1841

sigh for those not paying attention, the current round of magnet strawmanning started with his comment: “Leftist factional bickering exists, as it always has. And as usual, it’s trivial.”

To which I responded: “As I pointed out many posts ago, it always looks like “trivial bickering” to the outside observer at first - until the purges, the firing squads and internment camps start up.”

Magnet’s comment: generalization about leftist bickering

My comment: generalization about what leftist bickering has led to in the past, in response.

Magnet’s response to my response: making out that I was specifically talking about bickering in academia leading to purges and firing squads.

“Leftist bickering” has always existed, but as I pointed out many posts ago, when the bickering occurs in the context of political power, it tends to lead to purges and firing squads.

For example in post 1672

I don’t care what you call it, what I’m talking about is any systematic take on society that has the following features:-

  1. A source of “power” of some sort.
  2. “oppressor/oppressed” groups defined by their closeness to or distance from that source of “power”.
  3. Human behaviour wholly determined by group membership.

That type of thing is what has a tendency to become sinister. That type of thing is what turns to shit when it has political power. That type of thing has internal purges, as moderate, well-meaning people are replaced by people with evil intent. That type of thing eventually results in megadeaths.

Do you need some historical reminders?

I know it’s nice and comforting to think it’s all business as usual, but nasty shit has happened in the past as a result of “Leftist bickering”. It may seem fairly trivial in context at the moment, sure, but the general tenor of what I’m talking about is, as I said earlier, “early warning”. Historically, these things have turned on a dime. The real Russian Revolution was a liberal democratic revolution, but it turned into a Communist coup and subsequent hellhole in the course of a few years because liberals didn’t pay attention to Trotsky’s and Lenin’s maneuverings, which partly involved the kind of “Leftist bickering” we’re talking about. Then, as a result of “Leftist bickering”, all the “nice” people who were part of the initial Communist coup got purged; and then those left were purged, and then later there was another series of purges by Stalin, of the nasty guys who were left over from the previous purges, leaving even nastier people in charge. And then there was nobody left to say boo to Stalin.

Ideologies have this inevitable course to them, whether they play out that logic depends on many external factors. Some of those factors are already in play in the West (e.g. respectability of these kinds of ideologies amongst academics, hard economic times, struggles against external threats, etc.).

Liberalism doesn’t look after itself as some of you seem to magically think, it actually has to be fought for, against the encroachments of ideology.

1842

What about that gay activist’s post is not accurate?

1843

Then, as a result of “Leftist bickering”, all the “nice” people who were part of the initial Communist coup got purged

Gurugeorge, the essential point you seem to be missing is that Trotsky and Lenin were in control of government, unlike everybody else mentioned in this thread. No academic department or leftist activist is remotely close to achieving the actual political power necessary to cause real harm to outsiders.

And there is certainly no evidence that they will inevitably achieve such power, as you keep implying. The history of leftist movements in the US suggests that the odds of that happening are extremely small. The experience of Bolshevik Russia is a woefully inadequate analogy to that of mature capitalist democracies.

1844

I’m sure his post is accurate for his experiences. It does not indicate that McGill as an institution is controlled or even particularly influenced by leftist activists/radicals, so YOUR point about the university is not accurate.

1845

Never mind “for his experiences” weaselling, when he says:- “I used to endorse a particular brand of politics that is prevalent at McGill and in Montreal more widely. It is a fusion of a certain kind of anti-oppressive politics and a certain kind of radical leftist politics.” Is he talking out of his arse or is he noting something that actually exists?

1846

Are you being deliberately dopey or what?

In the first place, I never said anything about “inevitably achieving power”, there you go strawmanning again. I said there’s a particular logic to ideology that drives it in the direction of schism and internal purges, that will unfold given the right circumstances, including liberals falling asleep at the wheel (as they did between February and October 1917).

In the second place: have you heard of someone called Bernie Sanders?

(I await with bated breath your response pooh-poohing the possibility of Sanders leading a Communist coup in the States.)

1847

Yes, and under the right circumstances America might reinstate slavery and start a war against the remaining native Americans. Because, you know, we have “history” and “ideological tendencies” and other vague nonsense. I suppose that would also require, at a minimum, someone “falling asleep at the wheel.”

But that outcome, like your ominous hypothetical, is laughably implausible. And no, the candidacy of Bernie Sanders (who is fundamentally a New Deal Democrat) does not make it more plausible.

1848

It seems so weird to me to be paranoid of Sanders when on the other side you have Trump.

