Explore
Gaia Soulmates
 Advertising keeps Gaia free! Interested in sponsoring us?

Creating a New Perspective

Posted on Apr 25th, 2007 by Michael : Chief Visionary Officer Michael
Human beings, including academics, journalists, and political commentators, are incredibly tribal animals. Most individual political perspectives are strongly influenced by the tribalisms of the Left or Right.

I began studying economics as an idealistic Leftist. As I became convinced of the power of economic arguments, I did not lose any of my idealism: I just realized that Leftist strategies for improving the world were simply not very well considered. At the same time, as I became more interested intellectually in economic analysis, I found that most of the perspectives that I studied included a certain "there ain't no free lunch" cynicism. I have found it difficult, in relative isolation, for my thoughts not to be distorted either by the mindless idealism of the Left or by the intelligent cynicism of market advocates. Flow is an attempt to create a community of intellectually sophisticated and intellectually honest idealists that can transcend the magnetic pull of these opposing forces.

Given the fact that "intellectual" was nearly synonmous with "Leftist" for much of the 20th century, it may seem odd or biased from a left-liberal perspective for me to claim that Leftist strategies for improving the world were not very well considered. For those on the other side, the fact of 100 million Marxist murders alone is shocking and horrifying proof that Leftist strategies for improving the world were not very well considered.

Sociobiology provides compelling arguments that a sophisticated capacity for self-deception was genetically useful in the competition for genetic replication. In order to be a realistic idealist, or a realistic visionary, one must take complete cognizance of the depth and pervasiveness of human self-interest and self-deception.

Young people, eager to believe themselves good, and eager to position themselves as morally superior to their elder tribesmen, are thus vulnerable to shallow idealisms. Academics and intellectuals, many of whom spend their lives surrounded primarily by young people, often occupy a social status niche in which they maximize their psychic well-being, at the cost of intellectual integrity, by claiming moral superiority to the rest of society by means of their Leftist politics. There are even sociologists who conduct formal research studies to determine what social and psychic pathologies cause conservative beliefs: surely a healthy, sane, decent human being would share their Leftist political beliefs?

There is pressure from decent, well-intentioned left-liberals to leave the communist murders behind. None of them advocated such murderous regimes and they consider arguments that they were somehow complicit in these murders to be spurious and in poor taste.

Spiritual and emotional maturity has to do with taking responsibility for one's actions. When I was in college in the 1980s, communist enthusiasm among university faculty was common. To a remarkable degree, it still is. Noam Chomsky, the Pol Pot apologist, is still a hero among the Left.

In the eighteenth century, classical liberals developed a sophisticated body of political analysis showing the necessity and the means of limiting political authority. The American founding institutionalized many of these insights. The French Revolution served as horrifying proof of the need for such constraints on power. After the 1790s, anyone who blithely talked about a "dictatorship of the proletariat," as did Marx and his followers, is complicit in murder. Others, who endorse the ideas of such advocates of murder, are also complicit. Che Guevara whole-heartedly endorsed mass murder.

Idealism has been discredited by the 100 million communist murders. In order to create a legitimate idealism, we must purify ourselves by acknowledging wholeheartedly the crimes of idealisms of the past. Until the fellow travellers and communist apologists come clean, the cause of idealism will be discredited as morally corrupt and suspect.

There was a specific intellectual failure: well-educated people, who should have been adequately educated in classical liberal political theory, nonetheless were enthusiastic supporters of those who advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat." The fact that these nice intellectuals may have envisioned a benign, romantic, idealistic "dictatorship of the proletariat," with lots of comradely poetry and art, is no excuse. Drunk drivers who kill people are often just nice kids out having fun while drinking a few beers in the car. Good intentions do not absolve people of responsibility while driving drunk nor while intoxicated with political ideals.

