On 2011-07-06, at 5:32 PM, // ravi wrote:
> I do think that he would do well to drop characterising other people’s ideas as dumb or silly or whatever. But I realise I am in the minority on that sort of politeness, anyway.
I hope you're not in the minority, Ravi, but if you are, I'm with you on the issue. There is unfortunately a long history on the left dating back to Marx and raised to a high art by the Bolsheviks of insulting your opponents which has too often been regarded as an expression of tough, passionate, uncompromising, polemics in contrast to the assumed polite and tolerant tones of genteel liberals and social democrats ultimately betraying their essential satisfaction with the status quo.
I have two problems with this method of debate. It can serve as a cover for cheap demagoguery, the target audience seduced by speakers, particularly entertaining ones, who ridicule or demonize opponents rather than directly confronting their political positions, which is inimical to political clarity. Second, it is politically self-defeating for leftists who must operate in broader arenas where such aggressively sectarian behaviour is easily used by their opponents in the leadership to further isolate them. Those of us who have been active both in far left organizations and in unions and union-supported political parties will know what I am getting at.
Ironically, while the Bolsheviks could tear at each other internally, they were highly conscious of the need to use "defensive formulations" when advancing their positions in public - notably when they justified the October revolution as an act of self-defence against the Kerensky government which was threatening to take action against the Bolshevik-dominated Soviets. It seems to me it's more politically effective to exercise similar caution in both instances - when addressing each other and outside of our circle, no matter how strongly held our convictions.