1849

In the right circumstances we’ll all have to resort to cannibalism. I guess it’s time to freak out about it and act like it’s going to happen tomorrow. Anyone have any good recipes for drifter?

1850

I think he/she can only mean prevalent in their set. McGill is a probably the most conservative university in Quebec, the student body staying aloof from the series of student strikes we had here. Montreal is a great city very liberal, culturally diverse, and LGBT friendly but the idea that radical leftists dominate politics here is crazy. To be fair many McGill students come here from elsewhere and don’t speak French well or at all, and so exist in a weird bubble for 3 or 4 years even moreso than might happen at other universities, so maybe it’s easier to come away with a funhouse perspective of Montreal… student politics is really not indicative of anything.

BTW Bernie Sanders had he been a Canadian could have quite happily fit in as a Liberal MP. He is pretty much equivalent to a Canadian centrist, for US politics he is very slightly left wing.

1851

I would say Bernie as a candidate is pretty far left wing. However compared to members of his party he is just to the left.

1852

Horrible human beings.

1853

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine at Brown wrote in a protest article in the Brown Daily Herald, “This is an affront to academic freedom: Brown students should not be exposed to propaganda campaigns executed by state powers, especially colonial state powers.”

This is the kind of thing that bugs me, where people seemingly do not want to allow others to even speak. As though only THEIR freedom of speech matters.

1854

OK, magnet said, “no […] leftist activist is remotely close to achieving the actual political power necessary to cause real harm to outsiders. And there is certainly no evidence that they will inevitably achieve such power, as you keep implying.”

In response I pointed out that Bernie Sanders is a “leftist activist” who is tolerably close to achieving the actual political power necessary to cause real harm.

And that’s me being “paranoid of Sanders”.

okaaaay.

Magnet: the line between Social Democrats and outright socialists isn’t necessarily all that hard and fast. Often in practice, while the major aspects social democratic economics are basically Keyensianism and redistribution, there may also be some flirtation with elements of nationalization and central planning even in social democracies, as there was in the New Deal (the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933), and in most countries in Europe for most of the middle period of the 20th century.

Sanders was more hardline in his youth, he may or may not become so again (probably not, I would agree). But at any rate, the point about “Leftist bickering” is a reminder that Sanders himself isn’t necessarily the potential bad guy. Rather, the quasi-religious ideology that produces “Leftist bickering” as an automatic byproduct of its apriori reasoning, can under certain circumstances (e.g. the continued economic decline that would be likely to follow a Clinton or Sanders presidency) lead to the purging of someone like Sanders and his replacement by someone much worse, or effective behind-the-scenes control of Sanders by someone much worse (e.g. the kind of behind-the-scenes Entryism that’s been practiced in the UK re. bringing Jeremy Corbyn to power in the Labour Party).

IOW, there are lots of ways in which “Leftist bickering” can start small, but become a factor that starts to get dangerous for the body politic at large.

The big picture has lots of factors shuffling and jockeying for position, obviously. Nothing about this is inevitable. Particularly so if there’s a resurgence of confidence in classical liberal thinking, a shift back to individualist-based Progressivism and a shift away from collectivist-based Regressive Leftism. But I think some here are being too sanguine, too Pollyannaish, and aren’t giving as much weight to the kinds of problems I’m pointing out as I think they deserve - not infinite weight, not decisive weight, but certainly about the same level of weight as the usual bugaboos like, say, the resurgence of a Christian fascist Right.

IOW, there are “religious nutters” on all sides, and they have to be kept an eye on.

1855

By what measure is the US economy declining? Why would you assume a likely decline under a Democratic president?

Why do you assume that it would decline at all under a Democratic president? That is a contention that does not seem to be supported by any actual facts.

Why do you assume that Sanders would be particularly susceptible to third party clandestine control?

How does one “purge” the sitting president of the US? How would the radical leftists even gain the clout to do so given that the Democratic party is in no way a left wing party (centrist for the US, center right from the point of view of the rest of the first world democracies)?

How is the Labour party doing over there?

1856

And so, it falls on a group of oppressed non-white minorities to protest against white totalitarianism and authoritarianism and their support for the majority oppresser.

1857

And thank you for keeping your eyes open clearly for threats on both sides. Your vigilance has kept us safe so far from the depredations of the far right.

1858

Not identity politics but certainly tangentially related to this thread with so many apparently worried about academia

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/24/university-of-houston-faculty-campus-carry-law-texas-guns

1859

Well, that’s one hell of a trigger warning.

1860

It’s quite literally a trigger warning too.