THE COWARDLY WITHDRAWAL OF LEFT INTELLECTUALS

When a celebrated class of intellectuals leaves an example of pure theory as the highest virtue of revolution, is it any wonder if the intellectuals who follow thereafter, should embrace theory to the detriment of action?

The philosopher, Theodore Adorno, was correct when he sought to criticize mindless revolution.* One should not simply assume that physical action is the highest virtue of revolution. But tragically, Adorno's criticisms of revolutionary activity, end up becoming an ideology of evasion, a place for cowards and elites to hide away from the real world. It is a false metaphysical declaration, that tries to establish the absolute place of theory, as once and for all set, as the authentic praxis of revolution. Eventually the relevance and time for theory gives way to the relevance and time for praxis. To claim that theory is always the thing to do, and that as long as one is engaged in theory, one is in engaged in resistance, becomes mere tautology.

"Whoever only thinks, removes himself, is considered weak, cowardly, virtually a traitor. The hostile cliché of the intellectual works its way deeply into that oppositional group, without them having noticed it, and who in turn are slandered as “intellectuals." Thinking actionists answer: among the things to be changed include precisely the present conditions of the separation of theory and praxis. Praxis is needed, they say, precisely in order to do away with the domination by practical people and the practical ideal. But then this is quickly transformed into a prohibition on thinking." Adorno, Theodor W. “Resignation”, in Critical Models: Interventions and Catchwords, translated by Henry W. Pickford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1998), pg. 290.

I am in no way advocating mindlessness in place of thought. All qualitative action presupposes qualitative thought. The same is true when it comes to revolution. Adorno cannot justify himself, or any other theorist, merely by stating the charge in advance. One can indeed, be rightly accused of being an intellectual, in the most negative sense of the term. There is a point in time, after thought has transpired, clearing the path from the abstract to the concrete, that withdrawal from praxis, does indeed signify cowardice, as a shirking of intellectual responsibility.     

Critical theory is polemically powerful, it presupposes sweeping philosophical comprehension; critical theorists are skilled at analyzing the world, but they are dunces when it comes to actually changing it.

Look around at the literature produced by critical theorists. This literature is not written for the masses, it isn't even written for the well educated lay person, it's written for other critical theorists, those who teach and practice in institutions; it's written to one's peers in hopes that one will be congratulated and celebrated as "a brilliant theorist." This ought to disgust anyone with real world consciousness. Everywhere we look we see the proliferation of suffering, and all that contemporary critical theorists do to engage that suffering, is to hide away in their ivory towers, drinking fine wine and eating good food, writing books and articles on abstract theory. They shout down at the masses from the safety of their towers; and should one try to connect with these elites, merely to discern the thought behind their reasoning, they are looked down on and discriminated against for not knowing all the latest abstract trends that circulate within the donnish academy. Woe to those who dare to approach the academic throne! These elites celebrate themselves among themselves, but what's worse, they expect the masses to celebrate them as well.          

My friends, we have been sold out by the intellectual class. This class has begun to function as a new elite that stands above the rest of society. Most critical theorists come from a higher, social status of wealth, they are able to focus on their education, which gives them a social advantage. In contrast, most people born into working class households face serious adversity, not only in the schools they attend, but in the structure of their family life. This puts them at a disadvantage.

Theorist after theorist critiques society from a vantage of safety, protected by the one-sided validation of their peers, tucked away, sheltered from the world by their institutions. These theorists will criticize anything or anyone just so long as they don't have to face it in person. For example, I don't know of a single critical theorist that has anything but contempt for the ideology of Libertarianism, but never would one of these intellectuals dare to engage a Libertarian in person! The same is also true of the cult of Ayn Rand. Critical theorists know her work is bankrupt, but never would they dare have it out with her defenders in person. I believe this is because Left intellectuals, in general, are cowards. They are afraid of confrontation. Instead of taking the fight to the enemy, they write books and eccentric articles to entrained themselves and their peers, deceiving themselves about the concrete nature of their work in relation to the real world.

It's a rather strange paradox, critical theory is an exceedingly powerful form of thought, it has a sweeping polemic, but Left intellectuals are woefully incompetent when it comes to polemics in general. I believe that deep down most of them know this about themselves, and that is why they do everything in their power to avoid having to defend their ideas, or refute those of the opposition. Public intellectuals matter a great deal. This is easily proven. The present economic climate of American society was consciously shaped by public intellectuals, specifically, the likes of Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand; both of them were influenced by the work of Frederich Hayek. Between these three people one can account for every backward economic value in American society.

