• What is the pseudo left?

After it tried so hard to preserve fascism in Iraq, even after Bush Jr had wisely given up on Bush Sr's policy of keeping the Iraqi dictator in power, can anyone deny the pseudo-Left is reactionary?

Revolutionaries are historical optimists who stress the inevitability of progress.
Pseudo-Leftists are reactionaries who merely denounce how bad things are

and actively reinforce the idea that they cannot be changed.

That article praises Red Politics for being “refreshing compared with the pap put out from the pseudo-left, but also asks why a Left position had:

One of the features of the pseudo-left is pointed out:

So far the result of deteriorating economic and social conditions has not been revolutionary rebellion against capitalism but conservatism and reactionary opposition to capitalism (often presented as 'left', merely because it opposes capitalism)..

In a comment on the article 'Red and Green don't mix', we hear about the:

“greeny pseudo left 'who think they are being terribly radical'

but in fact are being 'even more conservative than the conservatives'.”

In the US war against Iraq of 1990-1,

“How many people rallied around the pseudo-left efforts to defend Iraq's occupation of Kuwait when they were deluding themselves that their mobilization in support of fascist aggression would be the beginning of a new anti- war movement similar to Vietnam in the sixties?”

or

A crucial point is made at this early stage. The point is not to smugly 'name and shame' the pseudo-left, but to build an alternative to them, by first of all reclaiming the name 'left' from them.

“...he fundamental problem is the vacuum in 'red' politics that has allowed reactionary ideas to spread unchallenged for so long. Despite that vacuum the reactionary pseudo-left remains totally isolated and insignificant. Refuting their ideas will not be very difficult, but neither will it be decisive, since they have so little influence anyway.

A genuine 'red' left can avoid isolation and insignificance but we can't start building one without developing a better understanding of what it's all about.”

April 2003 saw this article in The Age say:

Anti-Americanism is the key to understanding the pseudo-Left, which is more akin to a subculture than a political movement: a mish-mash of Third World romanticism, pacifism, environmentalism and suspicion of progress and modernity. In this jumble of prejudices, the anti-war movement gained support from circles that would never have countenanced supporting the Left position during the Vietnam protest period.

On May Day 2003, this article, originally in The Age, said:

“The pseudo-Left opposes modernity, development, globalisation, technology and progress.

It embraces obscurantism, relativism, romanticism and even nature worship. At May Day rallies, the pseudo-Left whines about how things aren't what they used to be.”

The article goes on to assert:

Both Bush and Chomsky know the US cannot be secure from medievalist terrorist
mosquitoes while the Middle East remains a swamp.

But Bush also knows that modernity grows out of the barrel of a gun.

That is a genuinely Left case for a revolutionary war of liberation, such as has occurred in Iraq. The pseudo-Left replies: "That's illegal."

Well, of course revolutionary war is illegal!

Legal systems are created by revolutions, not revolutions by legal systems.

And concludes:

After it tried so hard to preserve fascism in Iraq, even after Bush Jr had wisely given up on Bush Sr's policy of keeping the Iraqi dictator in power, can anyone deny the pseudo-Left is reactionary?

June 2003 saw a discussion of Hegel and the Pseudo-Left, where the 'mish-mash' comment from April, above, was referred to:

I think these words captured something very important about the pseudo-left – in particular its atheoretical and ahistorical nature. Pseudo-left ideology lends itself well to bulleted lists of things to oppose and things to support. At the same time, events in the world are classified according to surface appearance rather than in terms of what underlies them. The pseudo-left may talk of the "underlying reasons" for something like the war in Iraq but this talk is always of "hidden agendas", "secret motives" and is quite different from studying such events in light of the underlying flow of history....

...it seems to me that theirpolitical outlook is characterized by a denial/ignorance of both necessity and rationality (and therefore of reality). Opposition to US imperialism turns out to be an unchallengeable, immutable, stand-alone principle of some sort....

It’s easy to appear as very revolutionary and militant if your stance does not include any appreciation of current reality and necessity. And the opposite is also true – it’s easy to attack those who are being (correctly) radical and militant. Basically you don’t have to feel responsible for anything that happens because such a stance does not involve actually trying to change the world.

And

The ruling ideas, those that dominate education, culture etc, are thoroughly pessimistic and stress the hopelessness of any struggle for change. That is especially the case for state sponsored education ("post-modern" university departments of doom and gloom) and culture (national broadcasters such as the British BBC and Australian ABC bringing daily sermons that everything is going from bad to worse).

The pseudo-Left has been let off the hook because it has been challenged only by the complacent right, which accepts the pseudos self-image as something "radical", "militant" etc (by denouncing them on that basis, in support of the status quo).

Instead the pseudo-Left must be exposed as a direct reflection of ruling class ideology delivering exactly the official line - that nothing positive can be done to challenge the ruling class since even though they are obviously hopeless, no better alternative is possible.

