Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled
society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of
our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can
serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern
society in general.

But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century
leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today
the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be
called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in
mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types,
feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and
the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these
movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing
leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological
type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by
"leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of
leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less
clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for
this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate
way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main
driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling
the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is
meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of
the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of
the 19th and early 20th century.

The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we
call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of
inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while
oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of
modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

4/18/2007 6:12:08 PM

i won't be satisfied til we get a one-party system

which one?

well the right one, of course

4/18/2007 6:21:47 PM

4/18/2007 6:22:49 PM

By "feelings of inferiority" we mean not only inferiority feelings
in the strictest sense but a whole spectrum of related traits: low
self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies,
defeatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend
to have such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these
feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said
about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that
he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is
pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong
to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are
hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms
"negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an
Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory
connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents
of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been
attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal
rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and
insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist
anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about
primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative.
They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem
almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive
culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that
primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the
hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect"
terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant,
abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of
whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from
privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold
among university professors, who have secure employment with
comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual, white
males from middle-class families.

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of
groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American
Indians), repellent (homosexuals), or otherwise inferior. The leftists
themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit
it to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely
because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with
their problems. (We do not suggest that women, Indians, etc., ARE
inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology).

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as
strong as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women
may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong,
good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western
civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The
reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not
correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West
because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so
forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in
primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he
GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points
out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in
Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the
leftist's real motive for hating America and the West. He hates
America and the West because they are strong and successful.

Words like "self-confidence," "self-reliance," "initiative",
"enterprise," "optimism," etc. play little role in the liberal and
leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic,
pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone's needs for them,
take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense
of confidence in his own ability to solve his own problems and satisfy
his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of
competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Art forms that appeal to modern leftist intellectuals tend to
focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an
orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope
of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that
was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science,
objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally
relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the
foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the
concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that
modern leftist philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians
systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply
involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack
these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one
thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent
that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More
importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they
classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and
other beliefs as false (i.e. failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings
of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification
of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or
inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the
concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are
antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior
because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or
inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or
blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is
"inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been
brought up properly.

The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of
inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter,
a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith
in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but
he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong,
and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant
behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings
of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as
individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the
leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization
or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists
protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke
police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be
effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but
because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist
trait.

Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion
or by moral principle, and moral principle does play a role for the
leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle
cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too
prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power.
Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of
benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help.
For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black
people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or
dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a
diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal
and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative
action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take
such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs.
Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems
serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and
frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black
people, because the activists' hostile attitude toward the white
majority tends to intensify race hatred.

If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would
have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse
for making a fuss.

We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate
description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only
a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

4/18/2007 6:25:50 PM

I thought this was going to be about left-handed people.

4/18/2007 6:37:21 PM

That would be left-handedness.

4/18/2007 6:42:51 PM

Psychologists use the term "socialization" to designate the
process by which children are trained to think and act as society
demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and
obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning
part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists
are over-socialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel.
Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such
rebels as they seem.

The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can
think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not
supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some
time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are
so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally
imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt,
they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives
and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality
have a non-moral origin. We use the term "oversocialized" to describe
such people. [2]

Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of
powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means
by which our society socializes children is by making them feel
ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society's
expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is
especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of
HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized
person are more restricted by society's expectations than are those of
the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a
significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty
thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate
someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick
to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do
these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of
shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even
experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to
the accepted morality; he cannot think "unclean" thoughts. And
socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to
confirm to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading
of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological
leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down
for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of
constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest
that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human
beings inflict on one another.

We argue that a very important and influential segment of the
modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of
great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism.
Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or
members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university
intellectuals (3) constitute the most highly socialized segment of our
society and also the most left-wing segment.

The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his
psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually
he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of
society. Generally speaking, the goals of today's leftists are NOT in
conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes
an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses
mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial
equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed
to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to
animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve
society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All
these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of
its middle and upper classes (4) for a long time. These values are
explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the
material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and
the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the
oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but
justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of
truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized
leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our
society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists
push for affirmative action, for moving black people into
high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more
money for such schools; the way of life of the black "underclass" they
regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into
the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just
like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the
last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white
man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in
what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It
can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food,
listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going
to a black-style church or mosque. In other words, it can express
itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects more
leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform
to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical
subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing
the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white.
They want to make black fathers "responsible." they want black gangs
to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the
industrial-technological system. The system couldn't care less what
kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what
religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a
respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a "responsible" parent,
is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it,
the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the
system and make him adopt its values.

We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the
oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our
society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have
gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society's most important
principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account,
violence is for them a form of "liberation." In other words, by
committing violence they break through the psychological restraints
that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized
these restraints have been more confining for them than for others;
hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their
rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence
they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing
thumb-nail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is
complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take
several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim
only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies
in the psychology of modern leftism.

The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our
society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and
defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially
noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And
today's society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any
previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to
exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.


1. We are asserting that ALL, or even most, bullies and
ruthless competitors suffer from feelings of inferiority.

2. During the Victorian period many oversocialized
people suffered from serious psychological problems as a result of
repressing or trying to repress their sexual feelings. Freud
apparently based his theories on people of this type. Today the focus
of socialization has shifted from sex to aggression.

3. Not necessarily including specialists in engineering
"hard" sciences.

4/18/2007 6:43:53 PM

seems the dumber the user name the dumber the material.

