ARE LEFTISTS RADICALS AND REFORMERS ALL CRAZY?
Are they jealous ANARCHISTS seeking to tumble what they cannot have as they're
dumb, disorganized and destined to be slaves? Analysis of the Psychology of
Radicalism & MODERN LEFTISM
Anarchism and the Politics
of 'Ressentiment'* French word
meaning ‘jealousy of the haves by the have-nots.' 
So the MOTHER of our word RESENTMENT!
by Saul Newman
"A word in the ear of the psychologists, assuming they are inclined to study ressentiment close up for once: this plant thrives best amongst anarchists...." *word invented by Nietzsche
My favorite book
is FINLAND Station by
Edmund Wilson, Scott Fitzgerald's personal conscience, friend and editor. This
book is a personable, interesting study of the childhoods of the great radical leftists Marx, Lenin, Michelet,Bakunin, Engels, Trotsky, (mainly
martyrs,) of the last five hundred years. It goes over their bios very
carefully, showing what made them rise up against reality and royalty with a
fist and invariably end up either poor or in jail. PRIMARILY, they hated their
FATHERS! But not always. Here's a take on that theme which I FOUND online. It
tells us that THE INTERIOR OF THE RADICAL MIND is different from
our own. The FIRST HALF of article below is from Frederich NIETZSCHE, the
second half's author is very famous & now in prison,
but he is a unique man, even in the annals of this
GROUP of unique men, all dedicated reformers, not really anarchists, at all.
Someone should write the book that has all these head trips studied, but a
'combined system analysis' or 'psych and theory both, investigation.' The
psychiatric and the sociological and the biographical as well as historical
context of this millieu would make a great three man stage play. Get a
conversation going between any of our hero leftists. Edmund Wilson, went on to
study a lot of more modern writers/ authors, Dickens,a humanist, GB Shaw a
socialist, in his book of essays. Get that book. It is excellent. Who else does
what he does? ANALYZE the heads of great men with a lice comb?
1. Of all the nineteenth century political movements that Nietzsche decries -- from socialism to liberalism -- he reserves his most venomous words for the anarchists. He calls them the "anarchist dogs" that are roaming the streets of European culture, the epitome of the "herd-animal morality" that characterizes modern democratic politics. Nietzsche sees anarchism as poisoned at the root by the pestiferous weed of ressentiment -- the spiteful politics of the weak and pitiful, the morality of the slave. Is Nietzsche here merely venting his conservative wrath against radical politics, or is he diagnosing a real sickness that has infected our radical political imaginary? Despite the Nietzsche's obvious prejudice towards radical politics, this paper will take seriously his charge against anarchism. It will explore this cunning logic of ressentiment in relation to radical politics, particularly anarchism. It will attempt to unmask the hidden strains of ressentiment in the Manichean political thinking of classical anarchists like Bakunin, Kropotkin and Proudhon. This is not with the intention of dismissing anarchism as a political theory. On the contrary I argue that anarchism could become more relevant to contemporary political struggles, if it were made aware of the ressentiment logic of its own discourse, particularly in the essentialist identities and structures that inhabit it.
Slave Morality and Ressentiment
2. Ressentiment is diagnosed by Nietzsche as our modern condition. In order to understand ressentiment, however, it is necessary to understand the relationship between master morality and slave morality in which ressentiment is generated. Nietzsche's work On the Genealogy of Morality is a study of the origins of morality. For Nietzsche, the way we interpret and impose values on the world has a history -- its origins are often brutal and far removed from the values they produce. The value of 'good', for instance, was invented by the noble and high-placed to apply to themselves, in contrast to common, low-placed and plebeian. It was the value of the master -- 'good' -- as opposed to that of the slave -- 'bad'. Thus, according to Nietzsche, it was in this pathos of distance, between the high-born and the low-born, this absolute sense of superiority, that values were created. However, this equation of good and aristocratic began to be undermined by a slave revolt in values. This slave revolt, according to Nietzsche, began with the Jews who instigated a revaluation of values:
3. It was the Jews who, rejecting the aristocratic value equation (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = happy = blessed) ventured with awe-inspiring consistency, to bring about a reversal and held it in the teeth of their unfathomable hatred (the hatred of the powerless), saying, 'Only those who suffer are good, only the poor, the powerless, the lowly are good; the suffering, the deprived, the sick, the ugly, are the only pious people, the only ones, salvation is for them alone, whereas you rich, the noble, the powerful, you are eternally wicked, cruel, lustful, insatiate, godless, you will also be eternallywretched, cursed and damned!'....
