Cats and Theories
a blog by coticheque
a blog by coticheque

Means, ends and progressive theories

The world is not black and white, they say. True. A symptomatic sign of being indoctrinated / driven by ideology is when one sees things or groups as either clearly bad or clearly good. In politics – when one sees the opposite party as a bunch of hopeless retards whose motives and actions are just impossible to comprehend rationally. For instance, think of the desperate reaction of American libtards to the victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 US election.

Or, take for instance the example of communism. Now, it’s pretty much clear to most people that the project of communism failed, and the ideas of Marx are too unrealistic to work. It’s easy to say it retrospectively.

However, if you read any book of turn-of-the-century authors, you’ll see that 100-150 years ago Marxism seemed like the coolest and most progressive thing in the world, promoted by the coolest and most progressive people of that time. If you didn’t support ideas of socialism, you were labeled as a conservative retrograde who’s hopelessly stuck in retrogressive thinking. Not only stuck, but intentionally ignorant and evil. Because, how can you not support the good cause of economic equality, and choose to maintain the hopelessly unfair and unjust status quo? You better get educated about the struggles of the disadvantaged working class (meaning: get indoctrinated by Marxist dogmas).

Sounds familiar. The most allegedly progressive individuals these days are American libtards fighting against systemic racism, forcing people to embrace white guilt, patriarchal privilege, you name it. The critical theory is named progressive, cutting-edge social science. And if you don’t actively support it (for instance, you don’t spend 30 min per day studying critical race theory and searching for racist prejudices in the depth of your own subconsciousness), you’re labeled an uneducated* fascist who’s against the good cause of justice. Because how can you be against justice, if you’re not evil?

The crucial thing in politics though is not the brightness of the goals, but the cruelty of the means. And the means we’ve been witnessing so far seem way too close to the methods employed by the 20th century’s tyrannic regimes.

Of course, I don’t deny the importance of equality (equality of opportunity, not outcome). Hidden privileges clearly exist (neurodiverse people can affirm). Institutions can exercise affirmative action if it goes in line with their teleology / serves their purpose (for instance, the purpose of a university to supply professionals who can serve in diverse communities). I support the wealth redistribution, and strongly favor the capital and inheritance taxes. And I don’t identify with conservatives at all, being perhaps closest to the ideas of classical liberals.

But how we treat the problem of injustice is up for a democratic deliberation, not for totalitarian enforcement. Because in political rhetoric, especially the one of the past century, the ends usually don’t matter as much as the means – since the ends often become the tool of political manipulation. The goals can be portrayed as anything good that’s impossible to refute – think again of the bright ideas of communism and economic equality that didn’t have much in common with the totalitarian reality of the Soviet Union or the genocidal regime of Kampuchea that all came afterwards. If you look from this perspective, even the National Socialist party of Germany had end-goals that presented a certain appeal to some people (like restoring the former greatness of the country), but employed very VERY wrong means to achieve it (which was, for instance, the criticism of Hitler by Mussolini who didn’t share same views on antisemitism).

In our days, it’s way too easy to imagine a political party that proclaims a noble goal of building a perfectly just society, where every group is treated equally, and the equality of outcome is put first in the rank of importance. You subscribe to this great goal, and find yourself in a totalitarian nightmare, where people are ostracized for saying a wrong word, the idea of meritocracy is banished, personal efforts are no longer determining personal success, etc. And all of this ensured by totalitarian control.

And who’s a likely candidate to exercise such control? Well, we shouldn’t forget the ironic fact that the first establishment of the Communist party of the Soviet Union didn’t have working class people in its ruling body. What was proclaimed to be dictatorship of the proletariat, turned out to be dictatorship of a small bureaucratic elite. Again, sounds familiar. People most actively advocating for social justice these days are usually not the ones belonging to minorities themselves. These are likely to be the people who would constitute the top bureaucratic class, if we repeat the communist scenario. So, pretty much anyone claiming to enact the dogma – or striving for power in the name of a good cause.

Just saying.

* The rhetoric of splitting people into educated / uneducated groups is perhaps the most vicious linguistic weapon to exist. From the language standpoint, it portrays the indoctrinated group as the only progressive one, and enforces others to either get indoctrinated by reading ideologically-charged authors, or to feel ashamed of being too illiterate to be allowed to participate in political discourse.

I write about cats and theories. About the blog »