In November 2003, a discussion at both Harry's Place and Last Superpower came to a call for:

some sort of "campaign" for the term "pseudo-left" instead of "left" or "hard left" etc to be widely adopted among people who feel queasy about "what happened to the left, how come they are so conservative/reactionary/apologetic for fascists etc etc".

“If this was successful it could hopefully spread among liberal pro-war blogs and perhaps also some of the right-wing pro-war bloggers that interact with them. If it started being used by liberal and other opinion and analysis writers in the mainstream media that could be strategically important.

As kesa points out: "At the moment a genuine left position isn't one of theirmultiple choice options."

Accurately naming and precisely defining the (various) tendencies that are currently substituting for and blocking the emergence of a genuine left alternative
is an essential step (among many) for left positions to emerge from hibernation.”

and also said

“..."the field has been left free" for the pseudo-left. But lets be clear. The fact that any sort of genuine left (however defined) is currently absent is what makes it possible for people with fundamentally reactionary politics to be mistaken for "leftists" merely by using a thin veneer of "left language". But that absence is not the cause of the reactionary politics nor is the pseudo-left the reason for the absence of a genuine left.”

In February 2005, this discussion at Harry's Place maintained:

"we should be arguing that Iraq's liberation is justified on strategic, revolutionary grounds (because of the impact this will have on destabilising the region and hence the grip on power of local tyrants, developments which will push forward the development of democracy in the region), rather than confining them to humanitarian grounds"

and

“The main theme of pseudos is not that the problems of capitalism can be resolved within the confines of its own framework but that there is no point trying to change anything because capitalism is all powerful and unchangeable. The "anti-capitalist" and "anti-imperialist" rhetoric is all that distinguishes them from a classic conservative/reactionary world view.”

and made a specific suggestion for revolutionaries and social democrats to unite on, against the pseudo-left.

Would it not be possible to agree on pushing for democratic revolution in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

(from this discusssion at Harry's place)

March 2006 saw this definition of the tactics of the pseudo-left:

“While Trevor was fighting for his life in the hours after the ambush, Vancouver’s “anti-war” crowd was already parading its troops-out banners in front of Vancouver city hall, and Canada’s Globe and Mail was offering its readers a disgraceful exercise in the most bleak sort of cynicism, all tarted up in the language of anti-imperialism...”

In June 2006, commments on Last Superpower about this article said:

And

The important thing about Respect is that it is "pseudo-left". Its militant reformism is part of the (radical, not conservative) left rhetoric which distinguishes it from ordinary conservative or reactionary ideas by using the language of militant reformists who are part of the left.

Also

Seems to be a classic illustration of the sort of "mass organizations", "rank and file groups" etc that are setup from templates to provide the "militant reformist" camouflage for an essentially reactionary tendency.

In the sixties they were just an oddball fringe, widely despised among the left (though sucking some people in). Sadly after so many decades unchallenged people actually believe that such groups represent the "hard left".

I was fascinated by a recent article in the Australian right-wing journal Quadrant by Keith Windschuttle complaining about vicious attacks on him from "the left" as represented by Robert Manne. Windschuttle was involved in the periphery of the left in the sixties Vietnam movement and Robert Manne was and is a notorious right-wing anti-communist ideologue but I detected no signs of insincerity in Windschuttle's outrage at the "left" attacks on him.

This phenomena is why I think the most important contribution we can make is in really clarifying and widely propagating the concept of a "pseudo-left".

And in July 2006, this discussion provoked the post you are reading now.

Notes: The point of this post is for it to be used as a reference for our definition of pseudo-left. Each time we use the phrase pseudo-left in a comment in a blog, we can link to this post.

Of course, wherever the article needs to be challenged, that can be done right here, so as the definition develops through debate, people who follow the links to this post can follow that debate. A better idea than a sterile attempt to reach the bland consensus warned against in the comments.

Rejection of the term psuedo-left, while showing some of the signs of pseudo-leftism, including a reliance on 'law' by Phil Cleary, a well-known footballer in Melbourne who was also a Federal MP.

This list of links to places on the Internet that have used the word 'pseudo left' shows that the word is used in many different ways to the definitions suggested in this post. However, most serious extended discussion of the term is along the lines quoted in this site. There is a fair prospect that this definition can become the leading one

Various forms of the word, and a common mis-spelling that many people will type into Google, include:

pseudoleft pseudo left pseudo-left psuedoleft psuedo left pseudo-left

Thanks for the very useful survey. Hope people do take this up in the way you proposed. I've already had my say in some of the quotes so I won't add much except to reinforce that its way past time for the "campaign" to popularize and deepen this concept that you are launching.

On a historical note, the earliest appearance of the term in mainstream mass media that I know of is from The Age, (Melbourne Australia), Friday 24 December 1993 under the title The revolution lives on long after Mao. A copy is here under the title It is right to rebel

Recommend reading that carefully (and including the historical footnote in any wikipedia article) as the explanations there were written for a mainstream audience rather than for "lefties" and show the continuity with both the more recent usage you survey and hard left attitudes from the 1960s. Also the specific highlighting of pseudo-leftist attitudes towards both the (earlier) Gulf War and greenie nature worship is noteworthy.

