Leftist activists disagree with one another. In other news, bears shit in the woods, the Pope is Catholic, etc. This disagreement is the cause of Twitter conflicts ranging from polite discussion to dumpster fires. How should we handle these conflicts? Should we try to get along? When? How can we tell when we’re taking conflicts too far?
Without knowing precisely what the danger is, would you say it’s time for our viewers to crack each other’s heads open and feast on the goo inside?
I’ll address some of these questions in this post. Probably not the one from The Simpsons.
Shared Leftist Commitments
There’s a deeper question here about what ‘leftist’ means. Some people use ‘leftist’ to mean anyone to the left of Republicans (or a different right-wing party in non-American nations). But I find this unhelpful. In my view, a leftist is anyone who opposes capitalism and is committed to some kind of socialist replacement for the capitalist system.
‘Socialism’ is some form of public ownership and management of key economic resources. At a minimum, this ought to include the ‘commanding heights‘ of the economy. Ideally, we’re talking about public ownership of the workplace with worker management. And, maximally, we might be talking about elimination of markets for the distribution of goods and services and replacement of markets with participatory public planning. But that last step is more controversial in leftist circles. See, for example, recent debates on this.
‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ is Separate from ‘Leftist’ and ‘Non-Leftist’
It’s important not to conflate ‘good’ with ‘leftist’ or ‘bad’ with ‘non-leftist.’ Some leftists hold some pretty bad views. Leftists who support authoritarians like Bashar al-Assad, for one example. Or leftists who deny the importance of race and gender to the capitalist system, for another. But by the definition above, they’re still leftists. They’re just bad ones.
And on the other side of things, there are some progressive non-leftists like Elizabeth Warren who have a number of good ideas. Consider, for example, her plan for universal child care. And there are race-identitarians who have good ideas. I’ve written previously about Ta-Nehisi Coates, who argues well for a compelling perspective.
Conflicts and Shared Commitments
When handling internal conflicts, it’s important for us to keep these shared commitments in mind. And, in addition to that, it’s important to keep in mind basic principles of safety and security for leftist movements.
If we’re all leftists, we probably agree on far more than we disagree on. Because of this, we can have productive conflicts against a background of agreement. We can disagree, for example, on whether advancing social democratic programs in the short term is the best way to achieve long term socialist change. That’s fine. But we can’t disagree on whether racism is bad or on whether it’s OK for rapists to attend meetings.
I think that if we looked at our internal conflicts, we’d find that an embarrassingly large percentage of them don’t relate in any important way to our core views.
Political Education
Sometimes I find it helpful to think about conflicts as opportunities for mutual political education. Whether the person you’re speaking with is a leftist or a liberal (or perhaps neither?), there are probably things you can learn from each other.
Aside from the fact that it’s just kind of a dick move, this is a reason why a lot of ‘liberal bashing’ is pointless or counterproductive. Sure, liberals are wrong about a lot of things. And they can get obnoxious quickly. But the ones doing issue-based work sometimes have great ideas, and many are interested in working alongside leftists on specific projects.
The potential for political education is part of why I think the DSA is a useful site for activist work right now. It attracts multiple, diverse perspectives, and it’s an organization full of people willing and ready to learn from one another.
Don’t Bash Others’ Activist Actions
Inevitably, your group will put on events or actions you won’t like. Maybe they schedule a protest you consider ill-conceived. Maybe they endorse (or don’t endorse) a candidate you don’t (or do) like. Or maybe you just don’t like the idea of focusing on one issue rather than another one.
It’s fine to state your disagreement and argue for your perspective at meetings. And not just fine, but healthy. These kinds of conflicts can be productive. But it’s rarely good to bash the group’s action in the press or on social media. And if you find that doing this kind of bashing is most of your ‘activist’ work, you’re probably being an ass. Knock it off.
Usually it’s best not to re-litigate these issues later, either. Groups move on to new ideas and new topics. Don’t re-open old battles unless there’s a good reason to do so.
“They Called Me a [Racist, Sexist, Mansplainer, Rape Apologist, et al.]”
