3 ms·

When Tom Morello (RATM & Audioslave guitarist) is interviewed the tension between rich rockstar and firebrand anarchist usually provokes some sort of political

When Tom Morello (RATM & Audioslave guitarist) is interviewed the tension between rich rockstar and firebrand anarchist usually provokes some sort of political exchange that ends in "if you're such a communist, why do you X?" To which, he normally responds "I live in capitalist... when the revolution comes..., I'll take part in however music works then." I've seen him have this dialogue several times. My guess is that he's done it hundreds of times. That's the definition of the word "trite." The obvious champagne socialist firebrand dialogue has been had, in the same way, for generations now. Oscar Wilde. etc. This article does mention "champagne populists" as a type example from the political right. The other obvious comparison is "champagne religion," preaching chaste poverty while indulging like epicurean hedonism. Despite being trite, I think there genuinely is something to "if the shoe fits." Engels like other socialists & epicurean hedonists (eg chris hitchens) "get away" with church marriages or baptisms. It's hypocritical in theory but no one cares. Priests get away with greed, but not with hedonism. Hedonistic hypocrisy sticks to religion in a way that religious hypocrisy does not stick to epicureans & socialists. Neither wealth nor hedonism generally sticks to the "populist," but failure does. Anyway... I do think that champagne shaped socialism in a negative way, personally. The position of Engels, Wilde and others pushed the ideas in certain directions. They tended to see communism as an indivisible. A slice of communism had no value... otherwise why not use their resources to create a slice of it themselves. Total revolution, or none at all. Seemingly unresolveable conflict at every turn breeds "singularity" thinking.

dang 6y ago
You can look at it as hypocrisy but in the end I have found this concept not so useful. It's more interesting to look at it as contradictions, complexity, and so on. Hypocrisy is an interesting concept because of the self-contradiction in it. It's a word that is only ever applied to others, yet there is not one of us who isn't a hypocrite. Therefore the word is an instance of itself. The day I realized this, indignation about hypocrisy vanished for me—and it used to bug me a lot.
- tareqak 6y ago
  I am a little confused by what you mean. Here are two definitions that I looked up. [0] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypocrisy https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypocrisy (Lexico powered by Oxford) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy If you mean to say there are no people that consider themselves to be hypocrites, then I would have to disagree: there are plenty of people who try, fail, and continue to keep trying to not be hypocritical. However, if you mean to say that hypocrisy is something that we almost always hear about when someone applies it to another, then I understand what you are trying to say. I think I also understand what you mean by choosing to look at things using the lens / identifying a person’s action as a contradiction as opposed to hypocritical in that the former is an observation and the latter is an observation and a judgment/conclusion that may or may not have the full context/complexity taken into account.
  - dang 6y ago
    I mean that there are contradictions in all of us between our beliefs/concepts/judgments on the one hand, and the reality of how we live/behave/act, and treat others, on the other hand. In that sense we are all hypocrites—but the word 'hypocrite' is mainly used to condemn such contradictions in others. You're right that I shouldn't have said "only ever"—other usages exist—but they're secondary. Another way of making this point about self-contradiction is to say that anger at others for being hypocritical is itself hypocritical.

dang 6y ago

You can look at it as hypocrisy but in the end I have found this concept not so useful. It's more interesting to look at it as contradictions, complexity, and so on. Hypocrisy is an interesting concept because of the self-contradiction in it. It's a word that is only ever applied to others, yet there is not one of us who isn't a hypocrite. Therefore the word is an instance of itself. The day I realized this, indignation about hypocrisy vanished for me—and it used to bug me a lot.

tareqak 6y ago
I am a little confused by what you mean. Here are two definitions that I looked up. [0] https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypocrisy https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/hypocrisy (Lexico powered by Oxford) [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypocrisy If you mean to say there are no people that consider themselves to be hypocrites, then I would have to disagree: there are plenty of people who try, fail, and continue to keep trying to not be hypocritical. However, if you mean to say that hypocrisy is something that we almost always hear about when someone applies it to another, then I understand what you are trying to say. I think I also understand what you mean by choosing to look at things using the lens / identifying a person’s action as a contradiction as opposed to hypocritical in that the former is an observation and the latter is an observation and a judgment/conclusion that may or may not have the full context/complexity taken into account.
- dang 6y ago
  I mean that there are contradictions in all of us between our beliefs/concepts/judgments on the one hand, and the reality of how we live/behave/act, and treat others, on the other hand. In that sense we are all hypocrites—but the word 'hypocrite' is mainly used to condemn such contradictions in others. You're right that I shouldn't have said "only ever"—other usages exist—but they're secondary. Another way of making this point about self-contradiction is to say that anger at others for being hypocritical is itself hypocritical.