[Edited on April 18, 2007 at 6:49 PM. Reason : roughly 0.1 people will read this, give or take 3%]

4/18/2007 6:49:16 PM

Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something
that we will call the "power process." This is closely related to the
need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same
thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut
of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs
to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed
in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more
difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it
autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he
wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will
develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of
fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized.
Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that
leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of
fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power.
But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert
themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even
though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must
have goals toward which to exercise one's power.

Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical
necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are
made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains
these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are
physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals
is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals
throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human
being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a
reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals

4/18/2007 6:56:07 PM

helloooooooooo SalisburyBot

4/18/2007 7:20:08 PM

Hello Unabomber

4/18/2007 7:21:04 PM

ibtl

4/18/2007 9:09:14 PM

seems like someone is posting their polysci term paper on TWW

4/19/2007 8:15:32 AM

It's the Unabombers manifesto

4/19/2007 9:20:12 AM

^ GG

4/19/2007 2:33:35 PM

I was intrigued and somewhat amiable to your perspective until:

Quote :

"Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful."

I read the rest, but yeah that one bit in particular really sabatoges a good portion of your effort.


The key I think is separating the "extreme" left from the "sensible" left. The same should be done on the right of course. Extreme left and extreme right thinkers are a detriment to society and rational, civilized political discussions.

The "Extreme" left does in fact concur with much of nutcancr's descriptions. It's a natural psychological response in any society to have those that rebel against it. No political system is perfect, so there will always be dissenters. I don't hate feminists, or Greenpeace-like environmentalists, or radical-minded minorities, and so on. I do however see the underlying flaws in their arguments, and point them out when I' confronted with them.


The "sensible" left on the other hand recognizes the positive aspects of the "right," which consists of those in power whom have used the system successfully. The right promotes personal responsibility, good work ethic, and individual rights. The right believes the system in place is best, and that those in power are the ones that simply have worked hardest to attain the power they have.

The sensible left however also recognizes that, while the current system is good, it is not perfect. The left recognizes that those in power often will not account for the rights, perspectives, and needs of those NOT in power. The left recognizes that, despite our best efforts, the system will never be 100% equitable to all its citizens. Therefore the left attempts to speak for those marginalized by the system. The left tends to see their power more as a privilege and less as a reward for their hard work, talent, and overall superiority.


The extreme left tends to minimalize, ignore, or denounce the positive aspects of the right. The extreme right does the same towards the left.


I applaud nutcancr for his insight and analysis. I would encourage a fellow leftist to do the same for the modern rightist. I ask this only because I'm not sure I could provide the same insight and analysis on this issue.

The key in my mind is not to be insulted, if you are a leftist like me. I certainly wasn't.

[Edited on April 20, 2007 at 1:45 PM. Reason : sf]

4/20/2007 1:44:45 PM

I think the extremists on both sides have generally turned me off to politics in general

It seems that although the moderates on each side make more sense than the extremists, there is so much party loyalty required for votes on certain bills, etc, that going extreme is what both parties have been doing...its like we know the middle ground is optimal yet the parties seem to be branching off farther to their respective sides

4/20/2007 1:53:15 PM

Quote :

"I think the extremists on both sides have generally turned me off to politics in general It seems that although the moderates on each side make more sense than the extremists, there is so much party loyalty required for votes on certain bills, etc, that going extreme is what both parties have been doing...its like we know the middle ground is optimal yet the parties seem to be branching off farther to their respective sides"

I second you man.

That is why I am a delegate for Unity08. A bipartisan effort to elect the next President cause why should moderates have less say in our politics than arch-liberals and arch-conservatives?

http://www.unity08.com

(end of sales pitch )

4/20/2007 2:02:26 PM

well, unless they can somehow overturn the whole primary/caucus system, there's not much hope. i sincerely hope that we move away from a the primary system (or at least the party-specific, not all states at one time primary system)

4/20/2007 2:19:31 PM

i'm coining a new term: "nasdaq democrat"

that's what i am

by democratising opportunity, we're increasing the size of the pie, so i hope you're on board baby!

4/20/2007 3:28:56 PM

hahaha I read one paragraph and started laughing

Did Savage write this?

4/20/2007 3:36:55 PM

Erios, you are an idiot. Those posts are excerpts from the Unabombers Manifesto.

4/20/2007 3:58:01 PM

words, words, words, words.

4/20/2007 4:01:20 PM

^^ Then post the reference link. Otherwise I have to assume he wrote it.

I also read the thing objectively, without any knowledge of the original author or his/her intent. It's easy to simply dismiss it all as hateful rhetoric, but then again you gain nothing by doing so. The problem with extremem points of view is that it typically contains at least a hint of truth, making it somewhat believable.

Look, I'm not pissing on feminists (for example) because they're obviously insecure about their equality with men. I'd be stupid however not to at least consider that point of view. Just because something an opinion is outwardly hostile to a particular person, group, whatever, is no reason to dismiss it out of hand.


In no way was I agreeing with nutcancr's post(s). I was however more than happy to discuss the origins of leftist thinking. It's good to revisit the reasons why we believe what we believe.

Besides, my response was more of a rebuttal than anything else. nutcancr's post, as I said earlier, contained a hint of truth. What I did was add a dash of rationality.


You on the other hand just did some trolling...

4/20/2007 4:25:14 PM

More like a hint of "LALALA I CANT HEAR YOU"

4/20/2007 5:03:26 PM

^ How clever...





























no wait... that was fucking stupid...

4/21/2007 12:18:02 AM