When an alcoholic becomes committed to serious recovery through AA, one of their first duties is to apologize to every individual who may have been harmed by them while they were drinking. This step of taking responsibility for past actions is rightly considered to be a crucial stage in healing, spiritual growth, and emotional maturity.

In order to create a spiritually clean idealism, it is crucial that the moral contamination of Leftist intellectuals has been fully acknowledged. One cannot build on crumbled foundations.

Access_public Access: Public 2 Comments Print views (389)  
Tigana : Ember
1 day later
Tigana said

Thank you for this, Michael - your elegant writing style makes it a pleasure to read, and it contains so much to think about and act on.

about 1 year later
Lou Henry said

Michael- 


Regarding Chomsky being a Pol Pot apologist”… This myth has been repeated (and refuted) to the point of boredom, but I figure you’re worth another round. So here we go again…

1977- Chomsky’s first published article on Cambodia, co-authored with Edward S. Herman, reviewed “the recent spate of newspaper reports, editorials and books on Cambodia…” They concluded that “We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments” regarding the situation in Cambodia after the Communist takeover. They also compared the mainstream media coverage of Communist (Pol Pot) atrocities in Cambodia, which was hyped to the sky, to the mainstream media coverage of US atrocities in Cambodia, which was virtually ignored. There is no Pol Pot apologia in this article.
(Herman and Chomsky, Distortions at Fourth Hand, The Nation, 1977)

1979- Chomsky and Herman’s next piece on Cambodia was a chapter in their book After the Cataclysm, where they attribute to Pol Pot “major atrocities and oppression,” and insist that “The record of atrocities in Cambodia is substantial and often gruesome.” Again, there is zero sympathy for Pol Pot here, nor do they deny that Pol Pot was committing genocide. However, they DO expose the State Department as being a Pol Pot genocide denier. They cite Congressional hearings in which the State Department’s top Cambodia experts (including current Obama advisor Richard Holbrooke) denied the reports of genocide under Pol Pot, attributing most of the “tens or hundreds of thousands” (not millions) of deaths to starvation and disease, caused in large part by years of US bombing (which exceeded all the Allied bombing during WWII). Chomsky & Herman treat the State Department opinion with skepticism, concluding that “When the facts are in, it may tun out that the more extreme condemnations [of the Pol Pot regime] were in fact correct.”
(Herman and Chomsky, After the Cataclysm [1979], p.135-36, 293)

1985- Chomsky’s next writing on Cambodia was a 1985 article reviewing the
latest scholarship on the subject. In it, he accepts Cambodia specialist
Michael Vickery’s estimate of 750,000 deaths attributable to the Pol Pot
regime
, including “200,000 to 300,000 outright executions.” And he adds that the CIA’s official estimate of 50,000 to 100,000 executions “seems far too low.” In other words, Chomsky takes a tougher stand on Pol Pot than does the CIA. (The Chomsky Reader, p. 291)

Regarding that CIA estimate… When Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1979 and overthrew Pol Pot, the US government began backing Pol Pot. At that point, Chomsky writes, “Pol Pot proceeded to carry out the worst atrocities of his reign, concealed by the CIA in its demographic study, presumably because of the US connection.” (Chomsky, Year 501, p.254)

It’s interesting that the people who falsely accuse Chomsky of being soft on
Pol Pot do not seem to care that the US government actually supported Pol
Pot
. Nor are the State Department or CIA accused of being Pol Pot apologists for underestimating or downplaying his crimes.

Nor do they care that in the thirty-plus years since his first article on Cambodia, Chomsky has never once said anything favorable about Pol Pot, but rather has consistently and unequivocally condemned Pol Pot. He has referred to the “Pol Pot slaughters” (Year 501, p.134) and “Pol Pot-style state terror” (Necessary Illusions, p.155). He has said that “Pol Pot was obviously a major mass murderer.” (Understanding Power, p.92). But no Pol Pot apologia. None.


I hope that helps.





You have to be a Gaia member to post comments.
Login or Join now!