Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-wing

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-wing

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:10 am

Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-wing thinkers?
If only it were.

Justin Murphy

First, I am generally skeptical that any intellectually radical thought or speech that takes place within the wealthy liberal democracies today has much effect on anyone, for better or worse. So it is hard to see how intellectual or even social engagement with polar ideological opposites (even if one thinks their positions are plainly wrong or violent) would itself cause unique negative consequences of any kind. The genuinely thinking members of the ultraleft and ultraright are so few and marginal that it strikes me that this fear of “dangerous associations” is a narcissistic delusion; it’s a way of pretending that anyone gives a shit about what we think or say. Nobody cares, and that’s an essential part of our predicament, that human beings today are quite fully pacified and neutralized in their capacity to be moved.

It stands to reason that, if there is any way out of our collective virtual jail cells of separation and alienation, it might have to involve finding those who are most alien and frightening, to see if perhaps they know something we don’t. To see if, possibly, one reason the revolution never comes is that it’s always been posited on this obsessive insistence that our evil enemies could not possibly know something we do not know. Even if you believe someone is evil, you can still wonder if they know something you don’t. Clearly, collective revolutionary liberation has not occurred yet, so almost by definition there must be a large number of things ultraleftists remain fundamentally incorrect about, right? I don’t think it’s such a crazy idea to suppose that the most intelligent people on the right could be a source of great insight, especially into the dumbest and most ineffectual aspects of ourselves, aspects which we are possibly unable to see as clearly as we need to. I understand this is a moral heresy on the left, but what if this very structure of paranoid-neurotic moral prohibitions is itself one of the most dangerous problems, and one we are uniquely ill-equipped to see in ourselves, by ourselves? This seems not only plausible but, in my view, increasingly likely to be true.

There is this fear that engaging with what one takes to be bad ideas will function as legitimation of those ideas, and that this will then spread them. There are two really hard problems with this view. First, I think we have to wake up to the empirical reality that left-wing culture has been collectively practicing this strategy of disengagement and disavowal for the past several years and the effect has been a flourishing of radical right-wing perspectives today. So the “distance and delegitimate” strategy of dealing with one’s ideological opposites is arguably the most dangerous way to relate to those one disagrees with (this is assuming one is correct and one’s opponents are wrong, that the others are in fact dangerous, which could itself be a pathological arrogance also symptomatic of what’s wrong with us). Hence the second problem with this attitude is that it assumes one knows for sure one is fully correct and one’s extreme ideological opposites are fully incorrect. I think this is a patently stupid presumption; most people use political ideas as blankets to keep them warm, and that’s fine, but the reality is that no matter how much one believes what one believes there is always the possibility that perhaps one has been wrong all along and one’s ideological opposites have been correct all along. This may be very unsettling, but it appears to be an unavoidable difficulty baked into reality itself, and no amount of militance can overwrite such difficulties by force.

Finally, even if it is “dangerous” to liaison with thinkers of seemingly evil thoughts, I would say the whole point of a radical or revolutionary political position is to actively cultivate a higher-than-average tolerance for danger. Is it not odd that people who claim to believe in radical critique and revolutionary social change speak of “dangerousness” as something to be avoided? Again, I see here a symptom of the mystified mechanisms of our own pacification. The truth is, I desire some danger. If only my thinking and communication behaviors were dangerous! If there is any danger to dialogue with the radical right, I think I would simply say that I am not afraid of it. I trust in the capacities of human beings to distinguish true from false in the long run, I trust that we will converge on the truth ultimately but only if we, perhaps somewhat dangerously, are willing to consider everything, especially that which we are most emotionally invested in (for that is almost certainly where our errors will be found). And I believe strongly that whatever the truth about human beings is, finding it out cannot hurt us any more than all of the prevailing falsities. The catch is that one has to at least entertain the possibility that what one fears and loathes the most could potentially turn out to contain some truth. If that’s dangerous, then I would think it is precisely the type of danger revolutionaries should be faulted for not seeking out more eagerly.

