scruples on the Islamist side are easy to identify. Their partners in dialogue is whom I'm worried about. I've noticed that many take this as a "clash of civilizations" type of situation. They conflate Christianity with secular values, as if the modern and secular West owes its legacy to this particular religion. I see this on the right especially, conservatives seeing themselves in general as defenders of Christianity, but not of democracy and human rights. They generally blur the distinction between Muslims and Islam, making blanket statements about Muslims being the mortal enemies of Europe.
Deletewell i think the difference between islamphobe antisemite christianophobe self hating anti nationalist marxist bigot and etc and a person which rationaly critique is what exactly he is criticize.
Deleteif he just overaly generalize a group of people no matter what they believe in no matter if its a liberal religious/national/economical strean inside this religion and national/economic movement which respect western liberal values or fanatic radical religious/national/economic movements which not accepting this values and in the same time looking how to impose their own values on the society.
while critcizing religion culture national idea economic idea in general with no care of liberal streams inside it will be bigotry at least while criticizing only the radical fanatic fundamental streams is not just not bigotry or phobia is necessery for functionining western society.
and not just criticizing in case this radical movements of any kind impose a threat on the society they should be also taken care by law enforcement to insure the safety of law abiding citizens.
thats basically the difference between a hater and rational criticizer.
and here in my personal opinion is where the red line crossed.
It led to unrestricted German immigration to Denmark, Holland, Poland, and a few other places. What open borders enthusiasts would call a good first step.
Deletei am against unrestricted immigration ken b
Deletei am for restricted immigration policy and i am for serious critique of radical movements and i am for the situation where law enforcement organizations will seriously take care of radical organizations and elements which threat the public security.
vizor
Deletewhat important here is not the point of view of conservatives but of the liberal left which have to take tough stance on radical elements of islam christianity and national movements while embrace and protect liberal movements inside this religions and national movements.
thats the key the left should critcize extremists in the same way its criticze conservatives and radical natioanlists and christians the double standard should stop and in case this movements threat western and liberal values seriously they should be taken care by law enofrcement organizations.
when it will happen i believe the left will able to get a way stronger and rational stance than its have now.
Lord Keynes, I'm wondering if you knew of what John Maynard Keynes had to say about the importance of free speech to freedom.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure off hand. I'd be surprised if he wasn't supporter of free speech.
Deleteas far as i read and if i am not mistaken he defined himself as social liberal.
DeleteWhich parts of the Enlightenment should the left defend?
ReplyDeleteYou all is a racists, LK.
ReplyDeletehttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/melissa-mullins/2016/04/23/angry-brit-correcting-grammar-racist-classist-and-censorious
Whether race is a social construct or a scientifically real phenomenon. Days back while discussing this issue on this blog with Lackminsky , I argued that it a real phenomenon bcoz I have read that it can be identified on bodily features like head etc. But few days ago I found this ( Race is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue- Scientific American) which claims exact opposite. M surprised how there can be exact opposite sides to this issue. Do u still agree that race is scientifically real phenomenon after reading that article?
ReplyDeleteReality is a social construction. Luce Irigaray showed the E=mc2 is a sexist equation.
Delete(I am not kidding about the claim by Irigaray btw.)
Ken , lol. I wouldn't have believed if it was said by some retards. But it said by scientists who studied the phenomenon and have given evidence that it is a social construct. So m bit confused because other scientists claim it is a real phenomenon.
DeleteOh, oh, be still my heart! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/28/how-ken-livingstone-left-labour-in-turmoil-after-claiming-hitler/ Labour in full let-the-truth-slip mode, self-destruct mode? I need a beer. http://www.cdn.sierranevada.com/sites/www.sierranevada.com/files/content/beers/celebrationreg/sup-ale/cele-bottle-pint.png
ReplyDelete(5) doesn't seem to belong with the other characteristics. Most of the people I know who hold "views on foreign policy influenced by Noam Chomsky" are contemptuous of the absurd brand of identity politics and Postmodernism common among today's liberals. These "regressive left" characteristics describe modern liberalism, which has become increasingly hostile to the American left during this election.
ReplyDelete