4. In this way the slave revolt in morality inverted the noble system of values and began to equate good with the lowly, the powerless -- the slave. This inversion introduced the pernicious spirit of revenge and hatred into the creation of values. Therefore morality, as we understand it, had its roots in this vengeful will to power of the powerless over the powerful -- the revolt of the slave against the master. It was from this imperceptible, subterranean hatred that grew the values subsequently associated with the good -- pity, altruism, meekness, etc.
5. Political values also grew from this poisonous root. For Nietzsche, values of equality and democracy, which form the cornerstone of radical political theory, arose out of the slave revolt in morality. They are generated by the same spirit of revenge and hatred of the powerful. Nietzsche therefore condemns political movements like liberal democracy, socialism, and indeed anarchism. He sees the democratic movement as an expression of the herd-animalmorality derived from the Judeo-Christian revaluation of values.Anarchism is for Nietzsche the most extreme heir to democratic values -- the most rabid expression of the herd instinct. It seeks to level the differences between individuals, to abolish class distinctions, to raze hierarchies to the ground, and to equalize the powerful and the powerless, the rich and the poor, the master and the slave. To Nietzsche this is bringing everything down to level of the lowest common denominator -- to erase the pathos of distance between the master and slave, the sense of difference and superiority through which great values are created. Nietzsche sees this as the worst excess of European nihilism -- the death of values and creativity.
6. Slave morality is characterized by the attitude of ressentiment -- the resentment and hatred of the powerless for the powerful. Nietzsche sees ressentiment as an entirely negative sentiment -- the attitude of denying what is life-affirming, saying'no' to what is different, what is 'outside' or 'other'. Ressentiment is characterized by an orientation to the outside, rather than the focus of noble morality, which is on the self. While the master says 'I am good' and adds as an afterthought, 'therefore he is bad'; the slave says the opposite -- 'He (the master) is bad, therefore I am good'. Thus the invention of values comes from a comparison or opposition to that which is outside, other, different. Nietzsche says: "... in order to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act all, -- its action is basically a reaction." This reactive stance, this inability to define anything except in opposition to something else, is the attitude of ressentiment. It is the reactive stance of the weak who define themselves in opposition to the strong. The weak need the existence of this external enemy to identify themselves as 'good'. Thus the slave takes 'imaginary revenge' upon the master, as he cannot act without the existence of the master to oppose. The man of ressentiment hates the noble with an intense spite, a deep-seated, seething hatred and jealousy. It is this ressentiment, according to Nietzsche, that has poisoned the modern consciousness, and finds its expression in ideas of equality and democracy, and in radical political philosophies, like anarchism, that advocate it.
7. Is anarchism a political expression of ressentiment? Is it poisoned by a deep hatred of the powerful? While Nietzsche's attack on anarchism is in many respects unjustified and excessively malicious, and shows little understanding of the complexities of anarchist theory, I would nevertheless argue that Nietzsche does uncover a certain logic of ressentiment in anarchism's oppositional, Manichean thinking. It is necessary to explore this logic that inhabits anarchism -- to see where it leads and to what extent it imposes conceptual limits on radical politics.
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~~^~~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
Now, examine THE MIND OF AN ANARCHIST FRUITCAKE.
A friend of the philosopher writer R.K.MOORE sent this
article to him, RKM: " In all the furor over the Unabomber and his
manifesto (circa 1993) -- which was eventually published, in capitulation to
his bombing threat, as a supplement to the Washington Post—I was amazed that
apparently almost no one actually READ the manifesto, or if they did they had
little or nothing to say about it. Below, I have excerpted two passages of
special vitality.
Bear
in mind that this was NOT written by some right-wing fruitcake or ditto-head
demagogue, but rather by an ultra-radical biocentrist anarchist and enemy of
urban-industrialism and technology.
He sees the ways in which the dysfunctional psychological
attributes of typical leftists act to abort or pervert their (ostensibly) noble
purposes, and how those same attributes foster statism and authoritarianism,
even totalitarianism. He may or may not prove to be correct about the fate of
urban-industrialism and technology (i.e. that it is doomed), and his style is
blunt, but he has said some insightful and riveting things in this essay—to
which leftish types should pay close attention, and should use as fuel for
serious introspection.
Kaczynski’s tract was, for me, the beginning of a 
process of awakening
and eventual dis-identification with the left. Over the next decade I came to
see identification with either right or left as an addiction, and worse. The
original green vision of “beyond left and right” came to have real resonance
(sadly, just as it was losing traction amongst the greens themselves, as they
yielded to a tide of conventional leftists and “progressives”).