http://jmrphy.net/blog/2017/03/27/is-it ... -thinkers/
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:18 am

I have neither the time nor presence of mind to respond to the article right now but I had just come to the board to post this:


SHAWN P WILBUR

Notes on the anarchist culture wars

[This is actually a social media status that took on a sprawling life of its own. It is not exactly a response to Alexander Reid Ross’ essay “The Left Overs: How Fascists Court the Post-Left,” but rather some more general thoughts on the dynamics that might be in play in all of the similar culture-wars skirmishes that periodically break out in radical circles. I’m happy to grant the best of intentions to some critiques I find less than useful, largely because there really does seem to be one of those infamous “failures to communicate” that keeps this particular pot boiling. I’m a lot more interested in the potential incompatibility of various intellectual cultures within the milieu than I am with the drama that emerges from that problem.]

With regard to the “courting” of anarchists by authoritarians, and as someone who has been so courted on various occasions, it seems to me that the key vulnerability among radicals is not attraction to certain authors or ideas, but particular ways of interacting with ideas. And that vulnerability is widespread in the milieu, with perhaps the more dangerous instances involving ideas that are not themselves so obviously edgy.

What is required for someone to slide from Stirner toward fascism, from Proudhon toward monarchy, from Bakunin toward actual dictatorship, etc. is for a few, generally uncharacteristic bits of their thought to be disconnected from their context, elevated in importance and then associated with similarly disconnected bits of authoritarian thought, with some sort of eclecticism, “syncretism” or outright opportunism as the guiding philosophy. The alt-right has made this sort of opportunist, hodge-podge thinking a fairly explicit policy. Unfortunately, many radicals also engage in it, without much sense of the stakes.The result is a convergence of people who aren’t really all that interested in ideas, except as potential capital to put behind projects with some less philosophical basis or as a sort of personal adornment. And these people, whether they identify with the right or the left, tend to tell a story about “theory” that assumes ideas are generally mixable. No idea is really very distant from any other, provided you simply disregard the bits that establish distance (and, of course, clarity.)

(These folks will “use” any idea, no matter how radical, provided they can break off some little bit of it that appeals to their audience of people who don’t care much. We can never stop these people from this kind of annoying, but ultimately trivial appropriation. All we can do is be clearer than they are, so that people who actually do care aren’t mislead. You never convince opportunists that they are wrong, because that’s not ultimately what it’s about. You can, however, demonstrate the weaknesses of opportunism as a mode of thought.)

Sometimes these folks find common cause with people who think that ideas are indeed important, but draw firm lines between ideas that they think of as “bad” or “dangerous” and some set of ideas that seem to them safe, good, etc. There’s a kind of narrow rationalism that is constantly concerned that “something could go wrong” if we have unsafe thoughts or make use of ideas and ways of thinking unapproved by its particular standards. A lot of well-meaning and unconsciously authoritarian would-be radicals fall into this camp. Some of them are quite serious about the defense of their particular sort of approved thinking and some just have a low tolerance for anything that might seem “problematic,” “sketchy” or “fucked up.”

When we do find people swept from one position to another, I suspect these are often people who rather enjoy the fact that many ideas are dangerous, but aren’t so concerned about using ideas in any very serious way. Philosophy, like ideology, can be just another recreational drug. When we “lose” these people, we probably have to acknowledge that we only had them in a very limited sense in the first place.

None of these groups, it seems to me, are very well situated to deal with the notion of anarchy, which is necessarily (in the short term certainly, but probably also in the longest of terms) a truly dangerous idea. Now, some self-proclaimed “anarchists” are happy to do without the notion of anarchy, but as far as I can see that’s just giving up before you get started. But there are also people who look at Stirner (or something they’ve heard about egoism) and think “that’s problematic,” hear the usual criticisms of Proudhon and Bakunin and think “that’s fucked up,” worry about what might “go wrong” with poststructuralism, etc., but then look at anarchy and think “nothing to worry about here, folks.” But we often find that these folks also consider “democracy” a safe, positive notion, will find room in their nominally “anarchist” theory for authority, hierarchy, etc. It’s easy to be tolerant of this sort of thing as “rookie mistakes,” which ought to be fixed by more exposure to anarchist thought — except that there doesn’t seem to be much in the milieu pushing anarchists towards any more complex engagement, while there is perhaps an increasing resistance.

