August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Years ago, in 2006, I posted this here: It seems to me that the Left wants to champion the rights of the oppressed but that is not a coherent ideology. It has lead the Left to defend gay rights while also leading to the defence of homophobic Islamists. As Karl Marx famously said, there's an "internal contradiction". Link(My post in 2006 concerned the arrest in Toronto of fanatical Islamists who sought to bomb various Canadian sites.) Is victimhood an ideology? Recently, I read this: "Our research suggests that morality is not like some kind of cosmic bank, where you can deposit good deeds and use them to offset future misdeeds," said Gray, who directs the Mind Perception and Morality Lab at the University of Maryland. "Instead, people ignore heroic pasts -- or even count them against you -- when assigning blame."Gray suggests that the explanation for these findings is our tendency to divide the world up into moral agents -- those who do good and evil -- and moral patients -- those who receive good or evil. "Psychologically, the perceived distance between a hero and a villain is quite small, whereas there's a wide gap between a villain and a victim. This means that heroes are easily recast as evil doers, whereas it's very hard to turn a victim into a villain." Link h/tAnd then, I read this: Identity politics revolve around the narrative of victimization. For adherents to identity politics, the victim is not a person, but a member of a privileged victim group. That is, the status of victimhood is not determined by facts, but by membership in an identity group. Stories about victims are not dictated by facts. Victim stories are tailored to fit the victim. Facts, values, and individual responsibility are all irrelevant. In light of this, a person's membership in specific victim groups is far more important than his behavior. And there is a clear pecking order of victimhood in identity politics. Anti-American Third World national, religious and ethnic groups are at the top of the victim food chain. They out-victim everyone else. Link h/t---- There are genuine victims in life. They are people who have done nothing wrong but who happen to suffer. There are also people who falsely claim to be victims. I think this thread asks whether this question should give rise to a sustainable political ideology. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Bonam Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 I agree that modern leftist ideology has fetishized victimhood and has identified victimhood with membership in various ethnic, religious, gender, or sexual orientation groups. Naturally, I disagree with this view/ideology completely. Being a victim is a matter of what has happened to the individual throughout one's life, not what group that individual is a member of. And, even if one is a victim, there is nothing in victimhood to be revered. I'd take the hero over the victim any day. I think this thread asks whether this question should give rise to a sustainable political ideology. You'll have to elaborate on this question. Fetishized victimhood has already given rise to a political ideology. As for whether it is sustainable: of course not. A society gets more of what it idolizes, and if that idol is the victim, then the whole society will become victims, and fall before other societies who instead idolize the hero, who gets something done. Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Years ago, I posted this:Link (My post in 2006 concerned the arrest in Toronto of fanatical Islamists who sought to bomb various Canadian sites.) Is victimhood an ideology? Recently, I read this:Link h/t And then, I read this:Link h/t ---- There are genuine victims in life. They are people who have done nothing wrong but who happen to suffer. There are also people who falsely claim to be victims. I think this thread asks whether this question should give rise to a sustainable political ideology. I suppose you would want a new sustinable political ideology based on.... Wait for it.... Personal individual "freedom"...Right??? Sounds great... It all depends on one's version of "freedom",and I'll bet you won't get a general concensus on that,whether that be economically,politically,etc... I'm not sure the "Right" has cornered the market on personal freedom,no matter how much they thump their chests about it.And I'm not certain the "Left" is as inherently against freedom from government intervention as those on the Libertarian Right think... Two Words... Anarcho-Syndicalists... Very Leftist...Very Libertarian... Edited February 25, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
eyeball Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Right wingers definitely take the cake when it comes to making a fetish of their victimization, especially when it's at the at the hands of Those on the Left. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 (edited) Two Words...Anarcho-Syndicalists... Very Leftist...Very Libertarian... The end result of Victimhood as political ideology: Anarcho-Syndicalism. [/ironic amazement]As John Lennon sang, "If you go marching with Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow." ---- JW, too much of Leftist ideology is victimhood. It plays well. If you can pretend to be a victim, you win the court trial. But in the long run, victimhood is not a sustainable strategy. OTOH, the Left has a very good argument to make: We need a civilized State to foster co-operation between individuals. Edited February 25, 2011 by August1991 Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 The end result of Victimhood as political ideology: Anarcho-Syndicalism. [/ironic amazement] As John Lennon sang, "If you go marching with Chairman Mao, you ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow." ---- JW, too much of Leftist ideology is victimhood. It plays well. If you can pretend to be a victim, you win the court trial. But in the long run, victimhood is not a sustainable strategy. OTOH, the Left has a very good argument to make: We need a civilized State to foster co-operation between individuals. You can can be amazed all you want about Anarcho-Sydicalism being a version of Leftist victimhood.. However,history suggests that I'm correct.. Let's look at Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War... One of the main reasons for Franco's victory in that region was the incohesiveness of the Republican side.This incohesiveness was because the Anarcho-Syndicalists rejected the violence and authoritarianism of the Marxists in the city.They did'nt want to fight at all!!! They simply wanted to be left alone with out the intervention of big government. Sound familiar??? In certain areas where the Anarcho-Syndicalist's were stongest,they even did away with money for a time... Imagine that??? No wonder a Fascist like Franco saved his special version of Hell for the people of Barcelona.... Now,I agree that the modern NDPesque leftist is a basic whimp looking to avoid a fight and dresses up cowardice as being a peace lover...(see J.S. Woodsworth) Oddly enough,they tend to go to some fairly extreme means to enforce their version of peace... The Right does this as well,however.. Usually on economic issues... One need only to look at the union busting thread to see how the free market Right uses collective means to enforce it's version of "freedom" in the workplace...By legislating people collective bargaining rights those people voted for away!!! That "freedom" is a funny thing,ain't it? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 Let's look at Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War... Spanish Civil war? How old are you?Spain? The Spanish government is bankrupt. One need only to look at the union busting thread to see how the free market Right uses collective means to enforce it's version of "freedom" in the workplace...In Canada, union workers are largely public employees, paid by taxpayers.About 75% of public employees are unionized. About 25% of private sector employees are unionized. Unions in Canada are largely about public (State) sector employees. Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Spanish Civil war? How old are you? Spain? The Spanish government is bankrupt. In Canada, union workers are largely public employees, paid by taxpayers. About 75% of public employees are unionized. About 25% of private sector employees are unionized. Unions in Canada are largely about public (State) sector employees. Old enough to know how to read a history book and to prove your theories of "Leftist Collectivism" incorrect through the example of the Spanish Anarcho-Syndicalists... The Spanish gov't might be bankrupt now...Does'nt that have to do with heavy handed socialism and bad real estate deals??? Seems like a combination of bad socio/economic policy coupled with bad market priciples.... And the fact that you are now trying to cloud a simple workplace rights issue with the more specific public sector union debate tells me that you are precisely the type of person who espouses views amenable to those who propose the "freedom" Right to Work Legislation provides.. All courtesy of employer groups COLLECTIVELY lobbying sympathetic politicians to get the free market desired result... Not exactly individual freedom when you need well heeled groups to fight for it,is it??? Again...Your version of "freedom" ain't my version of "freedom"... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
August1991 Posted February 25, 2011 Author Report Posted February 25, 2011 Not exactly individual freedom when you need well heeled groups to fight for it,is it???Again...Your version of "freedom" ain't my version of "freedom"... Well heeled groups?Once again, you want to defend victims. You want to defend the downtrodden against the well-heeled. Quote
Jack Weber Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Well heeled groups? Once again, you want to defend victims. You want to defend the downtrodden against the well-heeled. August.. As it relates to power and control in the employee/employer power dynamic... Who has the ability to potentially abuse that power through financial means more???? And why would those people require an individualist canard,all the wile using collectivism to gain legislative success,to consolidate economic power through legislative means??? I'm sorry that,while you portray yourself as some Voltairesque intellectual...Sadly,your just another whimpering Conlibertervative who has no problem using collective means to secure your version of "freedom"... Funny that,eh? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Michael Hardner Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Interesting idea... looking up 'victim' on the online dictionary: a person who is deceived or cheated http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/victim So, yes, this is very much the source of leftism, and rightly so. When the power, the institutions of justice and government as well media are disproportionately controlled by a tiny minority of society there has to be a check on their power, and the left speaks for the 'little man' very much in this regard. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a victim, but then again everybody seems to think that 'the man' is putting it to them. The exception to that is the rich folks who resent that the masses have the right to demand laws that raise taxes, not that they do that very often. The power balance, though, has shifted markedly over the past 50 years. In the 1950s, the rich were seen as having a duty to pay taxes, to invest their wealth domestically and make the country strong. It was demanded of them. Today, it seems more that the masses are expected to receive a smaller proportion of economic gains, to pay more taxes, and to be thankful that the wealthy don't take their money offshore. Taxes can't go to zero unless we drastically restructure society to become 100% user pay for everything. If people want that, then let's talk about it. Instead, we talk about government much as we did 50 years ago, not acknowledging the changes that have happened. At the point where infrastructure and basic services can't be maintained, then the pendulum has swung too far. Are we at that point ? We need to talk economics first and foremost to find out. It seems to me that the system of economics needs some kind of tune up. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Bitsy Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 There are also people who falsely claim to be victims. Sarah Palin instantly comes to mind She has mastered victimhood for political purposes. Quote
scouterjim Posted February 25, 2011 Report Posted February 25, 2011 Sarah Palin instantly comes to mind She has mastered victimhood for political purposes. And there are people stupid enough to believe her. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
Shwa Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) Sarah Palin instantly comes to mind She has mastered victimhood for political purposes. Yes! I was thinking along the same lines as I was trying to read this as a 'leftist ideology.' It seems to me that 'the right' are always screaming for more jails, more jail time because crime is rampant and out of control. Not only are they 'victims' of leftist ideology - with their unfair affirmative action programs, their welfare for lazy do-nothings - etc. - but they are also potential victims of crime and bombs and immorality, etc. Perhaps the nature of politics itself has 'victimhood' influencing the core values of any given ideology. This seems to be more likely than any leftist ownership of victimhood. Edited February 26, 2011 by Shwa Quote
bloodyminded Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 (edited) As a man whom I admire, Noam Chomsky, said of this very subject: The Western Left is frequently accused of oversimplification, of lacking nuance. I think that's true, but I don't see a remedy, beyond abdicating from discussion and debate and analysis altogether. Nor do I see how this distinguishes the Left from everybody else, notably the respected "centrist" commentators, who too cannot seem to expose "the whole picture." For that matter, read Aristotle, read Hume, and discover grotesque errors in logic and questionable premises. No one would dispute this, I hope. So of course it's going to be true of more directly felt political issues, written in a far less expansive way. And it's not that we should not care; we should avoid sophistry and bad arguments to the best of our abilities. But true nuance and complexity is better achieved by the novelist. Edited February 26, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
WIP Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 Sarah Palin instantly comes to mind She has mastered victimhood for political purposes. Exactly! Rightwingers are dangerously close to creating an outright fascist movement with their appeals to paranoia and persecution. They have all of the tea party-types convinced that any attempts to correct societal imbalances that have given them advantages, are persecutions. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
WIP Posted February 26, 2011 Report Posted February 26, 2011 So, yes, this is very much the source of leftism, and rightly so. When the power, the institutions of justice and government as well media are disproportionately controlled by a tiny minority of society there has to be a check on their power, and the left speaks for the 'little man' very much in this regard. What we are seeing from most of the right...whether they want to call themselves conservatives, libertarians or neoliberals etc. is a blatant attempt to entrench inequalities in wealth by making appeals to religion, nationalism, and racial and ethnic solidarity. That's why rightwing media is all about emotion and light on information content. They aim their appeals at fear (terrorism), greed (taxes and social programs) and suspicion (foreigners). When any of these individual issues are examined in the clear light of day....like we're seeing in the attack on public service unions in Wisconsin, we find their central claims to be void of fact....a budget crisis caused by a governor's own tax cuts for corporations, and an appeal directed at trying to make the majority of people who have lost their bargaining power with the loss of their unions, envious of the people who still have unions. Wisconsin's fight against public sector unions will be decided by whether or not the majority of people are swayed by the desire to take someone else down, rather than focus their attention on those who have bought and payed for politicians like Governor Scott Walker. Emotion is more potent than facts, so it is much more likely for the populace to be distracted by rightwing demagoguery, rather than keep united and focus on redressing the wealth gap. The exception to that is the rich folks who resent that the masses have the right to demand laws that raise taxes, not that they do that very often. The power balance, though, has shifted markedly over the past 50 years. In the 1950s, the rich were seen as having a duty to pay taxes, to invest their wealth domestically and make the country strong. It was demanded of them. Today, it seems more that the masses are expected to receive a smaller proportion of economic gains, to pay more taxes, and to be thankful that the wealthy don't take their money offshore. At some point, we have to consider that