I owe it all to Kaczynski, whose trenchant savagery was perhaps
the only thing that could have jogged me out of my self-satisfied intellectual
torpor, and prejudice.
Next, for more scholarly/historic context, I reproduce a
selection from Herbert Schlossberg’s book Idols for Destruction (given
in a letter to a friend of mine). Schlossberg discusses Nietszche’s and
Scheler’s “ressentiment”—the basis, more abstractly, of much of what Kaczynski
is talking about. After that there is a brief clip describing Neitszche’s
“underman”—also relevant.
The only problem with all of this is that
ressentiment—just like the Protestant fundamentalist pathologies described in
the Davis article, which precipitated this—tends to be invisible to the very
people who suffer from it. I’ve found that people (including myself at one
time) who consciously identify with an ideology or orientation—commonly “right”
or “left”, “conservative” or “liberal”—almost invariably are in a pre-rational
thrall, with areas of cognition that are “off limits” to rational or
super-rational appraisal. In other words, that their orientations are rooted in
prejudice. Thus they cannot see in a self-critical way. In evolutionary
psychological terms they are informed by deeply-embedded “dominant” or
“counter-dominant” tendencies, as described in this remarkable, must-read
article: Injustice, Inequality and Evolutionary Psychology, by Bruce G
Charlton -
http://www.hedweb.com/bgcharlton/evolpsych.html
http://solutions.synearth.net/2002/09/16
http://solutions.synearth.net/2002/09/17
http://solutions.synearth.net/2002/09/18
http://solutions.synearth.net/2002/09/19
SO, without further ado, here’s Kaczynski, followed by
Schlossberg/Scheler/Neitszche...
http://www.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/uni/uni.html
The Unabomber’s
Manifesto:
Industrial Society And Its Future
Introduction
The Psychology Of Modern Leftism (6-9)
Feelings Of Inferiority
Oversocialization (24-32)
The Power Process
Surrogate Activities (38-41)
Autonomy
Sources Of Social Problems (45-58)
Disruption Of The Power Process In Modern Society How Some
People Adjust (77-86)
The Motives Of Scientists
The Nature Of Freedom (93-98)
Some Principles Of History
Industrial-Technological Society Cannot Be Reformed
(111-113)
Restriction Of Freedom Is Unavoidable In Industrial
Society
Technology
Is A More Powerful Social Force Than The Aspiration For Freedom
Simpler Social
Problems Have Proved Intractable (136-139)
Revolution Is Easier
Than Reform
Control Of Human Behavior (143-160)
Human Race At A Crossroads
Human Suffering (167-170)
The Escape
Strategy (180-206)
Two Kinds Of Technology
The Danger Of Leftism (213-230)
Final Note
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a
deeply troubled society.
One
of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism,
so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to
the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what
is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could
have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is
fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we
speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists,
collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability
activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is
associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get
at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a
psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean
by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so,
our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would
wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this.All we are trying to do
is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies
that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means
claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our
discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question
of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the
19th and early 20th century.
9. The two
psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call
“feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern
leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
FEELINGS
OF INFERIORITY
10.
By
“feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the
strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low self-esteem,
feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt,
self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have such feelings
(possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in
determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost
anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we
conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the
minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the
words used to designate minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,”
“handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman
originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the
feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations
have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its
replacement by “animal companion.” Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths
to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be
interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word “primitive” by
“nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that
any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity
of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who
are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the
average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person,
but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed”
group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its
stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white males
from middle-class families.
13. Many
leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have
an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent
(homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these
groups are inferior. They would never admit it to themselves that they have
such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior
that they identify with their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians,
etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).
14. Feminists
are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as
men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as
capable as men.
15. Leftists
tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful.
They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they
hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc.
clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but
where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures,
the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they
exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates)
these faults where they appear in Western civilization.Thus it is clear that
these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West.
He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like
“self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative”,
17. Art forms
that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat
and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control
as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation
and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.
18. Modern
leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to
insist that everything is culturally relative.It is true that one can ask
serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how,
if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious
that modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved
emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts
because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an
outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies
the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and
rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful,
superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist’s
feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of
mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to
genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations
tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists
prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack
of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s,
because he has not been brought up properly.
19. The leftist
is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a
braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This
kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his
sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having
the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his
unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings
of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as
individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can
feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with
which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the
masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in
front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them,
etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a
means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a
leftist trait.
21. Leftists
may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principle,
and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized
type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist
activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the
drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated
to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people,
does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic
terms?Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and
conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions
to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them.
But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy
their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead,
race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because
the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify
race hatred.
22. If our
society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT
problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We
emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of
everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a
general tendency of leftism.
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to
designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the
moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that
society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are over-socialized,
since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.Nevertheless, the position can be
defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding
that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we
are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so
highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a
severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually
have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations
for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the
term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization
can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc.
One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by
making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially
susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover
the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted
by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person.The majority
of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they
commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get
ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if
he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The
oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or
feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean”
thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized
to confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of
morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and
spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many
oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness
that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the
more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue
that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is
oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in
determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized
type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that
university intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of
our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist
of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert
his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against
the most basic values of society.Generally speaking, the goals of today’s
leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the
left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality,
equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war,
nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More
fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of
society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted
values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes (4)) for a
long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed
in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media
and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized
type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility
to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living
up to these principles.
29. Here is an
illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real
attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be
in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving
black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools
and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they
regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system,
make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like
upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing
they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they
want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation
of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more
than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing
black-style clothing and going to a black-style church or mosque. In other
words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL
respects more leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man
conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical
subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the
status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to
make black fathers “responsible.” They want black gangs to become nonviolent,
etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system.
The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of
clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in
school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible”
parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the
oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and
make him adopt its values.
30. We
certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER
rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do.
Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern
society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their
own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by
committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have
been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have
been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of
them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values.
If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize
that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumb-nail sketch of
leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete
description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were
available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important
tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The
problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a
whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to
the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are
widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a
greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to
eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
213. Because of their need for rebellion and
for membership in a movement, leftists or persons of similar psychological type
are often unattracted to a rebellious or activist movement whose goals and
membership are not initially leftist. The resulting influx of leftish types can
easily turn a non-leftist movement into a leftist one, so that leftist goals
replace or distort the original goals of the movement.
214. To avoid this, a movement that exalts
nature and opposes technology must take a resolutely anti-leftist stance and
must avoid all collaboration with leftists. Leftism is in the long run
inconsistent with wild nature, with human freedom and with the elimination of
modern technology. Leftism is collectivist; it seeks to bind together the
entire world (both nature and the human race) into a unified whole. But this
implies management of nature and of human life by organized society, and it
requires advanced technology. You can’t have a united world without rapid
transportation and communication, you can’t make all people love one another
without sophisticated psychological techniques, you can’t have a “planned
society” without the necessary technological base. Above all, leftism is driven
by the need for power, and the leftist seeks power on a collective basis,
through identification with a mass movement or an organization. Leftism is
unlikely ever to give up technology, because technology is too valuable a source
of collective power.
215. The
anarchist [34] too seeks power, but he seeks it on an individual or small-group
basis; he wants individuals and small groups to be able to control the
circumstances of their own lives. He opposes technology because it makes small
groups dependent on large organizations.
216. Some
leftists may seem to oppose technology, but they will oppose it only so long as
they are outsiders and the technological system is controlled by non-leftists.
If leftism ever becomes dominant in society, so that the technological system
becomes a tool in the hands of leftists, they will enthusiastically use it and
promote its growth. In doing this they will be repeating a pattern that leftism
has shown again and again in the past. When the Bolsheviks in Russia were
outsiders, they vigorously opposed censorship and the secret police, they
advocated self-determination for ethnic minorities, and so forth; but as soon
as they came into power themselves, they imposed a tighter censorship and
created a more ruthless secret police than any that had existed under the
tsars, and they oppressed ethnic minorities at least as much as the tsars had
done. In the United States, a couple of decades ago when leftists were a
minority in our universities, leftist professors were vigorous proponents of
academic freedom, but today, in those universities where leftists have become
dominant, they have shown themselves ready to take away from everyone else’s
academic freedom.(This is “political correctness.”) The same will happen with
leftists and technology: They will use it to oppress everyone else if they ever
get it under their own control.
217. In
earlier revolutions, leftists of the most power-hungry type, repeatedly, have
first cooperated with non-leftist revolutionaries, as well as with leftists of
a more libertarian inclination, and later have double-crossed them to seize
power for themselves. Robespierre did this in the French Revolution, the
Bolsheviks did it in the Russian Revolution, the communists did it in Spain in
1938 and Castro and his followers did it in Cuba. Given the past history of
leftism, it would be utterly foolish for non-leftist revolutionaries today to
collaborate with leftists.