When it comes right down to it, the only people I have much faith in when it comes to a lasting commitment to anarchist thought and practice are those who are both serious about ideas (although I recognize a lot of ways this seriousness might manifest itself) — and specifically serious about anarchist ideas and anarchistic ways of thinking — and ready to acknowledge that the particular ideas that separate anarchism from the rest of the political or social philosophies out there, anarchy chief among them, are not “safe.” This isn’t a question of an intellectual vanguard or any sort of commitment that should exclude the average working stiff. We just shouldn’t be surprised that committing to even the serious contemplation of anarchy, which involves a radical break with the principles that govern the majority of our current relations and institutions, takes some mental effort, no matter where we’re starting from. You don’t have to know that Proudhon came to anarchy as a result of research into “the criterion” of certainty, but you probably do have to come to terms, in one way or another, that the “definitive” and “authoritative” are at least going to have to undergo some reworking in an anarchistic context, if they don’t simply get swept away with the authoritarian.

But if you can come to terms with anarchy, then you have not only gained an ideal, but presumably also mastered a skill. And that skill is, it seems to me, the one that best protects us whenever we are dealing with “dangerous” ideas. It might even simply involve the recognition that all ideas are dangerous, which is a pretty good inoculation against all the various systems and schemes that are peddled from every direction.

This is really just another version of my usual, broken-record sermon on the necessity for anarchists of really engaging with the notion of anarchy, with the twist that what I want to suggest here is that it is not just an idea that is necessary to build with, if we really want a free society and anti-authoritarian relations, but that it is also an idea that is good to think with, in the sense that the demands it makes on us as thinkers, and the skills that it develops, are likely to stand us in good stead in all areas of our lives.


https://contrun.libertarian-labyrinth.o ... ture-wars/
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby 82_28 » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:15 am

It can be, yes, absolutely. Somehow my anti-racist ass got off easy in a city crawling with skins. In fact I have just been in touch with a friend of mine from HS in the last day and I took him and three of his buddies and made them stand in a barrel while I pissed on them. Told the story here before already. I got them all off all their racist proclivities right quick.

But there were some bad hombres who would attack from behind. Somehow nothing happened to me. I have no idea how it works these days though. But I would not engage them ever from here on out.

I went to a Subhumans show probably around 2000ish or so (Seattle) and when the show got out there were these skins taking pictures of us. I happened to have my new digital camera (non phone, duh) so I ran up to them and started taking pictures of them right in their faces. They backed away. And no, I no longer gotz those pictures. Would love to see them though.

Also, I have never been a badass. Never been in a fight in my life. But I would exercise caution fo shiz.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:19 am

I feel like anarchism amounts to little more than a strong disavowal of subjugation as a basic ethical principle. Great. A good one to put first.

But as someone who only last night was trying to argue that Land's ear to different ways of thinking about time (even within the neoreactionary stuff) could maybe be appropriated into an “anarchist” program, I couldn't disagree more with lines like this: "the result is a convergence of people who aren’t really all that interested in ideas, except as potential capital to put behind projects with some less philosophical basis or as a sort of personal adornment." A la - my adversaries are total sell-outs and poseurs. I mean no personal offence but that sounds to me similar to a crimethic screed indignantly criticising “lifestyle” anarchists.

If these are the current worthy criticisms against the alt-right, I’m not seeing much intellectual high ground for “The Resistance” right now.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:02 am

"Debt" and "money" are human constructs, not universal, and as concepts exist on a shameful side of history. All because some hoarders got scared 6,000 years ago.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:36 pm

I'm a bit puzzled by all this, as there are some very left wing people who do engage (critically) with fascist/far right thought. Many/most do endorse a "no platform" position so that means they wouldn't do public dialogues with such people.

