How totalism works
aeon.co
aeon.co
I'm sure there's a psychological model for this, but I think that's why there's so many "ex-XYZ" groups. Leaving is both abrupt and lengthy. Especially so, I imagine, for a group so totally psychologically consuming.
Any belief system will have extremists - doesn't mean that belief is bad. Perhaps we can judge belief systems by the proportion of extremists they produce? Postmodernism and Nihilism don't look so bad in this regard, whereas religious cults, hardcore racists, and Leninists have pretty bad track records.
And it's interesting that you call out Marxists, but not fascists, Nazis, and religious zealots. Care to elaborate on that?
Have you read anything by Adorno, and Guy Debord's Society of the Spectacle? This kind of thing is taken from a different direction, looking from the perspective of how the capitalist mode of production has shaped society.
>so the psyche is desperately set to seek political meaning externally
Nihilism doesn't mean you have no goals, or that you can't make your own meaning. It only purports that there is no meaning to our lives in general. Perhaps the only forces contrary to this are religions (and to be clear, by no stretch do I think religion is a Bad Thing). Your meaning can come internally, or perhaps some people just find they don't need a meaning. Your claim doesn't really fit that well with others, as in the past (and still in the present) non-nihilists sought meaning outside their own lives, such as by having children to "leave something behind".
Although what you say may seem true, I don't think it is all that much, and I think you're overstating the effect that postmodern thought has had. The "fight for social justice" is not about reaching a utopia, it is about improving conditions; arguably most political ideologies are fights for some kind of social justice. If you really want to relate this to Marxism as you have, I must note that Marx considered Communism in the same way in The German Ideology:
Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.
>Simultaneously, posmodern techniques erode values and logic so reality becomes "maleable"
What's wrong with this? It seems that you are attaching a cultural connection to postmodern thought, one which need not necessarily exist. The "erosion" you speak of happens through deconstruction (to my knowledge), which I think can be used as a powerful tool. The state of things, if it is worthwhile, ought to stand up to the test in my opinion.
>This way people is set in a downward spiral of all kinds of marxist self-victimisms
This is an uncharitable and frankly incorrect vision of Marxism. It's not about blaming your miseries on others, it's about looking to see the functioning of the system we live in. Marxism is a method of analysis (having spread from its birth in political economy right round to literature to geography) and as such it doesn't imply certain conclusions from the outset.
If it were as self-victimising as you claim, it would have to start from that position. But it doesn't; Marx's analysis starts with political economy in general. Through analysis, Marx claims to have found interesting facts: the functioning of value, the theory of surplus value, and from this the exploitation of the proletariat.
You misunderstand the Marxian structure model; he does not present the base and superstructure to be things to blame, but rather as any person would see, the explanation of how our relationship to our means of sustenance (i.e how we are able to live, literally) shapes all other aspects of our lives in what we see as culture in general.
One last point: Marx was not really a utopian socialist (like Robert Owen was), and you'll find no shortage of Socialist thinkers who will re-iterate that Socialism is not some pill that you swallow and everything is fine. As I'm sure you'd agree with me, it's worth arguing against such ideologies. But Marxism is not one.
The issue is not with Marx himself but all of the utopians who follow in his wake. The same goes for Derrida. It's fine to be a critic of society. It's another thing entirely to have the hubris to propose a societal reboot. For some reason, so many people take the successes they have with the former as evidence that they're smart enough to achieve the latter.
Also, by the time abolitionists were most active slavery had already been removed from large portions of world society. What the radicals of the 19th Century proposed was completely unprecendneted and untested.
Why would that matter? And even if it did, is it true? Opposition to worker exploitation has been happening for centuries too, and in the larger sense, the tradition which the Communists continue, the opposition to the class system, fits in with opposition to slavery.
>To me, "radical change in social organisation" is far milder than "societal reboot"
A radical change in social organisation is a societal reboot by any definition of reboot. It is to change the very nature of how people are able to live, how they can obtain sustenance and how they can enjoy themselves. I would very much describe the transition from pre-capitalist society to capiatalism a radical change in social organisation, yet it is every bit a reboot. Granted, Communism goes further not only by abolishing one class system and replacing it with the next, but rather to abolish the class system in general.
"The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general." — Freidrich Engels
And the idea that a movement needs to have made headway to be considered worthy or lacking in hubris, is as I'm sure you'll agree contradictory. The radicals of the 19th century were writing in direct opposition to this relatively new mode of organisation and indeed its strengthening in the Industrial Revolution. In fact, Marx himself dedicates a few chapters in Capital to detailing exactly how capitalism originated, with what laws passed in England and how this helped secure the position of the bourgeoisie.
Yet people continue to clamour for it. They fly the hammer and sickle. It's just so stupid and incredibly dangerous.
Like I said before, it's fine to criticize society. Wealth inequality is a big problem, for one. I don't think the Soviets solved it though, do you?
My only issue with this is that people tend to ignore the very same history of fascism and right-wing extremism (and that there are far more examples of than communism today), even as their country slides into an authoritarian police state with healthcare and social safety nets dismantled in the name of avoiding what they perceive to be 'socialism'.
I think the problem is when mockery of such systems is disallowed. I don't know about other religions, but the Buddhist approach has been to neither become prideful and puffed up when one congratulates one's religion, but not to lose one's temper or become sad when one criticises it. In the former case one should say "yes, you are right, well said". In the latter, one should say "no, you are wrong, here is why..."
Unfortunately I can't find the citation in the Buddhist Pali Canon at the moment despite searching for what I thought were the keywords, though what I say is probably what one might expect from Buddhism.
First, please distinguish respect for the person from respect for their beliefs.
A person's beliefs (as long as those do not include the intent to harm others) should have no effect whatsoever on what rights they have, and on being accepted and treated as a human being equal to all other human beings in society. That is respect for the person.
However, when a scientologist believes that Xenu's army dropped hydrogen bombs into vulcanoes in order to free the thetans from their bodies (or whatever exactly the story is, theology is not my expertise), there is absolutely no room for respect for that, it is bullshit and should be called out as just that.
And there is one very important reason for that: Respect for those beliefs by society is one factor that keeps people trapped in these belief systems, which is very much the opposite of freedom.
There are more than enough people who will tell you that they wished someone had shown them earlier how ridiculous and irrational the beliefs they were indoctrinated into were instead of validating it by pretending it was worthy of respect, because they could have started earlier to live a life free from a completely irrational fear of hell, for example.
Respecting ideas that suppress people's free development does not contribute to freedom.
> I think the problem is when mockery of such systems is disallowed.
Well, yeah, but that is directly interlinked with the idea of respect for irrational belief systems. Mocking something is inherently not respecting the thing.
In my mind, respect is something that's earned rather than expected.
People should be able to believe whatever they want, but as soon as it affects anything they do, any such "respect" becomes counterproductive. E.g. respecting anti-vaxxer beliefs, how would that even work?
Would you rather be in a crisis situation with a person who will pray for your well-being instead of actually helping you when it's needed?
The difference between informed voluntary weird behavior and non-informed compelled behavior is not necessarily obvious. Consider the boot-camp experience of joining the armed forces: is it right? Is it legal? Is it different in kind or degree from a cult indoctrination?