BNP: What will we do next?

[Carousel]

Why are so many @ists so fucking arogant on here? So fucking sectarian? So emotional?

For those that do it, their political beliefs are very much a part of their character structure. Anarchists have no monopoly on it.

 

[TremulousTetra]

For those that do it, their political beliefs are very much a part of their character structure. Anarchists have no monopoly on it.

Abosolutely no monopoly! And for all those that do it, honestly mystifies me as to why? Whats the objective?

 

[Carousel]

Abosolutely no monopoly! And for all those that do it, honestly mystifies me as to why? Whats the objective?

Ego defence. For some personalities, it’s not just challenging them that sends them histrionic, merely having them reflect upon their beliefs is enough.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ego defence. For some personalities, it’s not just challenging them that sends them histrionic, merely having them reflect upon their beliefs is enough.

Maybe,,,,, BUT.
EGO, is about having concerns, about how other people perceive your status
1.

For those that do it, their political beliefs are very much a part of their character structure.

well if that is true, how can status be of concern? Absolutely central to any notion of left wing is the idea “all men are born equal”. Of course people have different skills, and some people are better at certain skills than others, but the whole notion is, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” You can have a revolutionary Vanguard party, but even the revolutionary Vanguard party has to realise “the emancipation of the working class, HAS TO BE the act of the working class.” If anything, for a left winger ego is the display of the diminution of THEIR political beliefs as part of their character structure, surely?

In other words, left wing politics is not the cause of ego, but the negation.

[[[[btw my political beliefs are very much a part of my character structure.]]]]


2. It isn’t just about individuals, is it? It is about political parties ASWELL. Explain to me how some political parties, groups and philosophies encourage the discussion that takes place on here, whilst other parties actively discourage it, if everything is just about individuals character?

 

[Carousel]

EGO, is about having concerns, about how other people perceive your status

Ego defence in the sense of protecting self esteem. As to the relationship between the left wing thought and humility, and humility and equalitarianism. Well. The outcome of that investigation doesn’t warrant the investment required to carry it out. I can only suggest you google up the current state of the art. Last time I checked, we might inherit ideological positions like we inherit speech impediments. A proper can of worms that challenges the ideological assumptions it attempts to explain.

some political parties, groups and philosophies encourage the discussion that takes place on here, whilst other parties actively discourage it

Not so sure about this. Please be more specific. I know a couple of excellent anarchist-communists, relatively emotionally stable, perfectly amenable, who theorise that the quintessentially “difficult” anarchists/leftists arrive at their positions by conjuring up a super-humanitarian social conscience to over compensate for their deep irrational sense of paranoia, victimisation and misanthropy. Your histrionic ALF vegan types providing the canonical case. Some kind of internal ideological see saw seeking balance. Another clichéd right-wing view is that left wingers gravitate to their opinions because they are inept (“needy”) and believe socialism would provide them with an easier ride. These are obviously simplified caricatures. The evidence in the cold light of day suggests no useful connection between political ideology and, say, the ”Big 5” classic personality traits.

 

[TremulousTetra]

Ego defence in the sense of protecting self esteem.

But in this case, the esteem has to be based upon other people’s perception of their selves, or they wouldn’t bother arguing with people, they would just sit at home, quietly smug of their superiority.

As to the relationship between the left wing thought and humility, and humility and equalitarianism. Well. The outcome of that investigation doesn’t warrant the investment required to carry it out. I can only suggest you google up the current state of the art. Last time I checked, we might inherit ideological positions like we inherit speech impediments. A proper can of worms that challenges the ideological assumptions it attempts to explain.

you’re completely missing my point. Your suggestion their politics contributes their ego, notions of hirearchy

For those that do it, their political beliefs are very much a part of their character structure.

is not valid, if THE central notion of these politics is equality. Plenty of ego’s on the left, those ego’s aint logically created by the phillosphy. Now Fascism, Conservatism are based on hierarchy.

Aren’t the statements “I am superior” and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” contradictory?

Not so sure about this. Please be more specific.

what are you not sure about?

I know a couple of excellent anarchist-communists, relatively emotionally stable, perfectly amenable, who theorise that the quintessentially “difficult” anarchists/leftists arrive at their positions by conjuring up a super-humanitarian social conscience to over compensate for their deep irrational sense of paranoia, victimisation and misanthropy. Your histrionic ALF vegan types providing the canonical case. Some kind of internal ideological see saw seeking balance. Another clichéd right-wing view is that left wingers gravitate to their opinions because they are inept (“needy”) and believe socialism would provide them with an easier ride. These are obviously simplified caricatures. The evidence in the cold light of day suggests no useful connection between political ideology and, say, the ”Big 5” classic personality traits

Agreed! But explain why different groups, have different attitudes to, to “none-fraternal” debate, please?

 

[LLETSA]

I know a couple of excellent anarchist-communists

Carousel keeps these excellent 'anarchist-communists' in his sock drawer.

 

[Carousel]

But in this case, the esteem has to be based upon other people’s perception of their selves, or they wouldn’t bother arguing with people, they would just sit at home, quietly smug of their superiority.

Don't think so. There's not necessarily much rationality at play, I'm not convinced a sense of superiority is there either. I'd really appreciate you starting a new thread on this, and we can discuss it properly. PM me the link and I'll happily explore it with you.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Aren’t the statements “I am superior” and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” contradictory?

I'd have thought they could go together very well depending on the context.

Louis MacNeice

 

[Carousel]

There's no way I'm going to start a "Politics and Character Structure" thread. That's a recipe for carnage.