Since most "Neither Right Nor Left" discourse seems to be a shit show- and an organizing opportunity for racist/fascist types, why should we bother? Is Nick Land as good as it gets?
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:07 pm

American Dream » Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:36 pm wrote:I'm a bit puzzled by all this, as there are some very left wing people who do engage (critically) with fascist/far right thought. Many/most do endorse a "no platform" position so that means they wouldn't do public dialogues with such people.

Since most "Neither Right Nor Left" discourse seems to be a shit show- and an organizing opportunity for racist/fascist types, why should we bother?


I feel like the left-right axis is the least interesting metric for our times. Aren't there up to like seven potential axes of political identity/thought? The 2 and 3 axes models always get a bit of play on social media in election years but the obvious insight, that libertarians/progressives share a largely compatible anti-authoritarianism, is inevitably quashed by the ever-repeating moral urgency of stopping the "right." Who is more my friend? A right libertarian who happens to hate immigrants but isn't asking the state and LEOs to oppress them or otherwise calling for political violence bot who also opposes armed drones, permanent war and total surveillance et al, even if he calls himself alt-right? Or a Lena Dunham sort?
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:15 pm

I don't see much common ground at all between the anti-racist/anti-sexist, queer liberation type libertarian communists I know and the far right generally.

I know that crypto-fascists are always trying to minimize the differences (on certain points) but I have zero interest in accommodating their duplicitous entryism.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:11 pm

Here's an example, and back to Nick Land, accelerationism (on which he's one of the biggest influences) has been enthusiastically adopted and transformed into a kind of blithely uninspiring Marxist redux program focusing on things like UBI, lately. But I would expect that someone like Wilbur (if not actually him) has an article that simply identifies accelerationism with the alt-right. Don't you think Left revolutionary sorts should be paying careful attention to Bannon's strategy towards their own purposes? I don't really see entryism at work in the kind of dialogue the OP was defending. Maybe because I am too quick to associate that term with literal covert infiltration.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby American Dream » Fri Mar 31, 2017 9:40 pm

A goodly portion of what I post is leftists paying close attention to trends in the far Right.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby dada » Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:54 am

Political hobbyists are a lot like videogame players. It's a thing you do to occupy your time. If I were a political hobbyist, instead of asking myself, "is it possible that the political hobbyists with opposing views are correct, or have something to offer," I might ask, "Is it possible we are all full of shit, and just playing a climbing game in our respective milieus?

"First, I am generally skeptical that any intellectually radical thought or speech that takes place within the wealthy liberal democracies today has much effect on anyone, for better or worse. So it is hard to see how intellectual or even social engagement with polar ideological opposites (even if one thinks their positions are plainly wrong or violent) would itself cause unique negative consequences of any kind."


By this logic, "intellectual and social engagement" - whatever that means - with polar ideological opposites wouldn't in itself cause any positive consequences, either.

Ultra-left/right, revolutionary, accelerationist. Why the need for identifying, the labelling? I'll be honest with you, I don't even know what an accelerationist is, and I'm not going to look it up. I like driving fast, and thinking faster, though. I don't like anarchists. I'm pretty far left, I guess, but if you labelled me "Ultra-left," I might punch you, or laugh and buy you a drink, depending on my mood, and where we were. I have an authoritarian streak as well, but that's for private moments with people I like.

Who wants to engage with me, politically. People get frustrated, because I know it's a game, and just can't take any of it seriously. If you talk to videogame players and don't take their world seriously, they get offended, too. It pops their bubble.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Is it dangerous to engage seriously with radical right-w

Postby American Dream » Sat Apr 01, 2017 7:43 am

I have a curmudgeonly side. I hang out in "anarchist" scenes sometimes because I am subcultural, and far from the mainstream. I don't like sects, even though I recognize they get things done. There's no simple label that I feel describes me, though I will certainly take "left" over "right". I might engage with a Trump voter (if I knew one IRL) and possibly talk about politics, even though I found it trying.

That said, I don't think I would want to help a far right organizer get a public forum. I just wouldn't do it.
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests