Comment by claudiawerner

5 years ago

>- John Carmack signal boosting[1] Sarah Downey's article "This PC witch-hunt is killing free speech, and we have to fight it"[2]

Is this really a "bright spot"? Expressing a fear (without any reasoning or evidence shown as the basis for that fear) that one's opponents approve of an atrocious campaign orchestrated by a totalitarian regime?

There's a lot of room to criticize "cancel culture" and deplatforming. Comparisons with mass killings and state-orchestrated oppression is an odd choice, and (to take the other side of the fence here) with about the same amount of merit as saying that people critical of BLM have similar opinions of the Nazi regime.

There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left. They have explicitly approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past - often enthusiastically so - and for all we know, they continue to do so. The M.O. is certainly comparable.

  • Maybe it's not direct yet. And that's what makes me a little nervous about where this all could head.

    If people are willing to hunt and cancel people without giving the accused a chance to even defend themselves (leading to reputation, job loss, etc), physical harm seems like the next logical step.

  • Source?

    There is a direct line of descent between the Nazi government in Germany and the current space efforts, too.

  • >There is a direct line of descent between Maoist agitation in Western countries throughout the late-1960s and 1970s and the current radical left.

    Do you have any sources I can read on this? If anything, it seems the radical left actually left Badiou and his ilk behind for the Frankfurt School, and even then, I'm doubtful as to what that intellectual heritage means to your average "radical leftist" today. This is all beside the point, however - is there a recent (from the past 20 years) poll or anything similar surveying the "radical left" (which, mind you, includes anti-statists and anarcho-Communists) on their opinion of the Cultural Revolution? One of the largest "radical leftist" groups in the West is Antifa, but from what I know, it's hard to see any Maoism (or Maoist ideas) present in its members[0]. The Sino-Soviet split and the ascension of Deng liberalizing China has practically deadened Maoist ideology in the West. You'd have a better (but still somewhat shaky) case to say the radical left today draws from Stalinism instead (as opposed to Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, etc.).

    >They have approved of the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution" in the past

    To what degree? In what numbers? For example, I can't name a single leftist journal which the majority of contributors could be aligned with Maoist views, never mind views supporting the Cultural Revolution. Even the Maoists I know of with some influence (e.g. Badiou) are critical of the cultural revolution.

    >and for all we know, they continue to do so

    So it's a superstition?

    >The M.O. is certainly similar.

    Which mainstream leftist organizations (mainstream enough to guide the course of the modern "radical left") approve of state-sanctioned murder and imprisonment of intellectuals?

    [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)#Ideolog...

    • > One of the largest "radical leftist" groups in the West is Antifa, but from what I know, it's hard to see any Maoism (or Maoist ideas) present in its members

      "The modern Antifa movement has its roots in the West German Außerparlamentarische Opposition left-wing student movement ... The first Antifa groups in this tradition were founded by the Maoist Communist League in the early 1970s. From the late 1980s, West Germany's squatter scene and left-wing autonomism movement were the main contributors to the new Antifa movement ..."

      The reference to "autonomism" implies a historical link to "revolutionary spontaneism" groups who, generally speaking, were especially enthusiastic about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (that is, Mao Zedong Thought as "transferred" to the Western context) and the CR in particular. It might be hard to believe, but the links are quite clear once you do some digging.

      > The Sino-Soviet split and the ascension of Deng liberalizing China has practically deadened Maoist ideology in the West.

      Maybe so in the United States, but it did not have the same outcome elsewhere in the West. (And the real turning point was Nixon going to China, that made overt references to Maoist China somewhat unpalatable for radicals in the U.S. and to some extent the UK. Changes in deeper ideology are not nearly as easy or quick, however.)

      1 reply →

  • The last American 1970s Maoist I met (ca. 2005) was by then an investment manager. There are Marxists nostalgists out there, but not many. The left is much more into identity politics these days.

> Comparisons with mass killings and state-orchestrated oppression is an odd choice,

Coordinated attempts to ruin peoples ability to earn a living is pretty bad. It also strikes me that such economic terrorism could very well be the precursors to actual killing and state oppression. People who don't respect the right to liberty or property of others probably don't respect their right to life either.

> with about the same amount of merit as saying that people critical of BLM have similar opinions of the Nazi regime.

I agree with the point that our criticism needs to have some proportionality, but I don't think this particular comparison is entirely valid. In both the Cultural Revolution and the current Cancel Culture, the objective is the purging institutions of dissidents and the destruction of all artifacts of the old order (e.g. destruction of statues, including Frederick Douglass for some reason). Whatever the people participating in Cancel Culture believe, they are still following the Cultural Revolution template. Obviously the Cultural Revolution was far more violent, but I think that assuming such mass violence can't or won't happen here is mistaken.

On the other hand, there are plenty of critics of BLM who are quite ardently against abusive policing, but either don't think the racial component is as central to the problem of authoritarian policing as BLM claims, or object to some of the other principles of BLM that have nothing to do with race or policing.

  • > It also strikes me that such economic terrorism could very well be the precursors to actual killing and state oppression.

    They could also not be. Even the phrasing of "economic terrorism" stretches both the terminology of economy and terrorism beyond what most people would consider by the terms.

    > People who don't respect the right to liberty or property of others probably don't respect their right to life either.

    Which of the 'cancel culture' advocates don't respect the right to liberty? I can understand they have arguments against the right to (private) property, but this seems far more abstract.

    >the objective is the purging institutions of dissidents and the destruction of all artifacts of the old order

    I have some recollection of Marcuse's argument that the qualitative, historical, and social differences between terrors and movements are increasingly being reduced to nothing by the popular consciousness who is only acquainted with them through one-off facts and cherry picking...

    >Whatever the people participating in Cancel Culture believe, they are still following the Cultural Revolution template.

    What is sufficient to constitute a 'template' here? Let me provide a concrete example; the anarchists of old frequently argued against the notion of human rights, the state, and property. Marx and his followers did the same. Who is following who's template here? As another commenter in this thread pointed out, when most people think of the cultural revolution, they're really not thinking about tearing down statues or call-outs on social media (or even newspapers!) from a mob only given power by association (and not, say, the state or weaponry).

    The comparison is almost entirely bunk, and it's a little surprising that Mao's atrocities are being reduced to tearing down statues of slave traders. BLM actually more closely resembles (again, I'm ignoring many qualitative differences here, since it seems to be fair game to do so in this discussion) the systematic removal of Marx and Lenin statues in Europe and especially Lukacs' and Engels' statues being removed recently.

    • > Even the phrasing of "economic terrorism" stretches both the terminology of economy and terrorism beyond what most people would consider by the terms.

      The literal firing of some nobody over accidentally making a gesture that looked like a "white power" symbol fits very nicely into the idea of "economic terrorism"[1]. The idea that anything you do in your life could be captured, taken out of context, and shared on the Internet and subject to the fury of a mob (and resulting in the loss of income, employability, and economic stability) is pretty terrifying.

      What makes it terrorism is not simply that people are subjected to this treatment randomly (although that does happen too, and should not be discounted) but that there is an ideological agenda behind these attacks. The person who posted the picture from the linked article, those who shared it, and possibly even the company that fired him (though they could have just been cowards) all felt that they were contributing toward a righteous cause of fighting against bigotry.

      Of course, even if the gesture was genuine the idea that bigots should not be able to even get jobs as repair technicians (assuming that they otherwise conduct themselves in a lawful manner) is baffling to me. There's no justice in going after people who are already relatively low on the social and economic hierarchy just because the believe repugnant things.

      [1]https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove...