Towards A Firmer Culture of Critique

On the left we hold our comrades to a high standard. We expect that they behave correctly, and when they behave incorrectly that they take criticism in stride and commit to bettering themselves after making an effort to be self-critical. These standards are an inherent good for our mission as it is essential that we make our movement inclusive by keeping out reactionary thought and rhetoric that would alienate those marginalized peoples who have the most revolutionary potential. It's also important that we build better comrades, and treat these comrades with compassion so that they can become the allies we want and need them to be. This standard, however, is not one that is applied as rigorously or with as much principle as it should be. How can this be explained?

I’ve seen many radical spaces meet microaggressions and casual bigoted “jokes” with a small comment, an awkward pause, or a change of subject as opposed to pointed ideological struggle. In Mao’s essay “Combat Liberalism,” he specifically names this behavior as being the first type of Liberalism. When comrades express questionable behavior it is unacceptable that we not question it immediately. It’s actually worse than the comment itself, because it allows the problematic aspect as well as the liberal tendency to fold itself into the culture of our organizations. Instead we need to engender in our organizations a culture of inclusivity built by principled critique, humility, self-criticism, and loving encouragement in order to foster self-improvement. This is how we build better comrades, develop a principled working class base, and avoid alienating marginalized groups. 

I’ve seen many instances of comrades in radical spaces or around radical people engaging in reactionary rhetoric like eco-fascism or unexamined imperialist dogma. These instances are almost universally pounced on with ferocity. The comrade is criticised and the behavior is corrected. A correct response, but because of a weak culture of critique we don’t have adequate practice for approaching these more upsetting events with a respect for the humanity of the offender, and an eye for balancing our desire to make ourselves feel better with genuine effort to help them improve. In spewing venom and attempting to shame our wayward comrades, a principled criticism becomes a personal attack, which is the fifth example of Liberalism that Mao gives. Where we should seek to make our comrade better by helping them to understand the harm they caused, we instead denigrate the comrade’s character as though to assure ourselves that we are separate from that behavior, somehow less susceptible to those oppressive instincts. In addition to being liberal and self-centering, this is counter-productive as it is as likely to entrench them in their position as it is to encourage them to see their error.

It might be argued that if they feel alienated by being asked to correct themselves, then this means they are not adequate comrades. I would challenge that this is no different than saying that they are inadequate if they needed to be corrected in the first place. This ethic of disposability is bourgeois and cannot be allowed to replicate itself in our spaces. They are not our comrades because they are paragons of virtue, they are our comrades because they have dedicated themselves to putting their mind, body, and ego on the line for the struggle. If they need a reminder about that last one then we should take the time to help them with that. Surely if we are willing to open ourselves up to physical distress in the streets by fighting against that which we hate, then we can open ourselves up to emotional distress in our hearths to fight for those we love.

Some may rebut “What about when comrades behave egregiously, going so far as to say explicitly racist things or otherwise perpetuate toxic norms?” Mao says “We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interest of our fight.” Individually, one must prioritize one’s own safety. For organizations however, it is pure Liberalism to seek to respond to harm solely by removing the source of that harm and washing our hands of it, while failing to, to the best of our ability, address it directly and correct it. The core of our mission is to make the world, the whole world, not just the world that affects you, a better place. “To let things drift if they do not affect one personally” is Mao’s third example of Liberalism.

We must approach egregious toxicity within our ranks the same manner as any other toxicity with loving accountability: that is to be firm in your denouncement of their actions, inactions, and ideas while maintaining a respect for their humanity. It stems from a desire to build a better world through the work we do including the comrades we help to develop. We are not building a better world by allowing these ideas and behaviors to escape out into our larger communities beyond our reach. We can assist these misguided people in questioning their deeply held assumptions and beliefs, understanding the harm they cause, and working to correct it, so that they do not further perpetuate it. To do otherwise is nothing less than a dereliction of duty. “To see someone harming the interests of the masses and yet not feel indignant, or dissuade or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.“

My comrade, a teacher who engages with restorative practices daily with their students, once expressed to me: “Replicating punitive structures in our spaces is a way of protecting ourselves from doing hard internal work. We have pretty much all done harm, been harmed, and been bystanders to harm. When we want to remove someone from our space because they have said the wrong thing or hurt someone, I think part of that desire is a subconscious need to avoid taking a hard look at our own flaws and addressing them. We remove the person that reminds us of our own shortcomings.”

To allow our comrades to get away with minor infractions is to allow ourselves to get away with neglecting our revolutionary work not just externally, but internally as well. To push them out is the same. We on the left want the world to be better than it is, and so our goal is to fight to shape it into our image, but we only have the world as it is to work with. Let’s work to make that image united, strong, and cohesive.

Written by Steel of Middle Tennessee DSA