The Other Red Ken

A couple of caustic quotes from a blog-essay by my favorite ex-Trotskyist, Ken MacLeod:

The great scandal of Lenin was that he taught realpolitik to the lower classes and backward peoples. If the working class was ever to become a ruling class it had better start thinking like one, and for a ruling class there are no rules.

And:

The writings of a great amoralist -- a de Sade, a Stirner, a Nietzsche -- can inspire a handful of murders in two centuries. Over the same period, the writings of a great moral philosopher -- an Aquinas, a Kant, a Bentham, a Mill -- can justify, if not indeed incite, the deaths of millions in just wars and just revolutions. Morality is an immensely dangerous and destructive force, which must be restrained by the strongest human passions and sympathies if it is not to break all the bonds of society.

Comments

[Jean Bart]

Rousseau incited (sort of) the French Revolution; and he had an autobiography where he discussed his pretend lovers that he masturbated to. 🙂 Of course he also said that one should try his theory of government on anything larger than the island of Corsica. 🙂

And Montesquieu inspired the U.S. Constitution; yet he was amoral in reference to his relations with women.

[Jean Bart]

And de Tocqueville is constantly qouted in the U.S., but he only went to the U.S. as a means of self-promotion and to avoid his nagging parents (it worked). 🙂

[Jason Ligon]

Rousseau has inspired generations of lefties, and I'll not forgive him for that. In a certain light, he reads nearly identically to Hobbes. All you have to do is make "the common will" your leviathan.

I wonder if he submitted to the will of his pretend lovers ... nevermind.

[John Kluge]

"deaths of millions in just wars?" Yes morality will incite the deaths of millions as opposed to amorality, romanticism, and heodonism. Human passions and sympathies are anything but benign. Love or hate Judeo-Christian tradition, but it is absolutely correct in its portrayal of man as an innately sinful and evil creature. From Rousseau through Marx, to Lenin, to Hitler, the most dangerous and deadly idea in history is the idea that mankind is somehow naturally noble but corrupted by society and can therefore be compelled to a higher state.

[dhex]

actually, the most dangerous and deadly idea in history is that man is inherently sinful and evil, and should bend his will to a bunch of looney-tunes in various costumes who have a direct pipe to "the truth."

this applies to your other examples, obviously, looney-tunes and all.

[method]

actually, the most dangerous and deadly idea in history is that man is inherently sinful and evil, and should bend his will to a bunch of looney-tunes in various costumes who have a direct pipe to "the truth."

True, but the second part, with the looney tunes in funny hats, isn't inherent in religion or Christianity, although it does appear in some (perhaps many) of its flavors.

I'd say that the important thing about Judeo-Christian morality (as regards this argument) is that it teaches that man is sinful, not necessarily evil, and should strive to better himself. It's the insane dichotomy of man's divine creation and sinful nature that gives balance to morality and gives good people a reason to be good.

The greatest danger is always any looney tune, religious or not, who is able to convince other people that they should follow his will totally, viz. the Crusades, Hitler, Jonestown, 9/11, the Inquisition, Lenin, Stalin, and every crackpot dictator or messenger from God who ever claimed to know the absolute truth. Charlatans, basically. That's why believing that all men are base and imperfect is a good thing; it lets you think for yourself instead of just believing what the boss tells you.

[John Kluge]

If you don't believe that mankind is base and imperfect then you believe that mankind can be perfect and can thus create paradise on earth. Once you believe you have the power to create paradise on earth, no means is not justified. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions and those good intentions almost always involve the belief of one person that his plan can create a better man and a better world. Once you start believing that, the bodies of everyone who gets in your way ussually are not too far behind.

[dhex]

various costumes include pretty much every dictator i've ever seen a picture of. all those whacky military costumes, the ridiculous portraits, etc. so it's obviously not only a religious phenomenon, just as "the truth" is not only a religious phenomenon.

even in cases you and i might think of as "good" there's always deification involved, the construction of idols and all that. nelson mandela comes to mind.

but all that sinfulness crap is a stick - and it's a stick used on the old, who should know better, and the young, who can't know better. the only person who knows what it means to better yourself is you. leaving that question in the hands of the whackjobs in funny hats (secular or religious) is insane. and more or less the history of humanity to this point.

for your example, "the base and the wicked" always referred to the flock, not the shepard - your neighbor might be wicked, craven jerk but the bossman (priest, political leader, military leader, etc) who lorded over them is exempt. it's a great theory on paper but seems to rarely occur in practice.

[Jean Bart]

Jason Ligon,

Actually he did submit to their will; or he writes in his "Confessions." 🙂

[dhex]

he was beset by succubus?

[Pavel]

That post was pure intellectual masturbation. And this entire thread is one big game of "soggy cookie."

Pretty harsh words coming from a philosophy graduate.

[method]

dhex:

I'm losing track of what you're saying. I think we're in agreement that MacLeod is full of shit on this, that it's not morality as such but charlatans who twist it to their own purposes that are the problem, and perhaps disagreeing over whether Christianity requires one to submit to the will of another human?

I think when you say people know best how to better themselves, and should ignore the whackjobs, you're describing a fairly big chunk of the Protestant tradition with its vernacular Bibles, rejection of papal authority, and emphasis on personal religion. Like I said, although it can be, and often is, present, blind adherence to a leader isn't a requirement of Christianity or of most other religions.

[Nonny Mouse]

I think we're in agreement that MacLeod is full of shit on this

Again, I think some of you might be missing the joke.

[Pete]

Surely the "great scandal" of Lenin was that he was a mass murderer. Marxists often ignore this fact, wanting to blame it all on Stalin, whom they (now)admit was a bad guy. In fact, the atrocities of the Soviet Union began under Lenin.

Sure, Stalin was even worse, but so what? Had Stalin never lived, Soviet Russia still would have been one of the most murderous states of the 20th century. Not to mention the fact that Stalin's crimes are in large part attributable to the political system which Lenin created. Without Lenin, there would have been no Stalin. (Not that McLeod is incapable of some rather subtle revisionism when it comes to Stalin.)

I was once taken in by him as well, but McLeod is the moral equivalent of a Holocaust denier. Sure, he makes the odd tactical admission, but he's constantly trying to excuse or minimize communist atrocities.

[Jesse Walker]

Pete: It's generally a good idea to read a piece before responding to it.

[dhex]

dan: sorry. basically i agree with you, but stretch the metaphor to include more leaders than you do.

obedience is rarely blind, i think.

pavel: i'll try harder next time. sorry.

[Dan]

actually, the most dangerous and deadly idea in history is that man is inherently sinful and evil, and should bend his will to a bunch of looney-tunes in various costumes who have a direct pipe to "the truth."

You're half right. Humans are inherently selfish, greedy, and xenophobic -- a combination that is certainly "evil" in many contexts. Recognizing this fact isn't a dangerous or deadly idea; in fact, it's a good and necessary idea, because it prevents (most of) us from buying into dangerously-stupid, contrary-to-human-nature ideas like anarchy or communism.

The dangerous idea is that a whole bunch of humans following other humans' teachings somehow magically become non-"evil". Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, and their many followers were merely human. Even if you believe they had a direct line to the Powers That Be, the wisdom of those Powers was still filtered through plenty of less-than-perfect folks before it reached you.

[fyodor]

Hmmm, I might think about it, but I don't know if I'll figure out how passions can constrain morality.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Curious that he leaves Marx out of either of his lists -- since among his followers have been the worst butchers of all time.

This is just my reaction at reading Jesse's quotes, so maybe someone will slam-dunk me on my ignorance, but so be it, been up all night & the sleeping pills are kicking in...

[meep]

A clever sounding quote, until you remember that the Nazis embraced Nietzsche while they gassed the Jews. It's not that morality kills, and amorality is harmless. Dogmatic belief, in whatever form, is what kills. On the other hand, it is also responsible for things like the Constitution of the United States, which frankly is a force for good. McCleod is inherently preachy, always eager to evangelize his constantly shifting worldview--which makes reading his novels quite a chore imo.

