On 2012-02-03, at 10:14 AM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Marv: "I'm typically attracted to people who are warm and reliable and
> alienated by those who are cold and self-centred, which I suppose is
> true for most of us,"
>
> [WS:] Ditto. I have to admit that I met far more leftists than
> conservatives - so the self-selection bias of my observations is
> obvious - but boy, many of these lefties were the most obscene
> self-centered pompous asses, and judgmental, intolerant pricks I met
> in my life (and I've been around the world,so to speak.) I liked
> their ideas and their reading suggestions, but I would not invite them
> to a dinner, let alone develop a more personal relationship.
>
> And this is not just my experience - I saw a lot of that in Graeber's
> descriptions of the anarchist scenes. Graeber makes a deliberate
> effort to portray these folks as nonviolent in the conventional sense
> (i.e. avoiding to physically attack or harm another human being), but
> what I see in his descriptions is a lot of affective violence -
> eagerness to condemn or deprecate other people on suspicions,
> differences of opinion, and superficial appearances without actually
> trying to understand how others think and react.
Sure, but you and others have already made the point that intellectuals and artists can be notoriously competitive and disputatious, and they have been disproportionately represented on the far left since Marxism and anarchism have been effectively expelled from/by the working class. Nevertheless, if you consider this list to be fairly representative of the far left today, at least in the English-speaking countries, as I do, you'd probably agree that the really temperamental types are a small minority. We've disagreed many times, for example, but you strike me as a respectful, knowledgeable guy trying to come to grips, as we all are, with questions which don't admit of easy answers.
However, there's no question, it seems to me, that the separation of the radical intelligentsia from the working class is psychologically and intellectually debilitating. In general, I found the veteran trade unionist autodidacts who I used to meet around the Communist and Trotskyist groups more grounded in both respects than the radical students just entering them, and was sympathetic to the view that these organizations, especially the much smaller T's, needed to become more "proletarianized" to put them on a more stable footing. Of course, as I later discovered, it was not so simple a matter as just sending these new cadre into the trade unions for mental toughening; in the absence of a radicalizing working class, these groups invariably lost more discouraged members than they recruited from the unions. The disastrous proletarian turn of the American SWP in the early 80's has been often cited as a case in point.
As for liberals, I don't share the same hostility to them as others on the far left do, and not because I have become one; I still consider myself an historical materialist - Marxist is too vague and contested a term these days - and don't believe the existing system of property and power can be gradually and peaceably transformed. But I still regard as my political kin all those who defend the rights of workers, minorities, women, etc. and their organizations, and the activists and supporters of these causes in their overwhelming majority define themselves as liberal - liberal Democrats in the US, Greens, social democrats, progressive Christians, humanists, etc. Not only I have always thought it essential to reach out in a spirit of solidarity rather than sectarian arrogance to liberals, but I've mostly respected and enjoyed collaborating with them, and rather than becoming exasperated, found the challenge of trying to win them to my POV a largely rewarding one even though the historical circumstances militated against success.
As for the minority of radical and liberal "assholes" who have been the focus of the thread, their personal attributes have been less important to me than that we were working towards the same political ends. Or at least I told myself that; I don't pretend it was easy. But I don't subscribe to the view that the personal is political; the personal is subordinate to the political.
Except in the case of conservatives. We don't share the same values or goals, and this has necessarily conditioned my responses to them. In their case, their personal qualities have had to be sufficiently compelling to make me want to form a relationship. Whether, in fact, they are "warm and reliable or cold and self centred" has been the decisive criterion, as there has been little else to attract me. But given that conservative attitudes are deeply embedded in the general population, I've inevitably formed as many attachments to mostly apolitical relatives, neighbours, workmates and friends with very traditional values as I have to radicals and liberals through political activity. But these relationships have been of a different order. I've been able to be intimate about personal and family matters, but rarely about political ones, and it's often left me feeling unfulfilled. Despite our closeness, they've never fully known me.