capitalism in itself is anti-democratic. Democracies give everyone regardless of race, gender or economic status, an equal vote, while pure market capitalism awards voting rights on the basis of who has the money to buy the most shares of the company. That's why unions were formed, progressive taxation was enacted, and regulations were created to prevent corporations from using money to subvert the democratic process. Some of these rightwingers are going so far as to admit that they have nothing but contempt for democracy! Left on its own, wealth becomes entrenched, especially after they tweak regulations and tax laws to provide themselves with greater benefits....Walmart serves as example of how mega-retailers get to act like sports franchises and get local governments to pay for their stores through free land, cash grants, and their own sales tax revenues! But other big box retailers like Loews and Home Depot have done the same thing. Who can't do this? You guessed it! Your average mom and pop retailer, or that self-motivated entrepreneurial Joe-The-Plumber that rightwing libertarians claim they are representing. The Rand Paul bullshit claim he makes that everyone is equal regardless of income is a total fraud, and the low income supporters of right wing economics are the fools who work against their own economic interests! Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
August1991 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Posted February 27, 2011 (edited) Sarah Palin instantly comes to mind She has mastered victimhood for political purposes.Agreed. Margaret Thatcher never presented herself as a victim.Nor did Pierre Trudeau. Yet both benefitted as "victims". ----- Many people watch/choose movies according to type, or vote according to gang: We are fan-boys, girl-groups. If you perceive yourself as a victim, if you are a woman, a Roman Catholic - it is hard to vote for Harper. Edited February 27, 2011 by August1991 Quote
August1991 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Posted March 2, 2011 As it relates to power and control in the employee/employer power dynamic...Who has the ability to potentially abuse that power through financial means more???? In most modern corporations, or even small businesses, the "employee/employer power dynamic" (as you put it) is complex, and hardly one-sided. And as result, few employees in the private sector are unionized and this proportion is falling.Do you think people working in "hi-tech" industries want to be unioized? JW, you have a perception of the "employee/employer power dynamic" that is reminiscent of the 1950s stereoptypical marriage. The world has changed. But more important, victimhood is not a sustainable political ideology. And why would those people require an individualist canard,all the wile using collectivism to gain legislative success,to consolidate economic power through legislative means???I'm sorry that,while you portray yourself as some Voltairesque intellectual...Sadly,your just another whimpering Conlibertervative who has no problem using collective means to secure your version of "freedom"... I'm no Libertarian, if that's what you mean. I have no problem with political parties and forming a government. Quote
August1991 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Posted March 2, 2011 What we are seeing from most of the right...whether they want to call themselves conservatives, libertarians or neoliberals etc. is a blatant attempt to entrench inequalities in wealth by making appeals to religion, nationalism, and racial and ethnic solidarity.Wait a second. What is implicitly wrong with "inequalities in wealth"?WIP, you have assumed that equality is a noble goal. But is it? Would you favour poking out people's eyes on the grounds that blind people suffer an inequality compered to seeing people? Quote
pinko Posted March 2, 2011 Report Posted March 2, 2011 Suddenly -- and not only in Canada but internationally -- inequality has emerged as a major social and economic issue. More importantly, no longer is it the sole concern of the left. Such stalwarts of the economic right as the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum and the British magazine The Economist are sounding alarm bells over the damage and cost inflicted on societies by wide gaps in income and wealth. "Now the focus is on inequality itself and its supposedly pernicious consequences," The Economist said in a Jan. 20 editorial. "One strand of argument, epitomized by The Spirit Level, a book that caused a stir in Britain, suggests that countries with greater disparities of income fare worse on all manner of social indicators, from higher murder rates to lower life expectancy... Several prominent economists now reckon that inequality was a root cause of the financial crisis: Politicians tried to counter the growing gap between rich and poor by encouraging poorer folk to take on more credit. A third argument is that inequality perverts politics, with Wall Street's influence in Washington often cited as Exhibit A of the unhealthy clout of a plutocratic elite." http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/inequality----thy-name-is-revolution-117223113.html Quote