218. Various
thinkers have pointed out that leftism is a kind of religion. Leftism is not a
religion in the strict sense because leftist doctrine does not postulate the
existence of any supernatural being. But for the leftist, leftism plays a
psychological role much like that which religion plays for some people. The
leftist NEEDS to believe in leftism; it plays a vital role in his psychological
economy. His beliefs are not easily modified by logic or facts. He has a deep
conviction that leftism is morally Right with a capital R, and that he has not
only a right but a duty to impose leftist morality on everyone. (However, many
of the people we are referring to as “leftists” do not think of themselves as
leftists and would not describe their system of beliefs as leftism. We use the
term “leftism” because we don’t know of any better words to designate the
spectrum of related creeds that includes the feminist, gay rights, political
correctness, etc., movements, and because these movements have a strong
affinity with the old left. See paragraphs 227-230.)
219. Leftism
is totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to
invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In
part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything
contrary to leftists beliefs represents Sin. More importantly, leftism is a
totalitarian force because of the leftists’ drive for power. The leftist seeks
to satisfy his need for power through identification with a social movement and
he tries to go through the power process by helping to pursue and attain the
goals of the movement (see paragraph 83). But no matter how far the movement
has gone in attaining its goals the leftist is never satisfied, because his
activism is a surrogate activity (see paragraph 41). That is, the leftist’s
real motive is not to attain the ostensible goals of leftism; in reality he is
motivated by the sense of power he gets from struggling for and then reaching a
social goal.[35]
Consequently the leftist is never satisfied with the
goals he has already attained; his need for the power process leads him always
to pursue some new goal. The leftist wants equal opportunities for
minorities. When that is attained he insists on
statistical equality of achievement by minorities. And as long as anyone
harbors in some corner of his mind a negative attitude toward some minority,
the leftist has to re-educate him. And ethnic minorities are not enough; no one
can be allowed to have a negative attitude toward homosexuals, disabled people,
fat people, old people, ugly people, and on and on and on. It’s not enough that
the public should be informed about the hazards of smoking; a warning has to be
stamped on every package of cigarettes. Then cigarette advertising has to be
restricted if not banned. The activists will never be satisfied until tobacco
is outlawed, and after that it will be alcohol, then junk food, etc. Activists
have fought gross child abuse, which is reasonable. But now they want to stop
all spanking. When they have done that they will want to ban something else
they consider unwholesome, then another thing and then another. They will never
be satisfied until they have complete control over all child rearing practices.
And then they will move on to another cause.
220. Suppose
you asked leftists to make a list of ALL the things that were wrong with
society, and then suppose you instituted EVERY social change that they
demanded. It is safe to say that within a couple of years the majority of
leftists would find something new to complain about, some new social “evil” to
correct because, once again, the leftist is motivated less by distress at
society’s ills than by the need to satisfy his drive for power by imposing his
solutions on society.
221. Because
of the restrictions placed on their thoughts and behavior by their high level
of socialization, many leftists of the over-socialized type cannot pursue power
in the ways that other people do. For them the drive for power has only one
morally acceptable outlet, and that is in the struggle to impose their morality
on everyone.
222. Leftists,
especially those of the oversocialized type, are True Believers in the sense of
Eric Hoffer’s book, “The True Believer.” But not all True Believers are of the
same psychological type as leftists.Presumably a truebelieving nazi, for
instance is very different psychologically from a truebelieving leftist.
Because of their capacity for single-minded devotion to a cause, True Believers
are a useful, perhaps a necessary, ingredient of any revolutionary movement.
This presents a problem with which we must admit we don’t know how to deal.We
aren’t sure how to harness the energies of the True Believer to a revolution
against technology. At present all we can say is that no True Believer will
make a safe recruit to the revolution unless his commitment is exclusively to
the destruction of technology. If he is committed also to another ideal, he may
want to use technology as a tool for pursuing that other ideal (see paragraphs
220, 221).
223. Some
readers may say, “This stuff about leftism is a lot of crap. I know John and
Jane who are leftish types and they don’t have all these totalitarian
tendencies.” It’s quite true that many leftists, possibly even a numerical
majority, are decent people who sincerely believe in tolerating others’ values
(up to a point) and wouldn’t want to use high-handed methods to reach their
social goals. Our remarks about leftism are not meant to apply to every
individual leftist but to describe the general character of leftism as a
movement. And the general character of a movement is not necessarily determined
by the numerical proportions of the various kinds of people involved in the
movement.
