#1
Kurdt
Post rating: +

“narcotic earnestness” and the exclusion of working class people

Two articles were published this week that featured similar takes on the emotional side of the socialist equation. Doug Henwood said he found the magazine-publishing left in Brooklyn encouraging because it offers an “intellectual seriousness without a narcotic earnestness”. Owen Jones wrote for the Independent saying that there’s nothing “personal” about socialism. What do they define as narcotic earnestness, as personal? Imagine a civil rights movement told to make racism “not personal”, telling people to settle down and see things logically for a change. Where’s the heart in it?

I suspect this lack of heart comes because of a distance from the idea. It’s no coincidence that people who are not workers, who have sometimes never even been workers, peddle these viewpoints of emotional disconnect and masculine affect. We would laugh off a white male who tries to tell us that feminism or anti-racism aren’t personal issues. A white male clearly has much less at stake in the fight against misogyny and racism than a woman of color. It would be no surprise to us if he could approach the situation without emotion – after all, what has he ever felt in his bones on the matter? So when a member of the privileged classes says that socialism is nothing personal, that narcotic earnestness is something to look down one’s nose at, we should have a similar reaction.

I believe that the reason the “new left” is pushed in the direction of academic dryness, blocked ears and inaction is precisely because those privileged classes, who have quite a different stake in the discussion, are the ones currently steering it. It’s a small, closed circle that is described by the New Statesmen as basically, “the wunderkind socialists of Brooklyn”. Workers are not included in this new left except as statistics and dehumanizing, baseless assumptions. Workers should be at the forefront of overthrowing capitalism, because they are the only ones who can do it. Those on the left who say “the left is dead” are, more often than not, those who benefit most as a class from the death of the left.

This is not to say the privileged classes who can afford to separate themselves so emotionally from socialism should be excluded entirely – far from it. But one should vigorously fight bourgeois ideas masquerading as “socialism” that spring from this source. If you cannot see the fight against capitalism as a fight to save your life, then you will never fight as hard. Without the inclusion of workers who have such a vital stake in overthrowing capitalism, the movement will remain on the pages of a magazine.

I happen to think that if there is such a thing as a “safe space” in this society, there should safe spaces on the left for people who are not bourgeois, people who come from working class backgrounds and people who are poor. I would like to see more workers’ journals, more workers’ panels. I believe that workers should be preferred recipients for writing and journalism grants. Workers are the ones who inevitably organize to accomplish socialism. After all, it is the people who have the most to lose who not only take socialism the most seriously, but also feel it the most personally. And workers know bullshit better than anybody; when you come around dispassionately speaking in a language meant to exclude them from things they care passionately about, they will turn their backs on you. Workers should be at the forefront of socialist ideology to defeat bourgeois ideas. Workers are the subject, not the object, of socialism.

Workers and the experiences of working people are erased daily in discourse on the left. They exist as statistics or as ignorant masses who need to be talked out of their own stupidity and shown “the way” by wunderkind socialists of Brooklyn who (obviously) know more about capitalism than they do. It’s time to welcome workers into the discussion. They take socialism personally, they feel the blows on their bodies from capitalism daily. Most importantly, they bring the “narcotic earnestness” that pushes people into action.

Looking at what the average American worker consumes, very little of it represents their class interest. It is essential they be included in socialist discussions and organizing because they have the most to gain from socialism and because they can help articulate the heart in the theory.

I think the first step in this inclusion of workers should be for the rich to identify who they are on the left. I suggest a moneybag icon next to bylines of writers whose family wealth is more than $150,000. Doug Henwood, for example, attended Yale and makes his living as a financial advisor, yet is quoted in a story as offering authoritative views on this new left. There is nothing wrong with being born into money or having an advanced degree and speaking about leftism. It’s the “authoritative” part I take issue with. It’s the distance from the risk and reward and suggesting socialism isn’t personal, isn’t really about life or feelings, that poisons things. If one’s ideas aren’t bourgeois, there’s nothing to be afraid of by opening them up to challenge. If one can learn to speak to people simply and concisely, if one can listen well and not speak with condescension, then this is going to help. The art of self-criticism is lost on this generation of “new” leftists; we are terrified of critique or blacklisting ourselves out of academic institutions or publications. We tune out what we don’t want to hear, and hold tighter and more personally to our positions than we do to socialism. If we’re all on the same side, why the defensive posturing, why the lashing out?

There are two meanings of “taking it personally”, and one involves ego. A socialist should be eager to correct their ideological mistakes and take criticism from others. When criticism is painted as “trolling” and dismissed as “hysterical”, this is the ego talking. When the greatest stake you have in the conversation is whether or not you’re correct, then you have little to lose. The New Statesman article admits the socialist revival in Brooklyn seems to exist in the air, not in action, but fails to grasp that the lack of worker involvement, the beating heart of socialism, is why.



http://manyfesto.net/2013/11/11/narcotic-earnestness-and-the-exclusion-of-working-class-people/

#2
Post rating: +

There is nothing wrong with being born into money or having an advanced degree and speaking about leftism.



there clearly, clearly is.