We have been abandoned by the intellectual class. Long ago they retreated into their ivory towers. Instead or refuting false facts, and the shallow ideology that assaults the public sphere, Left intellectuals write academic books, further expanding the categories of their abstraction. They take great pleasure in communicating with each other in their specialized, esoteric language. What this means is that the common citizen, who implicitly rejects fascist values, is left to fight a war that he is unprepared for and untrained for. He lacks the intellectual weapons to counter the ideology that assaults him, and yet he has been abandoned by the intellectual class, thrust to the front of the line in the cultural war. Is it any wonder that he is daily defeated by pundits; is it any wonder that the masses eventually come to embrace ruling class ideology, insofar as they have no defense against it? 

If it's not the role of the intellectual, to refute the ideology that assaults the common citizen, then what role do intellectuals play in the context of revolution? Have they become another oppressive class? Instead of going after the proponents of ruling ideology, these intellectuals target the common citizen by blocking his path to revolution, by confounding, rather than clarifying, his thought. The intellectual class cannot preach to the proponents of ideology, so instead, they complain to the oppressed citizen, increasing the weight of his already crushing social burden. This is disgusting and worthy of contempt, it amounts to a form of elitism.

Every time I attempt to point out a popular Right wing intellectual, those on the Left simply throw out an ad hominem, "no one takes that person serious, that persons an idiot." True enough, many of them are ignorant, offering up shallow platitudes in place of knowledge. But this fallacious maneuver does not amount to a refutation! And this is precisely the problem: shallow, intellectual arrogance, that congratulates itself as superior. I don't know how many times I have had to explain this to intellectuals on the Left. Just because their peers all know the person to be ignorant, purveyors of misinformation, doesn't mean the public knows it! What should happen in place of this arrogance, is that Left intellectuals should see the danger and take it serious, formulating a rational refutation. Instead of offering an ad hominem, to make oneself feel better, or retreating to one's ivory tower, intellectuals should take the fight to the enemy, not simply complain to their fellow citizens. This is a serious problem, and it's one of the reasons American culture has drifted in the direction of fascism. What these intellectuals are doing is passing off their responsibility to the unequipped citizen. Because they're afraid of the confidence of Right wing intellectuals, because they don't want to disrupt their fairy tale world of academia, therefore they allow those with less knowledge to take the brunt, eventually this leads to violence in society because the democratic procedure of communication fails. The more progress the Right makes in eroding democratic communication, the harder it becomes to resolve conflicts through the medium of words.    

Intellectuals have responsibilities; once theory is established, the next step is to put it into practice. Adorno's complaint was that activists tend to act without thinking, and he was correct, but once we know we can take action that will be "effective," that will lead to positive, social transformation, this is where theory ends and the responsibility of social action begins! This is indeed a real point beyond the abstract horizon.

The real duty of intellectuals, is not simply to sharpen the power of theory, but to refute ideology, to go after the scepters of idealism, to destroy public propaganda, even to make a spectacle of those who try to deceive the masses. The intellectuals must not abandon the working class, but must learn to fight for their intellectual freedom against the bold ideology of fascism. This is their duty and responsibility as intellectuals.            

Let us, The Thinkers, rebuke the intellectuals of our time, because they have left us to the ideological wolves, while they retreat to the leisure of their ivory towers. Let us call them out: stop preaching to the congregation, it's time to take the fight to the enemy! Refute, refute, refute, the ideology that stands in the way of the people's liberation! This is your duty. Your duty is not to seek praise among your peers, but to protect the masses from ideological thugs that seek to enslave them, and thereby destroy the social quality of the democratic world. Society is a fragile organism that must be defended. 




NOTES ----------------------------------------------------------------------



* "...a practice that simply frees itself from the shackles of theory and rejects thought as such on the grounds of its own supposed superiority will sink to the level of activity for its own sake. Such a practice remains stuck fast within the given reality. It leads to the production of people who like organizing things and who imagine that once you have organized something, once you have arranged for some rally or other, you have achieved something of importance, without pondering for a moment whether such activities have any chance at all of effectively impinging on reality." Adorno, Problems of Moral Philosophy, edited by Thomas Schröder, translated by Rodney Livingstone (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001) pg.6
 

-
-
-