Victory or Righteousness

note: also see Matthew Smucker’s “The Story of the Righteous Few“

The purpose of this piece is simple: either your main goal is to be perceived as a righteous individual or you want to help build a righteous movement that will eventually achieve power in society… you can’t have both. I’ve seen countless young revolutionaries (including myself) hold hard line positions, jump down people’s throats who disagree, and defend their positions to the bitter end, as if the loss of  an argument means the invalidation of the revolutionary’s personal identity. It is an instance of politics tied to personal (radical) identity. Arguments lost or people unmoved represent a blow to our identity as a radical.

Successful organizers, on the other hand, understand that people radicalize in a variety of ways. Just when someone seems to be shifting left on a position, they might revert to their previous position (or even a more reactionary one). People shift their positions at different paces too. Some people radicalize quickly, while others radicalize slowly. Some people are “natural radicals” in that they value critical thinking which leads them to progressive answers, while others by virtue of their socialization must be pressed issue-by-issue, until the big picture is clear in their minds and they abandon past views. One thing is certain of all these leftward shifters: getting yelled at, berated, called out, or attacked will not speed their politicalization. In many cases, this halts it (sometimes permanently).

It is logical that revolutionaries, young revolutionaries in particular, feel a deep emotional connection with their analysis of society. We’ve taken the red pill. We’ve seen the bigger picture. We’ve connected all the dots. It is vital, however, that we elevate the need to win over the need to constantly win arguments and be perceived as being “right”. Our very struggle makes us righteous. Our positions make us correct. But righteousness doesn’t necessitate victory in every argument; it necessitates victory over the systems of exploitation and oppression which make us all less than human. The latter is important, the former is essentially a means to an end.

This doesn’t mean that having a correct analysis of a given issue isn’t important or that we should retreat from the centrality of principled politics in order to maintain unity on every issue. One issue that comes to mind is Palestine. I know of some radicals who believe the issue to “too alienating” to organize around. Not only is this the pinnacle of unprincipled politics, but it is also strategically bankrupt. When we retreat from political analysis, we make it harder to make the connections with those we recruit, and, as a result, possibly slow their radicalization. With Palestine in particular, not only is such a retreat unprincipled, it is also strategically idiotic. A victory of the Palestinians against US-Israeli imperialism and genocide will be an enormous victory for humanity, providing inspiration to all those who fight against our rotten system. This is one of the main reasons why the Israeli and US governments refuse to allow the existence of a Palestinian state. Like Vietnam, Palestine represents the “threat of the good example”. If Palestine is able to extract itself from the imperialist system, like Venezuela for example, then other countries will ask “why can’t we?” This domino effect of national liberation and socialist movements, both of which are aimed at weakening US hegemony, is one of the greatest fears of US elites. From their position, better to wipe the Palestinians off the map, than provide the tiniest bit of inspiration to liberation movements.

What I’m arguing isn’t how much we organize or don’t organize around a particular issue - that’s another debate. I’m saying that the more controversial an issue (and as a result, the more we’re likely to look like lunatics if we start screaming), the more calm, cool, and collected we need to appear. We need to present principled arguments in language that people resistant to our arguments can understand and relate to. While some people radicalize quickly, we’re making a long-term investment by keeping our calm around issues they disagree with. In terms of winning power around the world, what matters most is the populations eventual allegiance to the progressive movement, not their immediate attainment of perfect analysis.

So I ask you: do you want to be right? or do you want to win?