|
I was challenged as to my "Progressive" credentials on another thread (I was also called an ASSHOLE and a TOOl, but who's counting), and it did make me think about it. And I realized, given the positions, that I don't identify myself as a Progressive. I'm a Leftist. So, what's the difference? Leftism was cool because it didn't require you to suffer opinions in the name of general tolerance. The namby-pamby world of Progressives seems to be devoid of critique, because the moment you critique something, you are suddenly being "intolerant." This is nonsense, as every Leftist knows. Now, I'm not accusing progressives of being secretly complicit with conservatism (although this is the general Left critique of such positions), but it is clear that conservatives were easily able to co-opt the discourse of tolerance and turn it against real reform, such that the legitimate struggle for gay rights is now portrayed as "intolerant" of Christian fundamentalism, and other nonsenses of this type. This is the political and rhetorical cost of the utterly vapid discourse of tolerance touted by our "progressives."
Leftism was built on critique, identified itself with critique, and had the stamina to say yes, some shit is stupid, some shit is generally destructive, some shit should be criticized - maybe even everything must be critiqued, ruthlessly and without "tolerance" in advance. Read Adorno and Horkeimer, read Marcuse, hell, read Debbs. You'll never see the empty notion that "opinions" should be "respected" simply because they are opinions. Rather, you see ruthless, cutting, even vicious attacks on opinions, with the following question always at stake: where do such opinions come from? Where do tastes come from? This is progressivism's greatest failure: the segregation of the "personal opinion" from the realm of political and economic power. In progressivism, the "opinion" is attached to the essence of the person (it comes from some mystical Self), and then raised to the level of a sacred entity. Hence all the wailing and moaning about "attacking my opinion," which is immediately equated to attacking the person. Leftism had none of this. The opinion, for Leftism, was a social phenomenon that was instantiated in individuals. It didn't come from the Self. Rather, it came from the social realm of political and economic power and was picked up by "selves" as a result of their placement in a dynamic social realm. For this reason, the critique of "personal opinions" is actually the critique of social power, always. The faux respect for "personal opinions," for Leftism, is complicity with social power, the failure to ask, rigorously, where opinions come from, and work on the power relations that form them.
This doesn't mean that the taste for Olive Garden or love of Walmart are the only "opinions" to be critiqued. Leftism demands that the opposing "opinions" (which, interest of disclosure, I hold), must also be critiqued. What are the social investments in "local economies" and "authentic cultures" that drive the dislike of chain restaurants? Are these actually reactionary and nostalgic tendencies? And if you say that that's "reading into things too much," or that "choice" of restaurants or stores is "off limits for critique," then you've already performed the problematic segregation: the illusion of the person segregated from the realm of political and economic power. One could, of course, go on. But the point here is simple: you will never catch me saying that opinions are beyond critique simply because they are opinions. That is the political and intellectual dead-end that progressivism leads us to, and it is all too common. Maybe I'm the one being nostalgic here, but I want some of that old-fashioned Leftism back. I want some of that Adorno nastiness and contempt to re-enter the political discourse. Because some things are deserving of contempt. Yes. I'm definitely NOT a progressive, and I'm damn glad for that.
|