Solidarity or Guilt: How Do We Touch the Relatively Privileged?
Posted by Mike E on January 19, 2010
by Mike Ely
We posted a piece on a cruise ship that landed on Haiti shores and tried to continue a “party on” spirit in the middle of this horrific nightmare.
Mars raised a crucial set of issues… the need to reach such people, and the question of how to do it best.
Somebody needs to give every middle class American a simple, working definition of Class Privilege. And how to USE it towards the good of the people. I mean, the BEST of these passengers chose to stay on board just to not feel queasy eating near mass graves? Hmmm… How about passengers pulling every extra bit of food off that ship and getting it past those guards?
I want to unite with Mars here — and then raise my own thoughts about HOW that can be done.
People traveling on a ship like this could have (and should have) said “WTF?” They could have organized themselves (or some more conscious section of the passengers) and demanded that the ship stop “business as usual” and that every way possible be found to help the people of Haiti — open the ship’s cabins to the wounded needing care, hand over ships stores to the people beyond the perimeter, move beds out to makeshift clinics and distribute supplies into the shantytowns etc. A ship like this has fuel, cooking facilities, food, cloth for tenting, forms of clorine that can purify water, and more.
And to accomplish this, not only would people need to break out of “business as usual” themselves — but they would have to break out of their role as “consumers,” they would need to realize that suffering is not some break in the TV entertainment (and something you “watch”), and they would even have had to override law, property and custom — making demands on the cruise line and the captain, sit-in to enforce their demands, use appropriate violence, seize materials and take them through the lines themselves, unite with the more conscious sections of the multinational crew, risk their own lives, etc.
Now, why do such things rarely happen spontaneously?
Clearly, in U.S. society, some sections of people have been cushioned from suffering, and from even an awareness of others — as if they are living in a soundproof cocoon. And in a world like that — what is MORE cocooned, soundproof and illusory than a Caribbean cruise? What puts Caribbean people in an “invisible servant role” more than typical tourism?
And more: Over decades, there has been a steep decay in any sense of active daily solidarity with other human beings — not just among the middle classes, but also among the much more oppressed within the U.S.
(I’ve heard someone actually say “Why should my taxes go to pay for someone else‘s medical problems?”)
Even progressive and radical people are affected and sometimes express little generosity or solidarity toward others. Many express a resentful discontent, but mixed with a bitter tone that everyone not like them is probably not with them. There are even trends that claim virtually everyone in the U.S. is an oppressor –expressing very personal solidarity with the rest of the world, but from an utterly pessimistic stance.
Facts are facts: There is obviously class privilege in this world. And also privilege rooted in gender and nationality. In many ways the Haitian and American people live in different worlds.
Part of the question here is how to we speak to people across such divides — and win more to progressive action. What is our movement’s strategic view, what is our language, what is our tone, what is our approach?
A Method I Don’t Understand
I have never understood the idea of approaching people by proclaiming that they need to deal with their “class privilege.”
Again, that is not because whole slices of humanity don’t HAVE relative privileges (they do!), not because people should not become more conscious of where THEY sit in the hierarchies of this mega-stratified world (they should!).
I suspect that the consciousness that best engenders action is not “white guilt” or some “renunciation of privilege” (whatever that means) or Mars’ suggestion of “use your privilege for good” — but political and ethical decisions to identify with the oppressed and act in solidarity.
The understandings that lead to those decisions are generally not rooted in guilt and often not in simple extensions of self-interest — but an inability to allow injustice, plus sense of common humanity and destiny on Earth.
Those are the positive sentiments we should connect with — and help transform into deeper revolutionary and communist understandings.
As a movement, we need to promote universality and common purpose, and radiate a deep uncompromising determination to end oppression. We should not be a movement that mainly promotes bitter mutual hostilities and injects constant recriminations among the people.
Mao’s point about the difference between antagonistic and non-antagonist contradictions is worth revisiting:
Middle class people in the U.S. are not the enemy, and should not be spoken to as if they are. Some are corrupted, some have done terrible things, some actively approve of terrible things. But not all. And many people are in constant political transition and turmoil. And all that is part of the complexity and dynamics of change.
For example, should someone go to Black people who may be on such a cruise, and insist that they deal with their privileges as part of the U.S. nation-state? Or their “middle class privileges”? Is that really how they would be impelled to action? Is viewing themselves more deeply as part of a privileged U.S. nation-state the way to go?
Hundreds of millions of people do (in fact) have privileges as part of the United States (objectively). Even homeless people in the U.S. have relative privileges — compared to many people in Haiti.
But the whole logic of “dealing with your privileges” and “renouncing your privileges” as a key precondition or starting point toward progressive actions is not (in my experience) how things really work. (Not that anyone here is advocating something so mechanical or simplistic.)
Even with white middle class people — does it make sense to insist “you benefit from this system, and you need to reject that, and at least use your privilege for good”? Isn’t it better (and also true) to argue that there are many ways that they too suffer from this system? And to argue that the oppressed should be supported (whether or not it directly benefits you)?
When middle class people act for the oppressed, is that really “using their privilege for good”? Are they that narrowly defined by their privilege? No. Generally that is not the essence of what is going on (even when they ARE relatively privileged). Is a radical people’s lawyer mainly “using her privilege” — or serving the people by dedicating her life and skills to that work?
Does anyone think starting the conversation by focusing on the privilege of the relatively privileged will best tear them out of ignorance, passive inaction or the influence of reactionary ideas?
People may sometimes act out of a sense of guilt — but that is not generally the best basis, nor is it the basis we should focus on generating.This method also implies that socialist revolution (and even the day-to-day struggles of the oppressed) are movements aimed at the middle classes, aimed at tearing them down — and I don’t think that is true.
This is part of larger ongoing theoretical discussion of the role of interests, self-interest and ethics in revolutionary politics.
For now:
I think the key thing to share and promote is “consciousness, solidarity and responsibility” — not the shaming mechanism of “class privilege and guilt.” And I also believe that one of the main things that compels the relatively privileged into action is the bold, militant, conscious, organized actions of the less privileged.
Unraveling RELATIVE Privilege
The privileges we are discussing are *relative* privileges. Some are crumbs from the table of imperialism. Some are more than just crumbs.
Even those American and European people able to afford a cruise like this often face mistreatment and abuse of many kinds under capitalism. They are not metaphysically on some remote pole within humanity where they are beyond the workings of capitalism. they are not the ruling class or the bourgeoisie. I think socialism is in the interests of the vast majority of humanity, including the middle classes in the U.S. (who to face the burdens of unjust war, of ecological destruction, of devastating economic crisis, of the ruthless discarding by capital, of the emptiness of social life, of wife-beating and more).
And it is possible to reach people by also identifying where they may have COMMON INTERESTS and even common experiences with the Haitian people. And also connecting with their ethical sense of injustice and responsibility.
Just as an example of such common experiences: Black people in the U.S. are acutely aware that the people of New Orleans were neglected and left to die — and that this “natural disaster” had profound man-made components rooted in capitalism and white supremacy. Many white people understood that too. Haiti today is like “Katrina Squared” — and many people in the U.S. have a sense of how the government can’t be trusted to handle this, and how the post-disaster reconstruction will “rebuild” an anti-people set-up, and how people-to-people action can be key in bringing real help.
I think that when we work among middle class people in the U.S. (including those who are African American) it is important to bring out some of those experiences — and help them connect with the experience of Haiti in that light. i.e. to see the working of a system, and the NEED for ordinary people to act in solidarity (i.e. both by helping directly, and also by challenging the powers-that-be of imperialism politically.)
The Painful Absence of Solidarity
We live in a society where the most basic forms of human solidarity have withered — where life and outlooks are atomized. Where people’s sense of the world has often shrunk to themselves, their family and the rings of self beyond that — my city, my community, my country, my race, my friends etc.) At work, people rarely “have each other’s back.” And the idea of collective action and solidarity (against employers and the government) has atrophied (even from the relatively low levels of the last century in the U.S.)
This is not universal or absolute of course. There are millions of people who care for others, who watch world events, and who (increasingly) see themselves as part of a single humanity facing the crises of globalization, ecological destruction etc.
I believe that one of the key tasks of our movement is to rekindle human solidarity — including specifically active solidarity among the oppressed, and active solidarity with the oppressed.
This means internationalism of course. But it also means very particular forms of interpersonal solidarity (in work, in human interactions) — of “having each others back,” and of “building community” in a society without community. It also means having a revolutionary movement where people have a sense of real connection and community (something that I watched disappear from my corners of the communist movement, just as i saw it disappear in other parts of society).
I have to say, that when discussing extreme situations (like this cruise ship pretending “business as usual” in the middle of a horrific disaster) my response is not “these people need their noses rubbed in their own privilege.” I think that makes very pessimistic assumptions about the middle classes in the U.S. and it makes some self-defeating assumptions of how we can/should reach out.
Put another way: I fully believe we can reach sections of the middle classes in the U.S. with very radical ideas and programs. And that includes white sections of the middle classes. And that includes (I believe) sections that are truly wealthy compared to 90 percent of the world. And I don’t think we will reach them with attempt to provoke guilt, or by demands for “renunciation of white and class privilege” (a concept I have never understood, or heard explained in any concrete way.)
People don’t need to “renounce” their own lives and situation in order to act (in radically progressive ways) in regard to the oppressed. The great peoples defender William Kunstler did not need to move into some tenement and give up vacations (and somehow renounce his lawyerly privilege) in order to be a hero of the oppressed.
And thinking such things through is the point of this post: not to say “what pigs these American consumers are!” but to seriously think through how we can reach such people, even while we focus our organizing on the more conscious and more oppressed.
And I think part of the reason for a post like this is also to ask and debate: “What is our view of the American middle classes? Can they (or sections of them) be won to revolutionary change? How would that happen? How do we build a movement that targets our oppression, but finds ways to unite broadly and attract sympathy/support from those who are not as deeply oppressed?”
Mao writes: “Unite all who can be united against the real enemy.”
Who is this who “can be united” — how broad does it go?
Mao adds: “Unite the many, oppose the few, defeat our enemies one by one.”
What would it mean (what does it mean) to “unite the many” in this situation? Who are the few that we are opposing (and exposing) in the world today and at this stage of our revolution?
Mao also says: “Unite the advanced to win over the intermediate.”
That puts some real responsibility on us.
Andre C said
this reminds me of an article in the San Francisco chronicle printed several days ago on how workers in the usa are trading in the metrosexual look for traditional working class attire because of the financial downturn. It’s striking the most harmless forms expressed that break with traditional morality are seen as threats to profit, and can find expression in all sections of society. Even more insidious is how any most forms of comraderie and basic knowledge of production relations is distorted and silenced in society but especially in the work place.
How precious it is to have a web page in Kasama that gives expression to our basic universal commonalities in a living forum.
The work on Avatar summed up many important themes .. Imagine if the passengers had an in-voyage screening of that film, and saw the importance of standing in unity with the other side of the resort.
Thaddeus said
I want to call this post “interesting”, but the truth is I’m still coming to grips with it. Everything before “A Method I don’t understand” is too “down to earth” for the depth of questions that you ask in “A Method I don’t understand”. Or rather the thinking in “A Method I don’t understand” unexpectedly jumps into the stratosphere, to where you have to gather, what I would call serious intellectual firepower. I imagine that few would attempt to counterargue the substance of “A Method I Don’t Understand” simply because of the muscle it might take to actually “clip off” one of or part of one of the ideas in that section of this post. No pun intended. Not that that’s necessarily bad. There’re a lot of smart people out there and they live to criticize. They defend their positions with what skill they have, and this is a forum for open debate. But again, unless they’re prepared to go into the stratosphere, no one can really attempt to counterargue the substance of “A Method I Don’t Understand”.
That said, from “Unraveling Relative Privilege” to end read like milk and honey. You hit such a wonderful stride. The ideas go from broad to specific and it’s seamless and clear. But it’s more than that. It elevates. The ideas stride and stride and the wave of writing swells from underneath and ends at a crest.
I guess to me, there are 3 types of writing in this single post. First, down to earth. Direct. The tone you use in a lot of your counterstrokes to your posts. Then philosophical. I don’t think I’ve read enough of your posts to know how often you go that deep. Then there’s this sparkling semi-visionary. To call you simply a visionary would, at least to me, imply that there’s no one on the planet that remotely sees what you see and understands what you understands. That’s not what I want to imply at all. I call it semi-visionary because I want to imply that when you wrote from “Unraveling Relative Privilege” onward the purpose that provoked the writing was strong enough to make the ideas so transparent to you that that transparency reached into genuine foresight. Your writing remained clear and crested seamlessly not as if you couldn’t avoid. But rather as if you saw it ahead of time and understood that it couldn’t be avoided. It was beyond you to avoid it.
That’s the best way to explain how you wrote from “Unraveling Relative Privilege” to the end of the post. At least that’s how I read it. And that’s what I’m contrasting with the writing before “Unraveling Relative Privilege” in the same post. Written expression is an art. No question about it. And you, Mike, hit what I think can be rightfully called “rare form”. I’m going to slowly make my way through most of the archives between now and spring and I won’t be surprised if I only find a half-dozen or so posts where you wrote like this.
Please don’t take offense. Most of what I happen to have read so far of your writing are your counterstrikes to other posts. I’m the one who’s still growing more familiar with range of your writing ability. For me, the way you wrote from “Unraveling Relative Privilege” to the end of the post is entirely new. No. No. I misspoke. It’s wonderfully new. It’s wonderfully written.
Maz said
This post hit on a lot of themes I think are both really important and really missing from our politics right now. The lack of solidarity has gotta be one of the most disturbing things out there. A couple years ago a worker at Wal-Mart was killed by a stampede of eager customers streaming through the doors to get to the new sales that marked the beginning of the holiday shopping season. Aside from the shopping madness that is symptomatic of our time, the most fucked up thing about this was that the store remained open for the rest of the day. I couldn’t believe that the workers in that store didn’t have any inkling to say “no, this is fucked up, we aren’t going to work today.” I would hope that if anything like that happened where I work we would go home for the day out of respect and basic decency. But that didn’t happen.
The other side will do what they do, but without solidarity, what chance is there for meaningful resistance?
In thinking about this I went back to a section from Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed:
Freire even announces his basic political goal in such terms:
When I first read these words I found them to be pretty idiosyncratic, distinct as they were from the political culture I was used to. But thinking about it more, they seem so reasonable.
The heart of solidarity and our politics is love. A scientific approach can explain to us what capitalism is, and many aspects of how to fight it, but without love, there is no good reason to suggest why we should want to fight it. In many ways, I’m thinking, what is our politics without love? Revisionism, right?
TOR said
It’s great how you combat the ultra-leftism of some folks in this post.
I think many revolutionaries need to take the issues you raise much more seriously than they have and break out of their individualistic moralism and sectarianism.
G said
This post was characteristically excellent, and raised several important issues that warrant serious consideration. One aspect that prompts thought is thinking about how and why people do or do not act under certain circumstances which in retrospect they should have, or would have acted differently, and under what certain conditions either pre-existing internally, or could have been created, externally, to facilitate these more desirable actions. In other words, relationship of situational attribution of behavior to dispositional attribution (situation causing behavior vs. qualities inherent in individuals). This of course deals with leadership, authority figures, and questions of conformism and obedience.
It also broadly raises the issue for Marxists of the role understanding aspects of mass or social psychology, an area where classical Marxism has been criticized as lacking, or rather needing further development of a more complete Marxist understanding of the role of psychology, or the development of a materialist conception of the discipline. There has been a tendency to down play this, although within Marxism there is a much rich material that we are familiar with (reification of social relations, fetish of commodities, alienation, false consciousness, how the dominant ideas are those of the dominant classes, etc), as well as those Freudo-Marxists who have attempted to infuse and mix schools of thought into it. But, a materialist scientific conception of the relationship of social life to a theory of mind within a social context, seems worth developing and thinking about, as connected to this story, starting with reviewing what some studies that have been done suggest, so that we may gain some insight into these questions.
There are studies that immediately come to mind, dealing with the impressionability and obedience of people who are provided with a legitimizing ideology, and with social and institutional support, which illustrates the power of authority. The most famous of these is probably the Milgram experiment. If we recall that experiment, none of those that eventually refused to continue with following what was expected of them, by administering the electric shocks, insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check the health of the victim. They just personally withdrew from it themselves. But this is not enough!
Just like on this cruise ship, apparently, some were moved to feel “sick’ about the situation, and complained online, but were not sufficiently moved to take it to a higher level of rebellion against the expectation to conform by officials, and follow orders, essentially allowing “business as usual” to continue. Surely if they acted the people of the world would have been on their side, and they could have actually made a difference. So what are the missing elements? Leadership, giving example so that others can follow (an external attribution)? Or developing our own consciousness, with a disposition to critical and moral thinking that anticipates such situations so that we can rise to the occasion with a sense of revolutionary heroism, even, and be that leader, breaking with the silence and acceptance, breaking with conformity, and taking action that can then embolden others?
Perhaps we need a theory of conformism to explore the fundamental relationship between the group of reference and the individual person? If an individual lacks the skills, ability, or expertise to make decisions, does this translate into such a person leaving the decision making to the group and its hierarchy? The group, then becoming the person’s behavioral model? I’ve seen some of these dynamics play out within the RCP, so we communist are not immune from falling into these dynamics. And from reports, they seem to be getting worse. On the other hand, we see examples of the opposite, which I greatly admire, of those who show an intellectual courage not to be afraid to step out of what is expected and question, and then act based on their own critical reasoning, to say to themselves, ‘wait a minute, this is not my politics.” This is never easy, but what are the factors that aid in the development of this?
