10 ms·

Agreed there has been blowback, but the 20% of true believers don't accept its validity. But I would argue the indoctrination has been very effective.

by ctrlp 2y ago

beepbooptheory 2y ago
Ok but what is the argument though? Culturally the left is weaker than it has ever been, to say the least! Possibly to preempt: I hope you can also understand that saying something like "look at these certain kids at a liberal arts school and their crazy ideology" is not going to be a satisfying argument by any measure. It really shouldn't be whichever side your on. We need to strive to be rational and look at actual data or otherwise evidence as much as possible. And again, the "left" that is probably in your mind absolutely hate the Democrats, so its just strange they could be cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids but at the same time be dumb enough to still presumably shoot themselves in the foot about it.. It just doesnt add up!. Also, I'm sorry, I don't want to be bugger in case english isn't your native language, but the subject and point of your first sentence is ambiguous and again hard to parse.
- ctrlp 2y ago
  I would distinguish between "the left" as a political persuasion and as a political movement, and between "the left" and "liberalism." Both versions of "the left" could further split into "left progressivism" and "left socialism." Or again, as "Progressives" and "Socialists" (or Communists). "Progressives" in my ontology are "left liberals" (as opposed to "right liberals/libertarians"). By "the left" do you mean "socialism" or "progressivism?" If socialism, then both as a political persuasion and political movement I agree that "the left" "hates" the Democratic party. For one, the Democratic party is not socialist. Two, they compete for mindshare and the socialists always lose. I did not bring up the "left/right" dichotomy in my comments and don't believe they are that helpful in the current context. That said, the socialists don't really matter. Socialists don't/can't/won't/shouldn't hold power so their only function is as a faction within the broader "left coalition" that has broken down since the 1990s when global liberalism reached its apex. That coalition is dominated by "left liberals" (aka Progressives). These are not all that different teleologically from Communists, but seek to push forward a type of Whig history. The representative expression of this Whig history is Obama's "The arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sometimes, it doesn't bend fast enough and has to be bent by technocratic governance. And this can't be limited to the borders of a polity or nation, but logically requires a global scope. It is both interesting and convenient that such an ideology happens to provide cover for the administrative actions of global empire. It would be hard to convince the individual people to act against their better judgment. Much better if they believe they are a force for good. Hence the role of indoctrination towards ideological conviction. You see the effect when this fails while the government persists in the later stages of Soviet and Communist governance. The people just didn't believe it anymore. If interested, you can read a sociological study of this effect in Timur Kuran's "Private Truths, Public Lies". Nobody is "cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids." Holding to such formulations is obtuse and a trivial form of casuistry. Ideology and its supporting indoctrination programs are emergent in the modern era. That said, plenty of past Propaganda Ministers have existed who did take an active role in managing popular opinion. They don't call themselves that anymore, but they still exist. (Interesting books have been written on the topic[0].) In the modern context, propaganda may seem subtle until some kind of crisis occurs when all points converge and you get those hilarious memes of all news anchors somberly enacting the same exact text at the same moment. It is at those times that one sees behind the arras and understands that "news" is not organic nor is it independent. Editorial boards collude regularly to shape public opinion. (I would call it a subtler version of Pravda but people who lived under Eastern European propaganda have scoffed at the heavy-handedness of our version compared to the actual Soviet programs.) The breakdown of this function/ability is one of the more interesting phenomena of our current times. All that is to say that the process of indoctrination is not all that mysterious, but its conspiratorial aspects, while real, get too much attention imho. [0] For examples, see Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion", Edward Bernays' "Propaganda", Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda", Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Incorporated", Martin Gurri's "The Revolt of the Public", etc...
  - beepbooptheory 2y ago
    Ok yes. I definitely understand and agree with minimally this point that, indeed, such a formulation of indoctrination is silly, and that, yes, what you call left liberalism (many might call the same thing neoliberalism) is the operative ideology of the day and as such squirms itself explicitly and not into things like education and the media. I agree too that global empire is important here, but it seems strange to me to characterize liberals as somehow distinctive with regards to needing people to "believe they are a force for good." It's kinda always like that right? I know it has broader use, but "indoctrination" to me has a connotation of force, of some active aligning of the subject's consciousness with a particular belief system/conviction, especially when invoked in this particular context (and just, you know, the way TV republicans talk about it right now). Propaganda is more broad though, certainly. A lot of what, at least, Chomsky talks about is the propaganda of distortion and omission: its not about telling people what to think per se, but making sure they don't think about XYZ, or at least don't care too much about it. This kind of propaganda feels like the truly distinctive thing about the emergent modern liberal order: they don't need us to fight any wars, there is no more communists really, they don't actually care if we are woke and think the Iraq war was a terrible crime, they just need us to go to work and then later order stuff from Amazon. This is ultimately I think why, yes, the conspiratorial aspects are hugely overblown: it just seems so strange to look around our world right now and believe that what's important is what everyone merely thinks. It's clearly "what we do anyway" that matters! I think in this its somewhat too optimistic to think what we are seeing is any kind of "breakdown" between the ideological levers neoliberalism employs and the people who, e.g., watch the news. It is not like there is something else disgruntled citizens can flock to, and the system has proven at this point it can tolerate and/or incorporate every atom of dissent quite efficiently. It's a well oiled machine that Obama and Trump and all of them always slot into quite well at the end of the day. Why else is it that everything always seems to resolve down to inane culture wars that go back and forth contesting rights and privileges that ultimately do nothing to actually push the needle of our collective freedom or prosperity? But this all truly begs the question for me: what were you even talking about to begin with? What, in this vein, did parents realize about their child's education during covid? If it isn't the silly conspiratorial stuff, I just can't imagine what you are talking about, much less how any of this situation is actually going to change with simply a new president or budget cuts.