224. The
people who rise to positions of power in leftist movements tend to be leftists
of the most power-hungry type because power-hungry people are those who strive
hardest to get into positions of power. Once the power-hungry types have
captured control of the movement, there are many leftists of a gentler breed
who inwardly disapprove of many of the actions of the leaders, but cannot bring
themselves to oppose them. They NEED their faith in the movement, and because
they cannot give up this faith they go along with the leaders. True, SOME
leftists do have the guts to oppose the totalitarian tendencies that emerge,
but they generally lose, because the power-hungry types are better organized,
are more ruthless and Machiavellian and have taken care to build themselves a
strong power base.
225. These
phenomena appeared clearly in Russia and other countries that were taken over
by leftists. Similarly, before the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftish
types in the West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would
admit that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find
excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the West. They
always opposed Western military resistance to communist aggression. Leftish
types all over the world vigorously protested the U.S. military action in
Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan they did nothing. Not that they
approved of the Soviet actions; but because of their leftist faith, they just
couldn’t bear to put themselves in opposition to communism. Today, in those of
our universities where “political correctness” has become dominant, there are
probably many leftish types who privately disapprove of the suppression of
academic freedom, but they go along with it anyway.
226. Thus
the fact that many individual leftists are personally mild and fairly tolerant
people by no means prevents leftism as a whole form having a totalitarian
tendency.
227. Our
discussion of leftism has a serious weakness. It is still far from clear what
we mean by the word “leftist.” There doesn’t seem to be much we can do about
this. Today leftism is fragmented into a whole spectrum of activist movements.
Yet not all activist movements are leftist, and some activist movements (e.g.,
radical environmentalism) seem to include both personalities of the leftist
type and personalities of thoroughly un-leftist types who ought to know better
than to collaborate with leftists. Varieties of leftists fade out gradually
into varieties of non-leftists and we ourselves would often be hard-pressed to
decide whether a given individual is or is not a leftist. To the extent that it
is defined at all, our conception of leftism is defined by the discussion of it
that we have given in this article, and we can only advise the reader to use
his own judgment in deciding who is a leftist.
228. But
it will be helpful to list some criteria for diagnosing leftism. These criteria
cannot be applied in a cut and dried manner. Some individuals may meet some of
the criteria without being leftists, some leftists may not meet any of the criteria.
Again, you just have to use your judgment.
229. The
leftist is oriented toward largescale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of
the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the
individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a
moralistic tone. He tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other
psychologically “enlightened” educational methods, for planning, for
affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He
tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds
excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the
common catch-phrases of the left like “racism,” “sexism,” “homophobia,”
“capitalism,” “imperialism,” “neocolonialism” “genocide,” “social change,”
“social justice,” “social responsibility.” Maybe the best diagnostic trait of
the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements:
feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights,
political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with ALL of these
movements is almost certainly a leftist.[36]
230. The
more dangerous leftists, that is, those who are most power-hungry, are often
characterized by arrogance or by a dogmatic approach to ideology. However, the
most dangerous leftists of all may be certain oversocialized types who avoid
irritating displays of aggressiveness and refrain from advertising their
leftism, but work quietly and unobtrusively to promote collectivist values,
“enlightened” psychological techniques for socializing children, dependence of
the individual on the system, and so forth. These crypto-leftists (as we may
call them) approximate certain bourgeois types as far as practical action is
concerned, but differ from them in psychology, ideology and motivation. The
ordinary bourgeois tries to bring people under control of the system in order
to protect his way of life, or he does so simply because his attitudes are
conventional. The crypto-leftist tries to bring people under control of the
system because he is a True Believer in a collectivistic ideology. The
crypto-leftist is differentiated from the average leftist of the oversocialized
type by the fact that his rebellious impulse is weaker and he is more securely
socialized. He is differentiated from the ordinary well-socialized bourgeois by
the fact that there is some deep lack within him that makes it necessary for
him to devote himself to a cause and immerse himself in a collectivity. And
maybe his (well-sublimated) drive for power is stronger than that of the
average bourgeois.
From: aelewis-at-provide.net
To: ritch-at-umich.edu
Subject: Kaczynski,
Nietzsche, Schlossberg, Ressentiment, Left Pathology
You
may find them offensive. I know I did, when I first read them about 10 years
ago. Offensive, but also powerfully arousing in a way that I had not
imagined possible. For me they were the beginning of a long thought process
that has been absolutely invaluable.
Kaczynski’s insights are not new. As I’ve subsequently learned,
they hearken back to Nietzsche, and the German sociologist Max Scheler. I ran
into a great passage about this in a book titled Idols for Destruction, by
Herbert Schlossberg (a worthwhile work, generally). In the passage below (pgs
51-54), Schlossberg, a Christian, is taking aim at humanism, and finds
Nietzsche’s concept of “ressentiment” at the core of what he sees as the failed
humanist enterprise. In this passage you will find a more scholarly and
considered version of what Kaczynski was saying.
