As children we are taught to “use our
words not our fists” this of course assumes that the words you use
will not be insults and lies. One of the fundamental lessons of
growing up is to replace the use of what are essentially violent
strategies with communication, understanding and reason. Much like
the use of language itself, strategies of reason are useless unless
those around you are committed to the same methods. In their essense
and intent insults and lies are closer to violence than reason. They
belong to a category that lies somewhere in between violence and
reason and in their essence and intent, they are closer to the former
than the latter. Typically slogans also belong to this in between
category.
There are some exceptions, for example
the slogan “freedom of speech”. But even this slogan can be used
in an unreasonable way. If one were to attempt to defend or excuse
an insult or a lie in the name of “freedom of speech” one is not
behaving reasonably. Perhaps it is enough to make a distinction between "freedom of speech" qua slogan and "freedom of speech" qua principle.
Lenin took issue with both the slogan and the principle of “freedom of criticism”. He was upset about the growing power of
Bernsteinian socialism that favored reform over revolution. Lenin believed the old world must be cast aside to make way for the new.
“Freedom” is a grand word but under the banner of free trade the most predatory wars were conducted; under the banner of free labor, the toilers robbed. The modern use of the term “freedom of criticism” contains the same inherent falsehood. Those who are really convinced that they have advanced science would demand, not freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.
One almost expects that Lenin will counter "freedom of criticism" with the slogan "freedom is slavery" yet what Lenin is saying isn't entirely incomprehensible. The analogy between freedom to trade goods and labor and the freedom to criticize, speak and think is problematic but setting that aside, what Lenin is saying has been said by every true believer since the dawn of time. If one believes ones position to be true then why tolerate doubt? What is there left to discuss? The time for reason has passed and the time for revolution is here!Doubt creeps and saps the strength of revolutionary and counterrevolutionary alike. Lenin is not so far away from that other slogan of INGSOC "Ignorance is Strength". This position is not something alien to us. We recognize it as part of the human condition. We long for the Edenic time before we were tempted to doubt.
"War is Peace" is perhaps the most difficult of the three INGSOC slogans to apply to the real world. There is the idea of going to war to spread peace, to spread democracy, gay marriage and central banking but this is not equating War with Peace this is making War the means and Peace the end. Within the context of Orwell's book the slogan is understood as constant war being necessary to maintain stability and the status quo, i.e. peace between the three superpowers Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia. Perhaps Trotsky's slogan of "permanent revolution" is similar in some way.
...to be continued.
Columnist Patrick West, in the blog Spiked-online (http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-myth-of-caring-liberals/19900#.WUb5-BPyuV5) publishes social commentary under the title "The Myth of the Caring Liberals". He writes, in part: ....George Orwell wrote copiously about the liberal left’s infantile, attention-seeking self-hatred. And I remember my dad telling me about a letter he read in the Guardian in the 1960s, from a reader who would bump into West Indians and Pakistanis on purpose on the buses, just so he could say sorry to them. ‘We are all guilty’ remains the mantra of simpering, self-flagellating pietists.
ReplyDelete‘Progressive’ politics today is about feeling good first, making yourself look good second, and doing good third. Ostensible and ostentatious liberal politics is now less about changing the world and more about you. Nietzsche’s warning about conspicuously caring types remains pertinent: ‘Where in the world have there been greater follies than with the compassionate? And what in the world has caused more suffering than the follies of the compassionate?’"
West's analysis is not especially new to me, as I have heard dismissals of "bleeding heart idealist phonies" my whole life. What West misses in Orwell's writings is that political movements, especially collectivist ones such as Marxism and Progressivism, are built on a nihilistic desire to control others or perhaps even snuff out any opposing thoughts whatever. The overarching concept that is missing in West's thinking is that of powerlust, or what St Augustine called libido dominandi. Our hero Orwell understood this nihilistic flaw in all of its guises, all too well.
A better analysis can be found in this week video blog by Mark Steyn, "The Seduction of Violence", Steynpost #17 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESJ_ahwwoJM). Mark does not mention Orwell or any Orwellian concepts, but his reportage lays out all the essentials of forces of repression. Steyn's blog is not to be missed, and should be seen in conjunction with a reading of history Professor Kevin Gutzman's revealing of the road to this week's political assassinations, "Democrat Violence Was Predictable" (https://amgreatness.com/2017/06/18/democrat-violence-predictable/)