[dhex]

the nazi's obviously missed nietzche's critiques of antisemitism during their gas n' go days.

but yeah, i'm with you on this train. though even dogmatic people don't have to be brutal pains in the asses. to further complicate things, we can divide the world into those who are willing to use force to spread their sense of reality and those who aren't.

[Nonny Mouse]

I think some of you might be missing the intended humor.

[dhex]

yes, in one light, morality is very funny.

[Mark S.]

"various costumes include pretty much every dictator i've ever seen a picture of. all those whacky military costumes"

That, and facial hair. Most despots seem to like soup strainers for some reason.

[Rick Barton]

t1,

I think the subject of Jesse's comment at 10:19 AM was LeftLibertarian's post. I wasn't being sarcastic. Are you? Actually, I think that you might just be attempting a disingenuous attack.

[Andrew]

An interesting passage from an earlier post on McLeod's blog:

"Finally, I think this is an argument worth persisting with. It makes me think, in a way that few have before, that some premise so far unexplicated is mistaken, on one side or the other (or, possibly, both). I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with Marxism. People of every political persuasion have been (in variant proportions) divided over the war. There are probably fascists arguing over it. More seriously, it does a disservice to clarity to suggest (as I have, by picking on those few who argue in Marxist terms) that 'the pro-war left' is an eccentric minority. In a broad, but far from the most catholic, sense of 'left', the Iraq engagement is a war of the left, and the present argument over it one within the left."

I have thought long about this...and I think I have put a finger on it. The Myth of Revolutionary Violence, and it's attendant glamour (and the converse myth of the evil Powers That Be). Ken still buys it-- which is why he wants to resist "American hegemony" and scarf up an insurrection somewhere (say Bolivia). Geras and Hitchens don't-- they don't believe in 1917...or 1789, or the end of the Stuarts.

He is right-- it is a split on the Left. The only interesting novel McLeod wrote was "The Stone Canal"...it was really only about British Trots, young in the Reagan/Thatcher era-- the last time it was still possible to believe.

[Rick Barton]

Ken MacLeod wrote:
in making a moral case for or against a particular war, for example - the moral philosopher reasons 'consciously indeed, but with a false consciousness'.

No disrespect to Ken MacLeod, but that one was kind of contrived. How else can one reason except, "consciously".

Morality is an immensely dangerous and destructive force, which must be restrained by the strongest human passions and sympathies if it is not to break all the bonds of society.

What must be restrained in order that morality does less harm is the ability of the state to initiate force. That may well be the most moral idea of all!

Also, isn't it exactly, "human passions", that allow morality's misuse and is this misuse not held in check by reason?

[Rick Barton]

more precisely; I should have said; "isn't it exactly, "human passions",that encourage morality's misuse"

[LeftLibertarian]

You republican-libertarians just don't understand Ken's appeal to us.

See, we left-libertarians want to be leftists. So when we see a leftists make a 1-2 references about Von Mises in some SF book and a couple slightly negative things about communists, it is the equivalent of getting a handjob at a seedy bar from the ugly drunk chick whose friends hate you.

Are you guys against handjobs or something?

[Jesse Walker]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're no good at sarcasm, you just shouldn't try it.

[dhex]

how can someone be inherent xenophobic?

[dhex]

er, inherently

[Rick Barton]

Andrew,

I see the quote you cited as consistent with an appreciation for the reality of the sanction of the use of unprovoked force that is explicit in Leftism. Of course, the Iraq war's main proponents are neocons, a type of leftists who are also ex-Trots.

Can't we see MacLeod's; resistance to "American hegemony" as resistance to American government aggression in the post Cold War world? We would not necessarily expect Hitchens to agree since, although he is also an ex-Trot, he has not come as far away from the left as MacLeod has.

[t1]

Rick: Please read what Jesse wrote above, as it was aimed at you. Your sarcasm sucks!