If anyone knows of earlier mainstream appearances hopefully this topic could result in them being unearthed.

Some of the best and most eloquent praises of science ever written came from the pens of Muslim scientists who considered their work to be acts of worship (ibaadah).  The same motives led to the establishment of Al-Azhar (800 CE), the first university in the world (l).  There is nothing in the teachings of Islam that contends against learning, against science, and against technology...

What is the reason that the Muslims have fallen from a position of top of the civilization to the bottom of civilization? One of the reasons or a major reason is OBSCURANTISM. What is obscurantism?  Obscurantism is the act of obscuring, or striving to prevent enlightenment, scientific advancement, modernity or to hinder the progress of knowledge and wisdom...

Syed's article actually seems to be more about esotericism than obscurantism

BTW that wikipedia article on obscurantism which references Syed also links to a hilarious definition of sesquipedalian obscurantism however I think that should really be called sesquipedalian obfuscation

I got a bit distracted from philosophical studies a while back into exploring the connection between pseudo-leftist obscurantism and the parallel phenomena of enthusiasm for conspiracy theories and the occult etc.

But then I got further distracted by a major explosion which is still ongoing.

Life is what happens to you while you are making other plans.

This post is just a bit of free associating, but it's also an affirmation of Barry's point about putting the discussion of pseudo-leftism into a positive context.

We are against obscurantism because we support free thought

A common theme of embracing obscurantism, relativism, romanticism and nature worship is that they all have the actual effect of reinforcing authority and tradition by restricting scientific logical reasoning (including obscurantism upholding of "consensus science" to substitute the authority and tradition of official science for the actual radical and critical world outlook of science).

Facing the world as it is means accepting that there is no fate and the future is what we make it. That's both against the interests of the ruling class and hence of the ruling ideology and really scary.

Its also really liberating and exciting.

The pseudo-left is part of a broader phenomena of the ruling class, which has every reason to be really scared, spreading a world outlook that keeps people scared rather than excited.

The various forms of obscurantism are to keep people away from "dangerous ideas" that could get them excited.

The difference between you and me Caroline is that you're a conservative, because you want things to remain the same and to be reined in, you want less development, and I am a radical - I want things to move forward and transform and I think we can do that if we put our minds to it.

....they are social and economic limits, given the gloss of environmentalism. And when Caroline says we have to limit flying, one question that springs to mind is what does that mean for people who live in the West, working-class people or upper working-class people or whomever, who will simply be forced to travel less. But more importantly, what does it mean for people in the developing world, in countries like China and India, many of whom will want to travel in the future, will want to fly, will want to go around the world. Are we saying, I'm sorry, we've used up all the flights the world can handle and you're not going to be able to do it? This is really restrictive, it's really about dressing up the limits thrown up by our society in politically correct green terms. We should expose these limits and try to push beyond them, rather than apologise for them and justify them.

In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore presents himself as prophet rather than politician. The former American vice-president uses the documentary to preach what he believes is the only legitimate view on climate change. He implies that anyone who deviates from The Truth According to Gore is – literally – corrupt, insane or possibly hates their children.

The Inconvenient Truth About Al Gore

Gorey Truths: 25 Inconvenient Truths for Al Gore, Murray Op-Ed in National Review Online

Bulled by a Gore , Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun September 13, 2006 12:00am

Gore-blimey: Conveniently, the real truths about global climate

The cries of many global-warming enthusiasts are based on a graph often referred to as the “hockey stick,” which shows stable temperatures from 1000 A.D. (or earlier) through 1900, followed by a sharp up-tick in the 20th century. The cries then reach a crescendo when talk turns to “human induced warming” due to the energy use of those nasty SUVs. The trouble for such fear-mongers is that the graph is fraudulent. A study by the National Academy of Sciences commissioned by Congress found that, for one thing, the original researchers of the hockey stick graph used proxy data that failed verification tests to reconstruct past temperatures. It also ignores known climate conditions such as the warm period in the Middle Ages and the “Little Ice Age” between 1600 and 1850.

Sen. James Inhofe, in a blistering rebuttal of the eco-doomsayers, addressed the NAS study before Congress on Monday, saying, “Global Warming—just that term evokes many members in this chamber, the media, Hollywood elites and our pop culture to nod their heads and fret about an impending climate disaster...hese fearsjustified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’.” Inhofe proceeded to give an extensive review of not only dubious science, but also downright lies by those with financial or other interests in promoting the scare of global warming. Sounds like the hockey-stick proponents deserve a penalty for hooking, high-sticking and unsportsmanlike conduct.

For 1000 words I would focus entirely on demonstrating the connection between pseudo-left views and traditional conservative views.