Agreed there has been blowback, but the 20% of true believers don't accept its validity. But I would argue the indoctrination has been very effective.

by ctrlp 2y ago

Agreed there has been blowback, but the 20% of true believers don't accept its validity. But I would argue the indoctrination has been very effective.

beepbooptheory 2y ago

Ok but what is the argument though? Culturally the left is weaker than it has ever been, to say the least! Possibly to preempt: I hope you can also understand that saying something like "look at these certain kids at a liberal arts school and their crazy ideology" is not going to be a satisfying argument by any measure. It really shouldn't be whichever side your on. We need to strive to be rational and look at actual data or otherwise evidence as much as possible. And again, the "left" that is probably in your mind absolutely hate the Democrats, so its just strange they could be cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids but at the same time be dumb enough to still presumably shoot themselves in the foot about it.. It just doesnt add up!. Also, I'm sorry, I don't want to be bugger in case english isn't your native language, but the subject and point of your first sentence is ambiguous and again hard to parse.

ctrlp 2y ago
I would distinguish between "the left" as a political persuasion and as a political movement, and between "the left" and "liberalism." Both versions of "the left" could further split into "left progressivism" and "left socialism." Or again, as "Progressives" and "Socialists" (or Communists). "Progressives" in my ontology are "left liberals" (as opposed to "right liberals/libertarians"). By "the left" do you mean "socialism" or "progressivism?" If socialism, then both as a political persuasion and political movement I agree that "the left" "hates" the Democratic party. For one, the Democratic party is not socialist. Two, they compete for mindshare and the socialists always lose. I did not bring up the "left/right" dichotomy in my comments and don't believe they are that helpful in the current context. That said, the socialists don't really matter. Socialists don't/can't/won't/shouldn't hold power so their only function is as a faction within the broader "left coalition" that has broken down since the 1990s when global liberalism reached its apex. That coalition is dominated by "left liberals" (aka Progressives). These are not all that different teleologically from Communists, but seek to push forward a type of Whig history. The representative expression of this Whig history is Obama's "The arc of the universe is long, but it bends towards justice." Sometimes, it doesn't bend fast enough and has to be bent by technocratic governance. And this can't be limited to the borders of a polity or nation, but logically requires a global scope. It is both interesting and convenient that such an ideology happens to provide cover for the administrative actions of global empire. It would be hard to convince the individual people to act against their better judgment. Much better if they believe they are a force for good. Hence the role of indoctrination towards ideological conviction. You see the effect when this fails while the government persists in the later stages of Soviet and Communist governance. The people just didn't believe it anymore. If interested, you can read a sociological study of this effect in Timur Kuran's "Private Truths, Public Lies". Nobody is "cunning enough to come up with a whole nefarious plan to indoctrinate the kids." Holding to such formulations is obtuse and a trivial form of casuistry. Ideology and its supporting indoctrination programs are emergent in the modern era. That said, plenty of past Propaganda Ministers have existed who did take an active role in managing popular opinion. They don't call themselves that anymore, but they still exist. (Interesting books have been written on the topic[0].) In the modern