Some in trying to explain why people in groups don’t step out and act, but may just follow, even when they should know better, is that they view themselves as an instrument for carrying out the wishes of those they have already accepted as an authority, so they are acting as a link from others, and therefore no longer see themselves as individual responsible for their actions. Such a stance is described as a critical shift of viewpoint, which then allow for all the essential features of obedience. Under this view, once you accept another person’s authority, you become a different person. You are concerned with how well you follow out your orders, rather than whether it is right or wrong. However, under what conditions can a person break out of that mental state, when that authority does warrant credence? Still other thinkers talk about people who suffer from a “learned helplessness”, where they feel powerless to control the outcome, and so abdicate their personal responsibility to do anything about trying to change it.
Of course standard bourgeois psychologists are often very quick to glibly talk about “human nature” in a static sense. I think its safe to say the Marxist approach correctly rejects that defeatist premise of an ‘unchanging nature.’ Its what C.Clark Kissinger called the ‘bourgeoisies tweenkie defense.” It is certainly the case that workers, say in an assembly-line process are very deliberately placed in a role that tries to take away any thought or discretion from workers, and become mere “appendages to the machine.” Of course the imperialist armed forces make this mindless “do not think or question why, but only do or die,” a centerpiece of its culture, and yet we have example of individuals breaking out of those extreme conditions of control and even turning the guns around on their commanders!
Radical-Eyes said
It is interesting and appropriate, G, that you bring up the Milgram experiments (“The Perils of Obedience” I think, is the title of the paper he wrote about them). Overall, Milgram’s studies found that a huge percentage of the population (at that time)–as he summed it up, it didn’t matter what social strata or country the people came from–would go along, playing their obedient role in helping to electro-shock a stranger beyond the point of rendering them unconscious, even when that victim complained aloud that they had a heart problem, so long as the subject was told clearly by a team of lab coat technicians that 1) the Experiment required that the test-shocking go on, and 2) that the subject (who was asked to press a button, giving the victim a shock each time he or she gives a wrong answer… or no answer at all) will NOT be held responsible for the effects of the experiment; the scientists take “full responsibility.” Something like 90% go all the way to not only torturing, but potentially killing the shocked-subject. Shocking indeed.
Nonetheless, one remarkable finding of Milgram’s studies–he ran the experiment many many times, playing with different variables along the way–has always represented a certain basis for me. Namely: the fact that when the study was staged so that one of the three lab coat technicians (all played by actors of course) rebelled, verbally protesting and then refusing to continue with the lab experiment, ALL OF THE TEST SUBJECTS (the shock-button pushers) ALSO REFUSED AND STOPPED. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
I have always thought of this as a kind of allegory for how the rebellious actions of a minority or even a single person–particularly someone that occupies some position of authority within a particular community–can utterly transform a situation, opening up the possibility of others’ real freedom. That is, we might say that it is the psychic space created by the rebellion amongst the so-called “experts” that enables the “subjects” to act upon their own impulses, which were already present, but were suppressed in service to a up-till-now unified and seemingly monolithic authority.
Radical-Eyes said
a certain “basis FOR HOPE” it ought to have read in the above post
[Mike I don't suppose you could fix that?]
Radical-Eyes said
Those interested in the intersection (or historic disconnection) between marxism and psychology may be be interested in this upcoming conference:
Call For Papers (Extended Deadline)
Marxism and Psychology Conference
The University of Prince Edward Island
August 5-7, 2010
Website: http://vre.upei.ca/mprg/
Contact: marfken@upei.ca
Submission Deadline: February 1, 2010 (ExtendedDeadline)
In the history of social thought, it is difficult to find amore
divisive figure than Karl Marx. For many, the mere mention of his
nameconjures up images of totalitarian regimes dominating nearly every
aspect of anindividual’s existence. Yet for others, Marx’s critique of
the capitalist modeof production draws attention to the fact that our
beliefs, thoughts, anddesires inevitably emerge against the background
of specific cultural,historical, and social practices.
The purpose of this conference is to bring students,scholars, and
activists together to discuss exciting issues at the intersectionof
Marxism and Psychology. While it is clear that a number of
organizations aremaking important contributions to this area of study,
we believe that the timeis right to open up a space for students,
scholars, and activists from avariety of disciplinary backgrounds to
reflect on the role that Marxism canplay in psychological theory,
research, and practice.
In bringing together scholars at the forefront of researchin Marxism
and Psychology, we also hope to give new students and activists
anopportunity to interact with individuals who have made significant
contributionswithin this area. By organizing an impressive collection
of plenaryparticipants, we hope to foster an environment where
students, activists, andscholars can identify potential graduate
advisors, research assistants, andparticipatory investigators. This
year, confirmed plenary participants include:
Otto said
This is article is a step in the right direction. A few years ago the Maoist International Movement kept telling us there was no American proletariat and the middle class was the “working aristocrats.” They overlooked that these “aristocrats” had no real political power. MIM never completely explained how we were supposed to create a working class party in the US if there is no proletariat to win over. Stalin once wrote that the working class can struggle for power with out the consult of the middle class, but I don’t see how that could work in the US.
We have not even won the majority of the working class, much less, the more privileged middle class people. I’d like to quote in this piece:
“Clearly, in U.S. society, some sections of people have been cushioned from suffering, and from even an awareness of others — as if they are living in a soundproof cocoon. And in a world like that — what is MORE cocooned, soundproof and illusory than a Caribbean cruise?”
Yes and the need for us on the left is to find a way to break threw that cocoon and allow people to see what kind of system they really live in. I’d like to believe that most people would support what is in the best interest for all people if they really had the information and ability to think about it. There are always some calloused people who honestly don’t care about anyone but themselves. We can’t help them. But I don’t want to believe that most people are as insensitive to the suffering of others as Americans now appear to be.
Now all we need is a magic bullet to penetrate the cocoons.
nando said
Tor writes:
This is very interesting to me — in part because I don’t see this line of “repudiate white privilege” as being ultra-left at all. In my experience it is tied to very reformist politics (i.e. it is quite right, and rather liberal). It is a squabble over resources and slices of the pie — and so sees other sections of the people as rivals (and even enemies) not as potential allies in a larger radical change.
Every time I have every asked “what does repudiate white privilege look like? When do we know when it has been done? What are the forms? Who is involved?” — well so far, it has been very hard to pin down. Because it really doesn’t have any strategic content. (Often its main content is “we need more funds,” or “we want to make the decisions” — and is tied to very tactical demands of a very specific group. If you try to tease it out in strategic ways (making a special stage of white people problematizing their white supremacy as a precondition of alliance) it quickly dispates as a serious discussion.
Obviously a real rev movement involves all kinds of transformation (including it would require a lot of change among white people in the form of breaking with racist ideas). But the idea that there is a prerequisite stage of repudiation — and that this is the front end of change and any larger alliances — is what we seem to be discussing. It also seems to assume that white people (as some kind of a bloc) are defined by white supremacy (i.e. it defines their views, inclinations, position, politics) rather uniformly and universally. And part of the disucssion is whether that is true. (IN general, does the discovery of this or that privilege mean you have discovered what people are really about — are people, their ideas and their politics really defined so direclty by their privilege, and not by other things about them and their relation to society?
there seems to be a very mechanical reductionism at work — and a kind of homogenization in which people, trends, groups, movements, historical events, disappear, and you just have the sociological privilege structure of capitalism as the sole (or main) defining thing.
Barbara Louise said
I wish the progrms of this site had made it possible to print-out and take home a copy of this blog so I coulsd read it at leisure, not in the midst of trying to desl with my emails and sign petitions on this borrowed computer, before azI can get to my own writing.
Barbara Louise
obl@seniorsconnect.org
Jeff Weinberger said
Thanks, Mike. Don’t know if any of this hodgepodge you inspired will stick but here goes:
- “The understandings that lead to those decisions are generally not rooted in guilt and often not in extensions of self-interest — but an inability to allow injustice, plus sense of common humanity and destiny on Earth.” (Compare Che’s: “If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.”)
- “Those are the positive sentiments we should connect with — and help transform into deeper revolutionary and communist understandings.” (Again, Che: “At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality… We must strive every day so that this love of living humanity will be transformed into actual deeds, into acts that serve as examples, as a moving force.”)
Mike wrote:
“Even with white middle class people — does it make sense to insist “you benefit from this system, and you need to reject that, and at least use your privilege for good”?
When middle class people act for the oppressed, is that really “using their privilege”? Generally that is not the essence of what is going on (even when they ARE relatively privileged). Is a radical people’s lawyer mainly “using her privilege” — or dedicating her life and skills to the people?”
I’d say she is using her privilege AND dedicating her life……” and the lawyer perhaps can be effective without being class conscious. But don’t we at some point, to become conscious if not effective, have to contextualize our state of privilege? In the aftermath of this catastrophe we hear from all quarters the question, “Why are they so poor.” And the answers range from ‘They made a pact with the Devil’ to ‘Colonialism, Imperialism, Neoliberalism, etc. keeps them down.’ Everyone to the left of the Pat Robertson crowd, in other words just about everyone, feels some compassion which, over time, will dissipate as the distance of time stretches out and forgetfulness of Haiti’s misery sets in. Others, though, whose ‘compassion for’ crosses over to ‘identification with’, won’t forget. Can such identification possibly occur without coming to a consciousness of the context of privilege?
And while it may be true, as Mike writes, “that one of the main things that compels the relatively privileged into action is the bold, militant, conscious, organized actions of the less privileged,” it seems to me that consciousness of how (our own) privilege came to be (based on Marxist analysis) is required to move action beyond momentary inspiration and into the future.
Mike:
“I believe that one of the key tasks of our movement is to rekindle human solidarity — including specifically active solidarity among the oppressed, and active solidarity with the oppressed.”
So the task of developing solidarity, in a sense, is the task of moving people from transitory compassion to unwavering identification. Just as the predators move in when disaster strikes – as Naomi Klein for example describes in her “Shock Doctrine” – these are also times of great opportunity for us to raise awareness, to move others (and ourselves) to identify with struggle. As Nando recently successfully argued to me, we actually have to provide a narrative in the midst of disaster just as the bourgeoisie provide theirs, which is preeminent.
On another, more commonplace level than Katrina or Haiti, when the workers at Republic Windows and Doors in Chicago occupied their factory just over a year ago, I knew a lot of non-political people who were with them in their hearts. The workers’ struggle was economic and highlighted by the fact that B of A, which had just received billions in bailout funds, wouldn’t make a loan to keep the company afloat.
I can’t say I was personally successful, though, in moving anyone to a more political mind-set. But I tried and that’s just me and that was then. The banks are still doing what they do, if with less drama, and people of course are still angry, so the opportunity to raise awareness exists. More to the point (which I think is at least implied by Mike) I have to ask myself what are the opportunities (for me, alienated and presently unemployed worker) to raise awareness in my own backyard and how do I take advantage of them.
“…. William Kunstler did not need to move into some tenement and give up vacations (and somehow renounce his lawyerly privilege) …..”
I agree. On the other hand, what if he had? Would that potentially not have transformed the meaning of his work? (Just a thought as your point is well taken.)
Reply to Maz’s: “The lack of solidarity has gotta be one of the most disturbing things out there.”
I agree. But it’s at least as maddening – no, more maddening – when the attacks take place within the fold, so to speak. For example, we’ve seen unwarranted attacks on a Haitian workers group, Batay Ouvriye, from radical and progressive activists and journalists on the Left! Such negative attacks are chilling and destructive. For even if Batay Ouvriye merited some criticism, negativity seeks only to stamp out problems rather than resolve them. Batay Ouvriye, self-aware, lives on but if it hadn’t, a lot of Haitian workers would be worse off. Now, those workers can continue to inspire others.
Last thought in my hodgepodge, this came to me while reading the original article which mentioned the quintessential comfort of passengers on a cruise ship. The ultimate disruption of comfort?: the Achille Lauro incident in 1985. Four “Palestinian terrorists” take over an Italian cruise ship. Look up “The Death of Klinghoffer,” a modern opera with a unique take on that incident. Food for thought.
TOR said
Nando, many ultra-lefts I know actually take such positions, so it isn’t limited to social-democrats. I guess the point is that this isn’t a communist position on the issue.
nando said
One of the challenges of any discussion is the development of a common language. And so it is helpful to just explore like we are doing, TOR, what we mean.
My experience is that this view of the middle classes as worthless and an enemy force is tied to a kind of “identity politics of the oppressed” (even if those articulating it come from many different strata and circles) — and that it is generally tied to quite rightist notions (the two most significant being (1) a fight over resources isolated from any serious strategy of developing allies (i.e. this is often an approach of city council budget squabbles or NGO-style funding in-fighting), and (2) a genuine pessimism about the chance of doing much of anything anything (which characterized the MIM-mini-group or Weatherpeople in the 70s).
Sometimes such things are posed in very militant, indignant and even revolutionary rhetoric — but I perceived the core issue being a distance from taking revolution seriously as a mass movement, and taking strategy (including alliances) seriously among those seeking to create conditions for revolution.
Mao talked about “left in form, right in essence.” And I think that applies in those rare moments when this kind of blanket hostility toward middle forces seems associated with radical rhetoric.
As for “ultra-left” — I don’t know who you are referring to when you say “many ultra-lefts I know actually take such positions.” (I.e. that is part of the problem of trying to develop a “common language.”) “Ultra-left” is simply not a term I use — perhaps because whenever I have heard it used, it is usually directed at politics I hold or would at least respect.
Historical note: During the cultural revolution there was a fight over whether there was “ultra-leftism” or whether it was “left in form, right in essence.” The Zhou enlai forces used the term ultra-left, the forces around Mao argued for “left in form, right in essence” (i.e. keeping the spearhead and focus on fighting the right.) So there is a larger history to this question, and these questions of terminology.
Miles Ahead said
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/opinion/21trouillot.html?th&emc=th
“Aftershocks” by ÉVELYNE TROUILLOT, an editorial in today’s NYT.
Think this piece addresses a lot of what is being discussed here, including the sense of solidarity throughout humanity.
Of all things, am almost finished reading W.E.B. DuBois’ bio of John Brown, which, although published in 1908, definitely addresses lots of the questions of who are the people’s allies and who are their real foes. It is an extremely poignant account–quite radical and revolutionary-minded for the times, and speaks of many of the same questions we face today. For sure not some Liberal-guilt-ridden tome.
Miles Ahead said
Would also like to add (?–perhaps) something to what Nando said above–and BTW, am very much in agreement with what Nando had to say, although obviously his is not the last word as we discuss this pivotal question:
Nando:
In terms of “identity politics of the oppressed”, IMO there is another aspect, and one that needs to be defeated, and that has to do with some thinking among the oppressed themselves. Sometimes the oppressed do not view their oppression as part of oppression across the board and that this is a question facing so many amongst humankind. To be glib, kind of like, a conversation–”I broke my leg.” “Well I broke both my legs.” People vying for just who it is who is “most” oppressed. Unfortunately I run across this kind of attitude all too often among some people, not all certainly, in a country where oppression and poverty are very stark and ongoing. On the other hand, with the advent of say Katrina, the tsunami, Haiti, or the contradictions and abject poverty of Honduras, etc.etc., most feel a solidarity and genuine concern.
Received an email recently about many Palestinians on the Gaza Strip who had sent not only a missive of solidarity to the Haitian people, but were offering what little they had to help the devastated Haitians.
But in sum, I think while we cannot ignore certain particularities facing different peoples amongst the overwhelmingly oppressed, as well as so many obstacles various peoples from different classes and groupings face, ultimately identity-politics is toxic, and ultimately takes the low-road in the scheme of things. To imbue a real sense of internationalism and genuine solidarity/unity amongst the people takes the high road, and I envision that as a key part of revolutionary politics.
mike e said
Welcome back Miles — we’ve missed you!
It brought tears to my eyes to read:
* * * * * * *
On solidarity among people: One experience that touched me deeply happened when a flash flood ripped through our coal camp in West Virginia (years ago). The water rose suddenly and then (because of environmental crimes of the coal operators) spread up the walls of the valley until the whole bottom land was waiste deep.
And it was remarkable how people fell out. Some hunkered down in their houses focused on their own property (until the moment it came into danger). While others rushed their families to safety and then gathered in a group to rescue those in danger (including older people and widows in the camp). And it was very stark who they were — because those of us who met, waist deep in the water to go from house-to-house were the same men who had been active together in the illegal strike movements. And the scab-hearted ones or foremen in that holler were just not seen helping us that night.
There erupted sharp debate (and even threats) between various groups.
For example, one cyclone fence between properties had become instantly packed with debris and was serving as a mini-dam. And the yard on the uphill side was rapidly filling with water, starting to flood the first story of that house. We jumped at that fence with axes and, from the downhill fought to chop it free from its moorings — to release the water and save the house — when suddenly the fence owner appeared yelling that this was his property, his land and his fence and we had no right to destroy it. He just didn’t give a shit that we were saving the home of his neighbor. We told him to fuck off, and finished the job.
The same question popped off even more intensely shortly afterwards as a trailer came floating down the swollen creek and wedged itself under the sole bridge in the upper holler — literally stopping up the flowthrough. The creek literally jumped out of its creekbed, and will full force was running through two homes (demolishing them) and starting to eat its way through an embankment toward several more.
A group of men met on that bridge within minutes and (sizing up the situation) decided to destroy the bridge — free the trailer, and let main flow of water remain in the creek bed. This is mining country and quite a few miners had a box of something in their garage that could quickly demolish a bridge. Suddenly a man stalked over, who had been watching the discussion from his porch. He screamed that this was public property, and no one had any right to destroy it. Over and over, someone said “don’t you understand, all those people’s houses will be gone in minutes if we don’t take this bridge out.” And over and over he babbled stuff about the law — and clearly threatened to report whatever was done. “I’ll see you put in prison,” was his parting shot.
In that case, the risks were real (people knew that asshole well, and knew he wasn’t joking), and so no one dared actually take out the bridge. And (sure enough) within an hour the water (like a massive forty-foot wide fire nozzle) had taken out one house after another down that row, washing out foundations, battering down walls, whisking away people’s few possessions (and cars).
It was just a community trying to save itself from a man-made flood.
But there was from beginning to end sharp struggle between the self and the collective, between property laws and the greater good. And the militant “union men” there and the two communists, had built their connections and common assumptions in the solidarity of the mines and a dozen different illegal strikes — and as they jumped into action together, also found themselves arrayed against those whose worldviews were actively opposed to that kind of outlaw thought.
Jeff Weinberger said
I’m learning a lot from this give-and-take and preface the following note to all but particularly to Nando with the grateful acknowledgment that I, a well-educated intuitive Leftist have a lot to learn here, and while I have a feeling for what you’re expressing, I haven’t reached a clear understanding of your argument probably because I don’t have a grasp of some more basic principles. I’d appreciate a reading list beyond “Mao for Beginners,” etc.
Anyway, Nando wrote: ““Ultra-left” is simply not a term I use — perhaps because whenever I have heard it used, it is usually directed at politics I hold or would at least respect.”
But, as I understand it, there also is a pejorative sense of “ultra-left” defined by a rigidity of thought that precludes alliance with any forces – reformist, social democrat…. – not absolutely committed to revolutionary goals.
nando said
Jeff:
Perhaps there are places where “ultra-left” is defined as
More generally, I have seen “ultra-left” applied to anyone who thinks that revolution is a possibility — and that revolutionary work (organizing for revolution, speaking about revolution, analyzing opening for revolution) can-and-must be carried out in relatively NON-revolutionary times.
There is a swath of the left (those currents generally focused on electoral work, entrance into the Democratic party, and day-to-day trade union organizing) who consider anyone to their left to be “ultra-left.” They use that term so casually and often that they (essentially) own it.
Again: In my experience, “ultra-left” is a term that I’ve seen applied by electoral socialists toward communists who integrate revolutionary politics into their current activities. (And the difference here is between socialists and communists — not just electoral vs. revolutionary).
It is so commonly used that way, that I simply avoid the term altogether — because (regardless of my intentions and regardless of any other definition I or you attach to the term), many many people hear the word “ultra-left” and read it to mean “communists who integrate revolutionary politics into their current work.”
I am obviously not arguing that there are not “left errors” within communist politics or in communism’s history. Name any stupidity or infantile notion, and you can find that there is (inevitably) someone who has put it forward. And when I discuss such currents and problems, I use the clunkier but more revealing term “left in term, right in essense.” (For example, on the surface, both the Sparts and the RCP appear to be “left” sectarian — but their politics is in both cases rooted in a very real, and rather rightist, pessimism about what is possible.)
For example, the German KPD (communist party of the 1930s) insisted that social democracy and Hitler fascism were political “twins” — that was a “left error” in analysis within an overall work and method that also had major rightist elements (on the question of German nationalism, on “general crisis” approach to economic struggles etc.).
I would call the KPD a revolutoinary party that was often “left in form, right in essence” — i would not use the term “ultra-left” at all.
I’m sure there are other usages. And that is, of course, why a discussion is valuable.
Miles Ahead said
Thank you Mike for relaying your meaningful experiences. I would bet that many people have similar experiences to tell—but obviously not about coal mines per se.
Am not sure this needs to be said, but, it is one thing when we’re talking about horrendous crises/disasters—whether earthquakes, floods, starvation, et al. and it is another thing to be talking about a more general perspective concerning solidarity, unity, moral and political obligations and responsibility and sheer justice—a whole attitude that can change the social/political landscape, and change it in the people’s favour.
It is pretty evident, that during say some natural (or man-made) disaster, most people rise to the occasion, and reach out – even across class lines – to help those in need. This happens for a myriad of reasons—e.g. some out of guilt (or “maybe I don’t have it so bad” and to assuage their guilt) or some out of genuine concern for their fellow human beings. Often times, the reaction is knee-jerk, spontaneous, and people don’t have to be convinced that they should contribute to helping others. What is not so apparent to a lot of folks is when the situation is more blatantly motivated by politics. I think Katrina became highly politicized during and in the aftermath and some very potent underlying contradictions in the U.S. were laid bare.
Seems like at every turn there are usually two, but sometimes more, poles out there in summing up an overwhelming crisis, such as Haiti; and there is an ensuing battle for public opinion. (From all I have read, what keeps coming through is that many people weren’t even aware of the preceding situation in Haiti—economically, politically, socially.)
But here is an example of the juxtaposition of two headlines that were recently reported in the AP: to paraphrase, lead headline—“chaos and desperation in Haiti hampering aid.” In other words, let’s blame the victims for the lack of aid getting through. Meanwhile, this article poised right next to one that talked about the rise of Haitian and other grassroots orgs., and the general outpouring of aid, sympathy and empathy and moreover action among people globally. (Have to say, besides all the pinche political and not so subtle innuendo regarding the first headline, I couldn’t help but think that for some who that headline might have appeal, those same people might just have a nervous breakdown if their cappuchino machine broke.)
During most of my years in working with different strata, what usually seemed to “win people over” who were in a better position monetarily, etc. (some of this pretty illusory) – i.e. many in the “petit bourgeois” — was the notion that they had much more in common with the super oppressed than they did with the rulers, and just how it is that they were actually used as pawns, and a buffer between the two prominent classes.
Here is a somewhat circuitous example—but politically motivated—although I would have to say this experience was with people who are on the bottom rungs of the fragile Mexican “middle class,” (some “devout” Catholics no less) but who had a reactionary outlook nevertheless.
When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, I happened to be at “my second familia’s” in the countryside of Mexico. We were watching the news, and I got pretty hysterical—as well as weepy. La madre turned to me and said, “Why are you so upset?” and after my explanation, she said, “Well, there are lots of people here in Mexico who don’t even have a tortilla to eat…” This triggered a huge discussion and debate, and the outcome was pretty positive, since most family members were either defending or siding with an internationalist (and frankly more humane) position. And it was reiterated, and became a lot clearer, just who were the same oppressors of both the Afghanis and Mexicans. This was not some kind of moral yak yak, but highly political.
I guess my point is—which as revolutionary-minded people is probably a given—that part of our battle to accumulate and win over allies, from different stratas, or even among the more exploited and oppressed, doesn’t just arise when a literally earthshaking “event” such as Haiti occurs. In fact, I propose that had more people around the world been aware of the prevailing and historical situation in Haiti before the earthquake, many more people could have been saved.
G said
Ultra or infantile leftism is always left in form but right in essence, by definition. It is also associated with dogmatism, rigidity, of sticking to “pure’ forms regardless of actual concrete conditions needed to advance things closer towards revolution. This is because its more concerned with advancing superficial forms, often very “militant sounding” over actual content of making real changes, hence it being ‘rightist’ in essence.
In a way the RCP’s stance on Nepal, even before the facts came in, is another example, even more in line with what Lenin wrote in the topic in his work ‘Left Wing Communism, and Infantile Disorder,” where he talks about adopting an inflexible and immature attitude towards the necessity of compromise in achieving the revolution, arguing that the experience of the Bolsheviks demonstrates that forming parliamentary political alliances and compromises (e.g. the Mensheviks in Russia, the social democrats in Germany, the Labor party in Britain) will frequently be not only expedient but actually crucial in fomenting a revolutionary class consciousness and zeal in the masses.
Back more directly to the subject of this post, another separate topic that comes to mind about what was going on, has to do the way capitalism separates humanity into objects, commodities, and this whole concept of “bourgeois right,” being these were ‘paying customers,’ putting them into this special category that excludes them, in this case, from just a common sense right thing to do. These capitalist relations end up short-circuiting decent humanitarian social relations, vitiating a ‘communist morality” that entails values of solidarity. Just think about what a normal thing would be to do, and would have been done when grounded in just a basic, common humane-centered world view? Here is larger ship full of so many people with abundant resources on board. There is a human catastrophe just outside the gates. What do you do? Party, or go out and help? Here the cruise ship, could have themselves organized an outreach a “day of voluntarism’ bringing supplies and helping the masses in need in coordination with other aid organizations. There are thousands of able bodied, healthy, people on board the ship, who I bet, would be able and willing to help. Yet, the common sense options were not even presented as options, instead going forward with a creepy and repugnant party on the beach! This embodies the morality of commodities, whose use value is irrelevant if it doesn’t first prove its exchange value (i.e. profit). These passengers became part of the private property belonging to these cruise ships, so they were kept privately on their private beach, and the common sense option that any decent person would normally choose was never never even presented.
Otto said
As with Nando I also avoid the term “Ultra-left.” To the Communist Party USA, all Maoist are “Ultra-left” and to the Democratic Socialist Party, the CPUSA is “Ultra-left.” So the meaning of that term depends on who uses it. I agree it is generally used to imply that believing in revolution is “too left.” For serious discussion the term has lost any real meaning.
It reminds me of those who automatically call any left trend they disagree with as “petit bourgeois.” Some have labeled the Trotskyites as “petit bourgeois” while the Trots have referred to the Maoist Guerrillas in Peru as “petit bourgeois.” When such a term becomes just an insult, it loses its meaning.
Stephanie McMillan said
Renouncing privilege doesn’t have to mean giving up one’s fancy car or vacation home. I don’t think class privilege is so much about one’s possessions, but it’s about being insulated from problems. Money buys a life that’s more hassle-free and free of constant fears. You can go to the dentist, you can drive instead of waiting an hour for a bus, you don’t have to be nervous about filling in paperwork because your documentation isn’t right, you know where to find a good lawyer, you don’t get stopped and interrogated.
Renouncing privilege isn’t just moving into a tenement, but risking your hassle-free existence and being willing to be in danger and afraid. It’s being willing to climb down from the spectator stands, wave your arms, and draw the attention of the authorities who’ve never noticed you before because they were busy beating on other people.
The rebellious lab technician in Radical-Eyes’ post renounced privilege the moment s/he spoke up, by risking his/her job, and risking isolation, disapproval and scorn. This is true whether or not the job was actually lost. Thank you for that story, Radical-Eyes — I’ve heard about the first part of that experiment many times, but not the part about the rebellious lab technician. That’s very inspiring.
If in stepping forward and leading we knew that others felt the same way and would jump in to back us up, it wouldn’t be so frightening. Renouncing privilege is to take action even when we know we might go down in flames. I means to accept risk and act in spite of fear.
Andre C said
it seems protest is the main form to give space to the cause. To give idealogical space to the cause to define the struggle, to give space for unity to the oppresed, to give space to leadership to bring forward correct ideas, and for ourselves for comraderie. But how should this protest take form? I try to scrape together time – but it’s always a small percentage of the urgent battles that need to be waged. Christian fascists are bussing in peeps all over the country to shut down abortion clinics. That’s a lot of resources that has horrible affects on womens freedom to dictate how they want to live their lives.
TOR said
On the ultra-left discussion:
Obviously, rightist forces will always call revolutionary communists ultra-left, though I have still used this term to describe those who are, as you guys say, “left in form, right in essence”, which is a term I’ve heard once or twice before and makes perfect sense when describing people like the Weather Underground and other groupings of that nature.
The thing about these left in form, right in essence forces is that they often champion certain issues or policies that are actually counter-revolutionary (they do not aid the revolutionary movement, but instead divide workers and help capitalism) while still posturing as if they are far to the left of any other communist forces through the use of extreme language and purifying their political action from any kind of work within ‘imperialist’ trade unions or parliamentary reformists.