Here’s a related form of conflict that comes up quite a bit. Someone calls you one of these terms. What should you do about this? Here’s some advice.
First, the most likely reason someone calls you one of these things is that you said or did something that was racist, sexist, et al. And so, the first thing you should do is re-evaluate what you said or did. Maybe you didn’t intend it to be one of these things, but it probably was anyway. If so, then apologize and figure out whether there’s anything else you can do to set things right. In some cases, the person doing the ‘calling out’ is different from the person or group your actions targeted. In these cases you should apologize to the target of your remarks rather than the ‘call out’ person, though apologizing to the ‘call out’ person is also sometimes appropriate.
“But What If They’re Wrong?”
Sometimes the person calling you out is wrong, and what you said or did isn’t really racist, sexist, et al. It happens. This is a tricky situation that I don’t think we’ve really settled. Here are some thoughts.
First, this is relatively rare. In most cases, they’re not wrong and you’re the person who is wrong. So, start by re-evaluating your actions again and making sure. Whatever you said or did was probably racist or sexist.
Second, after you’ve made sure, pursue a strategy of de-escalation. Note that you’ve heard the person’s opinion but that you disagree. And you’re ready to move on. Or just drop the conversation. Debating someone on this is usually a bad idea in person, and it’s almost always a bad idea on social media. It requires both a high level of trust between discussants and an awareness of how your words impact others. These are rare achievements on social media.
In very rare cases, the person doing the calling out won’t let it go. A few people, particularly on social media, descend into zealotry. In these cases, you just have to minimize interaction with the person. Block them on Facebook and block or mute them on Twitter, if it’s a social media issue. Don’t attend their events or invite them to yours if it’s an in-person issue. I’ve had to do this a couple of times in my day, and avoiding these people is a great decision. The very small number of people who fall into zealotry are often going through personal issues that don’t involve you. And these tactics will help keep that the case.
Mansplaining, Rape Apologism, et al.
There’s also the issue of ambiguity. Sometimes a person says or does something that might be racist, sexist, et al., but might not be. This happens more often than I think many of us admit. It especially happens with newer terms.
Notions like racism and sexism are relatively stable. We don’t agree on exactly what they mean, but there’s a broad consensus. Newer terms like ‘rape apologism,’ ‘mansplaining,’ and ‘cultural appropriation‘ often lack this consensus. They’re much more in flux. This makes it difficult to figure out how to apply them, particularly insofar as people test them to find their limits of application.
As with clearer cases, I’d recommend re-evaluation and de-escalation. A small percentage of people using these terms are doing so to bait people into saying something offensive, and you should always avoid being baited. But many more people using these terms are doing so because they themselves are learning the terms and how to use them. This calls for some of the above strategies: listening carefully to others, finding opportunities for political education, re-evaluating your actions, apologizing where appropriate, blocking people on social media who simply can’t behave like adults, etc.
Issue-Based Activism
Finally, I’ll turn to issue-based activism. Groups sometimes raise conflicts, or even splinter, over which issues to work on. Some members want to do housing and others want to do healthcare. Or some want to campaign for electoral candidates and others want to work on immigration. And other iterations.
I understand why people get worked up about these debates. But I’d argue that the issues you’re working on are less important than bigger picture questions about strategy. What’s important is working alongside working-class people and members of other dispossessed groups. Solidarity above issue selection. There are good and bad ways of working on each of the issues I listed in the previous paragraph, among other issues. If you’re interested in housing, for example, it’s better to do a good job on working-class health care than to join a housing group whose work isn’t based in solidarity.
A second point here is that groups can and should embrace multiple tendencies and diversity in focus. Good activist groups create a space for people to work in different ways. If your group is working on housing and you’re interested in health care, in most cases you can start working on health care and the two subgroups can help one another out. The best groups typically allow for these kinds of things.
Learning the Hard Way
I think everyone has violated at least a few of these guidelines, and many of us have violated most of them. Me too. When you’ve been doing activist work of some kind or another for a couple of decades, it happens. But, you know, move on and try harder next time.