context, propaganda may seem subtle until some kind of crisis occurs when all points converge and you get those hilarious memes of all news anchors somberly enacting the same exact text at the same moment. It is at those times that one sees behind the arras and understands that "news" is not organic nor is it independent. Editorial boards collude regularly to shape public opinion. (I would call it a subtler version of Pravda but people who lived under Eastern European propaganda have scoffed at the heavy-handedness of our version compared to the actual Soviet programs.) The breakdown of this function/ability is one of the more interesting phenomena of our current times. All that is to say that the process of indoctrination is not all that mysterious, but its conspiratorial aspects, while real, get too much attention imho. [0] For examples, see Walter Lippman's "Public Opinion", Edward Bernays' "Propaganda", Noam Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent", Jacques Ellul's "Propaganda", Sheldon Wolin's "Democracy Incorporated", Martin Gurri's "The Revolt of the Public", etc...
- beepbooptheory 2y ago
  Ok yes. I definitely understand and agree with minimally this point that, indeed, such a formulation of indoctrination is silly, and that, yes, what you call left liberalism (many might call the same thing neoliberalism) is the operative ideology of the day and as such squirms itself explicitly and not into things like education and the media. I agree too that global empire is important here, but it seems strange to me to characterize liberals as somehow distinctive with regards to needing people to "believe they are a force for good." It's kinda always like that right? I know it has broader use, but "indoctrination" to me has a connotation of force, of some active aligning of the subject's consciousness with a particular belief system/conviction, especially when invoked in this particular context (and just, you know, the way TV republicans talk about it right now). Propaganda is more broad though, certainly. A lot of what, at least, Chomsky talks about is the propaganda of distortion and omission: its not about telling people what to think per se, but making sure they don't think about XYZ, or at least don't care too much about it. This kind of propaganda feels like the truly distinctive thing about the emergent modern liberal order: they don't need us to fight any wars, there is no more communists really, they don't actually care if we are woke and think the Iraq war was a terrible crime, they just need us to go to work and then later order stuff from Amazon. This is ultimately I think why, yes, the conspiratorial aspects are hugely overblown: it just seems so strange to look around our world right now and believe that what's important is what everyone merely thinks. It's clearly "what we do anyway" that matters! I think in this its somewhat too optimistic to think what we are seeing is any kind of "breakdown" between the ideological levers neoliberalism employs and the people who, e.g., watch the news. It is not like there is something else disgruntled citizens can flock to, and the system has proven at this point it can tolerate and/or incorporate every atom of dissent quite efficiently. It's a well oiled machine that Obama and Trump and all of them always slot into quite well at the end of the day. Why else is it that everything always seems to resolve down to inane culture wars that go back and forth contesting rights and privileges that ultimately do nothing to actually push the needle of our collective freedom or prosperity? But this all truly begs the question for me: what were you even talking about to begin with? What, in this vein, did parents realize about their child's education during covid? If it isn't the silly conspiratorial stuff, I just can't imagine what you are talking about, much less how any of this situation is actually going to change with simply a new president or budget cuts.