August1991 Posted March 5, 2011 Author Report Posted March 5, 2011 (edited) As a man whom I admire, Noam Chomsky, said of this very subject... BM, are you accusing me of sophistry to connect Leftism and Victimhood. This is not sophistry. It's a debateable hypothesis.And Noam Chomsky is a perfect test case. He's a leftist who wants to defend the weak against the powerful. ---- Anyway, victimhood is not a "sustainable" ideology, to use a modern term. Who defines the weak, who defines a victim? In 500 years, God knows who will be victims. Such stalwarts of the economic right as the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum and the British magazine The Economist are sounding alarm bells over the damage and cost inflicted on societies by wide gaps in income and wealth.Pinko, if you think the IMF and The Economist are right wing, you are seriously out of touch with modern right wing thought.Suddenly -- and not only in Canada but internationally -- inequality has emerged as a major social and economic issue.But is inequality an issue?Hundreds of millions, billions, of people in China, India and elsewhere, lifted out of poverty in the past several decades - and pinko, you still talk of "inequality". Why did these billions of people and their families manage to enjoy a better life? Get closer to the lifestyle, choices, of westerners? They did this through trade. Free trade. --- Inequality in wealth matters less today than at any time in human history. Today, inequality is the least of our worries. Edited March 5, 2011 by August1991 Quote
WIP Posted March 5, 2011 Report Posted March 5, 2011 Wait a second. What is implicitly wrong with "inequalities in wealth"? WIP, you have assumed that equality is a noble goal. But is it? Would you favour poking out people's eyes on the grounds that blind people suffer an inequality compered to seeing people? And you consider making everyone blind, to be a fitting analogy to reducing income inequality? And yes, equality is a noble goal! The evidence can be seen when comparing societies with greater and lesser levels of relative equality. Quote Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist. -- Kenneth Boulding, 1973
bloodyminded Posted March 5, 2011 Report Posted March 5, 2011 BM, are you accusing me of sophistry to connect Leftism and Victimhood. This is not sophistry. It's a debateable hypothesis. And Noam Chomsky is a perfect test case. He's a leftist who wants to defend the weak against the powerful. Certainly, that's his main stated concern. I only said that he agrees that the Left often has weak arguments and ill-considered hypotheses. And that this makes the Left exactly like the Right, the Centre, and the apolitical. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Pliny Posted March 5, 2011 Report Posted March 5, 2011 Interesting thread. Firstly, there is no shortage of those who can capitalize on victimhood. It seems, particularly to the left, that victims are necessary for their existence for without them what would the left have to champion. The heroes of the left are "the champions of the victim". Of course, in the eyes of the left, it is the political right that manufactures the victim. The left and the victim are, however, in a symbiotic relationship. The "most vulnerable" in society need protection from the mean, nasty people. The left percieves themselves as above the fray and government as their agency to enforce a balance, to make things more equal. Is Sarah Palin a victim? If so, as is claimed here by the left, why do they not defend her? I suppose the answer lies in the left's perception of what a victim is and she obviously doesn't fit that perception - she is not needy or desperate. She is fiercely independent and individualistic. She will thus be villified for all time. Many like-minded people support her and they too are painted with many pejoratives, such as racist, homophobes, those groups that are also painted as, and connected with, guess - victimhood. To the left, if government does not protect and succor the victim then what good is it. It follows then that, in order to grow government it is necessary to create many victims. It's that symbiotic relationship. The right are the mean, nasty people that don't care about things like compassion and "human rights", like affordable health care and education. As though one monopolistic system of health care and one system of education, which is what a government will provide, is optimum. Meanwhile, the real mean and nasty people, the true criminals of society go undetected and unpunished and justice is a charade of making criminality itself a state of victimhood while honest citizens co-operatively engaging in trade are the villains responsible for creating these "criminal" victims. Michael Hardner makes a point that economics needs to be re-thought. I would agree but probably not with how he would conceive it should be re-thought. I find a problem in the fact that a man has the power to control the amount of currency in a society. I believe that the basic concept of "help" is the fundamental problem. The left wishes to help the victim and aligns with the champion of the victim. The people aligning themselves in such a way are what I would call the compassionate lib-left . The champions of the victim and the victim himself are the polar dichotomy that gives energy to the ideology - these factions of the left are the necessary symbiotic elements of the movement. The biggest hero is one that can move from victimhood to champion of the victim. Victims that rise out of victimhood may be initially praised but if they do not move to champion of the victim they are soon forgotten or even some, who may now champion individualism, a la Sarah Palin, may be perceived as a betrayer, treasonous to others left behind as victims. These would include successful individuals, such as blacks that are now called Uncle Toms, or women villified for choosing to be stay at home Moms. The Uncle Tom's and the stay at home Moms don't realize they are supposed to be victims. The left tries to bring them to heel by villifying them and trying to make them realize the true victims they should be. Is this what is happening to Sarah Palin. She just doesn't realize yet that she should act like a champion of victims and represent the oppressed gender of which she is a member, and the other oppressed minority special interest victims, the "most vulnerable" in society. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.