[BEGIN QUOTE FROM SCHLOSSBERG]
Ressentiment
The twisted path from humanism’s soaring tributes in honor of
the human divinity to the consequences of modern humanitarianism is best
explained by the concept of ressentiment. When Nietzsche wrote his celebrated attack on Christianity, he
transliterated this word from the French because he could find no German
equivalent. Max Scheler [author of Ressentiment, 1915], a German sociologist,
built on and corrected Nietzsche’s work and again used the French word. When
Scheler’s book was translated into English the same practice was followed,
because “ressentment” is too weak to convey the meaning he intended.Ressentiment
begins with perceived injury that may have a basis in fact, but more often is
occasioned by envy for the possessions or the qualities possessed by another
person. If the perception is not either sublimated or assuaged by the doing of
some injury to the object of the feeling, the result is a persistent mental
condition, stemming from the repression of emotions that are not acceptable
when openly expressed.The result is hatred and the impulse to spite and to say
things that detract from the other’s worth. One of the most common secret
elements to be repressed is Schadenfreude, the rejoicing at another
person’s misfortune; vengeance is the principle manifestation of ressentiment.
This phenomenon differs from mere envy or resentment
because it is not
in doing harm to its object. Ressentiment has
its origin in the
own attributes: wealth, possessions, appearance,
intelligence,
set the pathology in motion. Ressentiment
“whispers continuously: ‘I
you’”.[22] The other’s very existence is a reproach.
“There is no vice
century ago,
Ressentiment does much to explain the existence of crimes that
otherwise are thought of as “senseless”. They are senseless from a materialist
perspective because the criminal does not gain anything tangible from his
action. But if he is striking at the object of ressentiment, his crime
is as rational as if he had made off with the crown jewels. He has gained what
he desired. Ressentiment values its own welfare less than it does the
debasement or harm of its object. Many crimes of vandalism, brutality, and
murder might be explained that way.Even anti-intellectualism is described by
Richard Hofstadter in ressentiment terms, being “a resentment and
suspicion of the life of the mind and of those who are considered to represent
it; and a disposition constantly to minimize the value of that life”.
In attacking the sources of its irritation, Scheler says, ressentiment
uses third parties as foils. “The formal structure of ressentiment
expression is always the same: A is affirmed, valued and praised not for its
own intrinsic quality, but with the unverbalized intention of denying,
devaluing, and denigrating B. A is ‘played off’ against B.” Therefore, what
appear to be positive affirmations of the worth of others are really disguised
attacks on still others. Altruism has its source in this poisonous brew. The
word was invented by Auguste Comte, who thought that self-love was immoral. In
common with other forms of ressentiment, altruism glories in the praise
of the weak and base, even at its own expense, if that will debase the strong
and good.
Thus the “altruistic” urge is really a form of hatred, of
self-hatred, posing as its opposite (“Love”) in the false perspective of
consciousness. In the same way, in ressentiment morality, love for the
“small”, the “poor”, the “weak”, and the “oppressed” is really disguised
hatred, repressed envy, and impulse to detract...directed against the opposite
phenomena: “wealth”, “strength”, “power”, “*largess*”. When hatred does not
dare come out into the open it can be easily expressed in the form of
ostensible love—love for something which has features that are opposite of
those of the hated object. This can happen in such a way that the hatred
remains secret. [25] [ref 25 is to Scheler’s book Ressentiment.—AEL]
Altruism is thus best interpreted as a counterfeit of Christian
love, informed by the ideology of humanism and powered by ressentiment.
It permits demeaning the successful, or those who display any form of
superiority, by pulling over that act the mask of concern for the poor and
weak. Scheler believed that the counterfeit is often good enough to fool the
astute, and he concluded that Nietzsche confused Christian love with its imitator.
Of course, by the time Nietzsche wrote, the church was sufficiently infused
with humanism to make his mistake understandable.
Christian love, says Scheler, does not help the weak, sick, and
helpless because it values those attributes but because of concern for the
person who lies behind them... The fake love of altruism perverts the sense of
values so that sickness and poverty approach the status of virtues.Christian
love seeks to help the person but refuses to elevate the problem by giving it
ontological status and worth. It also avoids helping the weak as a means of
causing harm to the strong. In this it heeds the apostle’s admonition that love
“does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right” (1 Cor. 13:6). That is
the meaning of Goethe’s statement that “against another’s great merits, there
is no remedy but love”. Christian love is directed toward persons who need help
and not at abstractions such as humanity or the general welfare.