#3
Post rating: +
I must admit i don't quite understand the point here: Why would a magazine like Jacobin (or anywhere in the media for that matter) want meaningful contributions from working class people any more than women's magazines would want to start offering meaningful coverage of 'plus-sized women'? It would completely undermine their brand.
#4
Post rating: +
I read that and I don't know what the phrase "narcotic earnestness" means or how it is supposed to relate to impersonality or the working class.
#5
Post rating: ~
also as to the actual content it's annoying to see someone who wants to seem so concerned with ~actual working-class socialism~ talk about class as if it's defined by income and further that if it was $150,000 would be the cutoff point. pretty much reeks of DHAMPIRE'S FORTRESS
#6
Post rating: +
i subbed to jacobin when i donated 10 bux to manyfesto's blog, ..., and i won't renew my sub because the editor tweets about watching the knicks, how the fuck can i try to live a militant life while the editor of a leftist for profit watches basketball games instead of volunteering. if i can work, attend class, take online courses, and find time to read and take my step daughter to gymnastics and to help drive thanksgiving meals around, what in the fuck

this is way worse than my problem with understanding value on cyber monday
#7
[account deactivated]
#8
Post rating: ~

roseweird posted:

fwiw it says $150,000 family wealth not income, which is more than most people have but assuming it means the value of a home, vehicles, all savings and investments, etc it's not a crazy amount really



you're right but the point is more like "if you think can be defined by a number you don't really understand class"

#9
[account deactivated]
#10
Post rating: ~
I was gonna say "I hope that person feels really self-righteous now " but then I realized it's Discipline's blog.
#11
Post rating: ~
Nothing against Discipline, her beliefs are usually ok, but writing a blog instead of posting and getting into twitter wars with random pro-prostitution feminists is just shadowing jacobin and the new-left blogosphere/twitterverse, this sounds like sour grapes to me.
#12
Post rating: +
never--NEVER--stop POSTING
#13
Post rating: ~
The current world wealth divided by the population is.... around 35k. Sounds like you're implicitly advocating for imperialism.
#14
Post rating: +
but what is the current word wealth divided by population? I'll tell you what--it's limitless! through the power of the written word, you can pick up a first class ticket to pirate islands, far-away space stations, and proletarian dictatorships. you can even travel under the sea! best of all, you don't need to pack a thing--unless you count your imagination!!
#15
Post rating: ~
is discipline the one who thought that being gay/transgender was a uniquely western thing, or was that someone else?
#16
hi
Post rating: ~

c_man posted:

is discipline the one who thought that being gay/transgender was a uniquely western thing, or was that someone else?

p. sure that was BABY FINLAND. altho i could be wrong too.

#17
Post rating: -
it might have also been baby finland but yeah im pretty sure discipline was one of the people who thought lgbt stuff should be quarantined to the west and that suggesting that it existed elsewhere was "imperialism" if anyone cares ill look for posts.
#18
Post rating: +++++

c_man posted:

it might have also been baby finland but yeah im pretty sure discipline was one of the people who thought lgbt stuff should be quarantined to the west and that suggesting that it existed elsewhere was "imperialism" if anyone cares ill look for posts.



you can just straight up ask her about it instead of pretending you're part of some senate disciplinary committee

#19
Post rating: ~
does she post here ever?
#20
Post rating: ~

c_man posted:

does she post here ever?



yeah http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/user/discipline/

#21
Post rating: ~

babyhueypnewton posted:

Nothing against Discipline, her beliefs are usually ok, but writing a blog instead of posting and getting into twitter wars with random pro-prostitution feminists is just shadowing jacobin and the new-left blogosphere/twitterverse, this sounds like sour grapes to me.


If somebody isn't willing to stand up to the Million Dollar Escorts of the world, who will?

#22
Post rating: ~

elemennop posted:

c_man posted:

does she post here ever?

yeah http://www.rhizzone.net/forum/user/discipline/


well i guess she can answer if she wants to

#23
Post rating: +
mods change my name to "the magazine-publishing left in Brooklyn"
#24
Post rating: +
ehh this still doesn't tell me if I should buy Vampire's Castle on Steam or not, it's currently on sale
#25
Post rating: ~
but seriously wat does narcotic earnestness have to dow ith the rest of the article
#26
Post rating: +++++
KEVEN, a simple country rube of low mind have been lead into a twitter account on the way to his new blog, and has confused the tiny twitter box for the expansive and endless space afforded to a blogger. A humble man! A fool!

KEVEN: Vampire in his castle, vampire in his castle!

KEVEN begins to unpack his ideas and thoughts while the bell boy looks on, bemused. Is this awful man a clown? A true idiot, in a classical sense? In this moment, it seems quite possible.
#27
Post rating: ~
Good article by khamsek/discipline/trannykilla42088 imo. I thought she didn't have time to blog because she's organizing workers 24-7 nowadays though. Sounds like someones asleep at the wheel
#28
UNUSUALY COOL
Post rating: +++++
good to see that khamsek can still own an entire thread without posting in it
#29
Post rating: +
i think there are problems with some of the sort of class essentialist ideas in this article, and that the non-personal strategy that discipline argues against is ultimately a better way to advocate socialism. i like the universal argument that capitalism is an inefficient system that uses unethical means to an undesirable end; one that everyone suffers by to some degree, even if they don't realize it.

Edited by solzhesnitchin ()

#30
Post rating: +++++
the idea of passionless politics is nonsense because it assumes the existence of a passionless man who holds only objective views and can discern and follow only the most true of truths. this technician could, after of course he's read the manual (whether it be marx or mao or friedman), create a totally functional and fair economy as long as he had power instead of those damn irrationals.

what actually ends up happening is that the man who holds no passion for politics really fucking loves video games so he scabs on his fellow employees so that he can keep up his WoW subscription. saying that it is virtuous to keep socialist ideals at arms-length can only come from already holding the ideals of possessive individualism deep inside one's heart.
#31
Post rating: +
the idea that thought should be dispassionate is the 'the civil war was about state's rights' of debate: an obviously wrong theory held by those who have a lot of reasons to wish it to be true.

edit: this is the most brother-adsoish post i've made in a while
#32
Post rating: +
tl;dr
#33
Post rating: ~

solzhesnitchin posted:

the non-personal strategy that discipline argues against is ultimately a better way to advocate socialism.



mccaine word count not really necessary, please expound on this political theory.

#34
Post rating: ~

Scrree posted:

the idea of passionless politics is nonsense because it assumes the existence of a passionless man who holds only objective views and can discern and follow only the most true of truths. this technician could, after of course he's read the manual (whether it be marx or mao or friedman), create a totally functional and fair economy as long as he had power instead of those damn irrationals.

what actually ends up happening is that the man who holds no passion for politics really fucking loves video games so he scabs on his fellow employees so that he can keep up his WoW subscription. saying that it is virtuous to keep socialist ideals at arms-length can only come from already holding the ideals of possessive individualism deep inside one's heart.


its possible to be passionate about socialism and stuff without working class identity politics imo.

#35
Post rating: ~
Jacobin isn't a political party, it's a magazine. Commenting on something doesn't require a litmus test of class, nor does it require any responsibilities because there's no leadership or representation going on except in ideas, which are to open anyone.

I think the first step in this inclusion of workers should be for the rich to identify who they are on the left. I suggest a moneybag icon next to bylines of writers whose family wealth is more than $150,000. Doug Henwood, for example, attended Yale and makes his living as a financial advisor, yet is quoted in a story as offering authoritative views on this new left. There is nothing wrong with being born into money or having an advanced degree and speaking about leftism. It’s the “authoritative” part I take issue with. It’s the distance from the risk and reward and suggesting socialism isn’t personal, isn’t really about life or feelings, that poisons things. If one’s ideas aren’t bourgeois, there’s nothing to be afraid of by opening them up to challenge. If one can learn to speak to people simply and concisely, if one can listen well and not speak with condescension, then this is going to help. The art of self-criticism is lost on this generation of “new” leftists; we are terrified of critique or blacklisting ourselves out of academic institutions or publications. We tune out what we don’t want to hear, and hold tighter and more personally to our positions than we do to socialism. If we’re all on the same side, why the defensive posturing, why the lashing out?


If think the authoritative part has less to do with family income and more to do with writing on the subject for a couple decades. Also, jealousy is an unattractive quality to working people too. Might want to check that.

#36
Post rating: ~
there are plenty of people who work for oil/mining/construction companies and do physical, manual labor who can easily make upwards of 100k per year. are they working class? do they get moneybag icons?
#37
Post rating: +
^^ yeah that was my point earlier about class not being reducible to a number. there are plenty of poorly-paid low-level academics or professional writers, or even unsuccessful small-business shop-owner types, who make much less than that but are still petit-bourgeois. it's completely missing the entire point to be like "put a sticker on people who have this much dollars"
#38
Post rating: ~
Everyone is missing the why of this identity politics shit. Even if identity politics obscures class, that doesn't explain why these various identities diverged from class in the first place. And of course the answer is that it's because these identities no longer constitute classes in the first world. No legal exploitation exists in the first world. And not only does legal exploitation not exist, all citizens have access to all kinds of free money and leisure time, from easy, nearly endless credit to welfare. That means from the perspective of class analysis, when it comes to first world citizens, whether it's male, female, white, black, brown, lgbt, w/e, it's all the same shit. The conflicts surrounding these identities of course continue to persist, but merely to facilitate the arbitrary distribution of surplus. No wonder Mark Fisher worships the simulacra of the proletarian embodied in Russel Brand because it's all that's left. To be an honest Marxist today is not to escape from a vampire's castle, it's to escape heaven.
#39
Post rating: ~

marimite posted:

To be an honest Marxist today is not to escape from a vampire's castle, it's to escape heaven.



could you expound on this

#40
Post rating: +++++
No legal exploitation exists in the first world. The conflicts surrounding these identities of course continue to persist, but merely to facilitate the arbitrary distribution of surplus. *cop distributes surplus bullets into unarmed black man* No legal exploitation exists in the first world. *judge distributes surplus racial minorities into prison* No legal exploitation exists in the first world.