The ressentiment penchant for creating wards in order to
strike at enemies is illustrated in humanitarianism’s treatment of class in
Western nations. So effusive has been its praise of the lower class that
Jacques Ellul protests what he calls the “divinization of the poor” [26]... In
general this phenomenon praises the worthiness of what is unsuccessful or
debased while expressing contempt for the exceptional and successful. Along
with the exaltation of the poor comes the abasement of the middle class;
“bourgeois” has become an epithet of hatred among those who chortle at H L
Mencken’s lampooning of the “booboisie”. Michael Harrington recalled that in
his youth in Greenwich Village the chief moral stricture in the midst of a
dissolute life was “thou shalt not be bourgeois”. Thus the poor are foils
through whom ressentiment can strike at the successful while hiding its
evil intentions under a mask of goodwill.
A common humanitarian complaint is that the poor are not
sufficiently interested in their own welfare, making it necessary for the
humanitarian gospel to be preached among them. B F Skinner’s behavioral
controller explained that they would not speak out on their own behalf because
the environment had implanted a system of beliefs that inclined them toward
compliancy. J K Galbraith is offended by what he thinks is indifference of
people toward their own economic improvement and thinks that only trauma or
education will bring them to their senses. Helmut Schoeck, a German sociologist
now living in the U.S., finds it ominous that equalitarians are striving with
greater urgency to whip up among poor people a keener sense of resentment
against their neighbors.[27] Galbraith and others complain of their difficulty
in this task; PERHAPS THAT IS BECAUSE SOME OF THE POOR CAN RECOGNIZE WHEN THEY
ARE BEING USED AS TOOLS. [emphasis added].
[Note interjected, 30 Jan 05: for more along these lines see
Thomas Frank’s fatuous and stunningly-blinkered book “What’s The Matter With
Kansas”, or google for reviews. Frank just can’t understand why people “vote
against their class interests”. There are several reasons—one just explained by
Schlossberg.—AEL]
[END QUOTE FROM SCHLOSSBERG]
Nietzsche’s archetypal “underman” suffers from ressentiment and
Kaczynskian “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization” (sorry, no URL):
[BEGIN QUOTE]
“The Underman” (untermensch)
·
merely human type of person who cannot face being alone in a
godless universe. Refuses to be an individual; cannot even exist as an
individual. Underman turns to group or herd for power, identity, purpose. He
has envy and ressentiment (deep form of psychically polluting resentment) of
all “higher types” and “elitist” value systems
·
uses slave morality, a value system based on guilt, fear, and a
distortion of the will to power, to control superiors; praises virtues of
humility, passivity, dependency, and condemns love of domination, delight in
one’s own talents, fearlessness (traits of superior type)
·
slave morality is alien to true individuality: it is
“inauthentic” (phony and uncreative).
·
the healthy aesthetic perspective (N’s) finds underman
repulsive, weak, evasive, hypocritical
...... anything sound familiar there? There’s much more on
Nietzsche’s “underman” elsewhere, of course. Try google.
In reading Schlossberg, Nietzsche, and Kaczynski, the inner
reactionary (the reptile brain) springs up, attempting to protect the ego and
the emotional investments of the little self in its pet prejudices. I won’t
bother setting up and knocking down a litany of specific typical reactions.You
can do that for yourself, and it would be a profitable exercise.
You CAN do that, I believe. Whether you will or not is another
matter, but at least I believe in the possibility, which is why I sent this to
you, specifically. Most leftists don’t “get it”, and never will.
I said that “Kaczynski’s insights are not new”, but they were
certainly new to me when I first read them, as was the hearkening to Nietzsche
and Scheler, later. Why is this? Why isn’t such a stimulating, core-level
challenge a routine part of left curricula and a broad topic of discussion? Why
did the substance of Kaczynski’s essay go almost entirely unremarked and
undiscussed? What could be more important? I think it has to do with a
constitutional blindness that can be explained in evolutionary psychological
terms; more on this to follow, later. In brief: for the left to lay its own
psychotype so bare is something that the pre-rational structures will not
tolerate. It is too painful.
And by the way, in my view nothing that Kaczynski and Schlossberg/Scheler has said suggests that there are not in the world gross inequities (far greater than could be accounted for by natural disparities of ability, talent, industry) and oppressions, or that these things should not be remedied, or that their remediation need necessarily involve envy or “ressentiment”. That’s not the point. Schlossberg goes on in subsequent pages to make serious errors, claiming for example that equality has increased -- when in fact it has decreased, along with a parallel growth of social democratic schemes to prevent total destitution (which he confuses with “equality”). Whatever. Everything must be read with a critical eye, ever making