The Hypocrisy of Socialists

The Hypocrisy of Whom?

One of the most frustrating and intellectually damaging ways people torpedo discussion is by making it a point-scoring competition; downing a bottle of ‘Tesco Imperial Vodka’ neat would be less nauseating than watching some middle aged political “commentator” trying to ‘own’ the liberals/conservatives. So when I say I’m talking about socialist hypocrisy, I certainly don’t want to be pulling a ‘gotcha’ moment. I don’t want the choice of discussing socialists specifically to be a suggestion that they are more hypocritical than any other political activists, or that hypocrisy necessarily indicates socialists are morally/ideologically inferior. And I certainly don't want to essentialise a ‘socialist character’; to suggest that this is how all socialists are, and can be defined by these hypocrisies.

So whose hypocrisy am I talking about, if ‘socialists’ doesn’t mean all socialists? Am I talking about a specific socialist? Not really, whilst I certainly draw on conversations I’ve had with individuals, it is not about them specifically. Even then, every one of those people was too complex and nuanced to be defined by ‘socialist hypocrisies’, as almost every person is. Am I talking about a way of thinking which is determined by socialist theory? First of all, good luck attempting to define a foundational ‘socialist thought’ with being reductionist - ain’t gonna happen. Yet this isn’t about ideas, but the people who hold them. What I am thinking about when I discuss ‘socialists’, is certain patterns of thought which appear to repeat through many socialists I have listened to. It may very well be that these hypocrisies only apply to a small localised group of people I’ve interacted with, and that these dispositions are merely historically contingent, and have little relevance outside my little bubble of interaction. 

Then why discuss the issue? Whilst I would be a complete liar if I claimed to have any knowledge of how broadly applicable these hypocrisies are, all I have access to is this little slice of reality that I have been given to observe. Much of the humanities is based on the faith that if you observe a particular situation with an open mind, and truthfully express what you discover, you might learn something of a wider significance. My hope is that by describing and detailing these hypocrisies, it will allow people to identify these patterns within conversation, and hence be able to know what they’re seeing. And maybe we can have a more holistic socialist viewpoint, and other political views can take inspiration. And just maybe, we can all have stronger and more beneficial discussions as a result.

Fuck me this was a lengthy paragraph of pondering bullshit

‘No Ethical Consumption’

I have a little magical trick, which as the generous communist I am, will freely share for everyone to enjoy. For I am capable of turning the most arduous Marxist into the dirtiest of capitalists with a single question, a magical spell which immediately transforms a socialist's will, all unbeknownst to themselves. Whenever a socialist discusses the economic exploitation of capitalists, or the unequal distribution of wealth which plagues the marginalised; ask them why don’t they do anything in response? Why do they continue to support businesses which make use of slave labour? Why don’t they donate their time and money to help the dispossessed? If they feel so strongly about these exploitations, why do they continue to act as if they don’t happen?

Miraculously a whole host of rationalisations emerge! You see, ‘there is no ethical consumption under capitalism’, and it’s unreasonable to place obligations on the individual for a systemic problem. In fact it’s counter–revolutionary to displace responsibility from the companies, that is the propaganda they want you to fall for so you focus on in–fighting. I mean, we are so poor that we are practically forced into paying for unethically produced clothing. You are further punishing the victims of capitalism by expecting them to pay a premium for goods. 

I think there is damagingly bitter irony that proponents of a workers-empowerment movement absolve themselves of obligation through stripping the individual from any power or autonomy. And when we discuss what is most effective at sapping the will of people to resist capitalism, I think there is a much stronger claim to people's emotional dependence on consumer goods than notions of obligation and responsibility. Defeatism and complaints of injustice cry out through these complaints: “even if I could do anything, why is it up to me to suffer for change when I haven’t produced these harms?”. Who else is going to right the issues of the marginalised, the oppressors? Even if an intermediary was found to advocate for the marginalised, now liberation is on the condition of someone else speaking on their behalf. No, to use the suffering of injustice as a reason for it to not be a responsibility is itself the entrapping defeatism. Unfairness will predominate in an unfair system, it is necessary then that the efforts to transform society will itself unfairly place its burdens.

And I think an attitude which is permissible towards evil is encapsulated through these types of statements; stating something akin to “if I cannot help but commit evil anyway, why does it matter if I commit further evils than necessary, if I am to be a sinner regardless?”. If any consumption under capitalism produces harm, how can I be judged for any consumption I make under capitalism? It’s as simple as this: if you hate evil, you should want to limit it, and not commit anymore than necessary. If your primary concern is whether your consumption is ‘ethically justified’ rather than limiting harm, you’re concerned about yourself, not other people. If you truly hated the exploitation of capitalism, you wouldn’t want to justify yourself for consuming more than you need. And the truth is under this fact: we are all capitalists and sinners to a deeply uncomfortable degree.

Naivete of Self-reflection

Fundamentally, however, these statements by socialists are absolutely correct. They are correct in opposing suggestions that one shouldn’t advocate for change unless they commit to an unrealistic puritanical abstinence from exploitative production, or that the blame for inequalities should be placed on the working classes. Error is not within the statements themselves, but a certain naivete in the disposition that they arise from. A belief that they are fundamentally purer than business owners, that if they were the ones with the money, they would distribute it fairly and equally. For the vast majority of socialists this can only be explained as a serious negligence in the understanding of one's own sinful and evil nature. 

For a long time I tried working out a quote from Epictetus Discourses 1.7: “O slavish man, in this case [A logical error] you had no father to kill. but the only fault that you could commit in this instance, you have committed”. What it questions is this: if you haven’t been virtuous in the opportunities for change you’ve been granted, why do you believe you wouldn’t be bent and corrupted when given real power and authority? If you indulge in every little gain and abuse you can within a capitalist framework, how do you have confidence that you won’t continue to take advantage when given a greater capability to?

Gerrard Winstanley is one of the most fascinating political theorists I have read, despite 17th century socialism being long outdated, because his concern was with spiritual evil. Viewing  material inequalities as the side product of the predominant issue, that buying and selling forced humans into exploitative relationships with one another, because the seller can only gain through the buyer’s loss. From whence a startlingly obvious conclusion becomes evident: if the priority is economic inequality, the proletariat and bourgeoisie are identical in their desire, for both wish to own more wealth than they currently possess. Then the abuses of 20th century socialist become obvious; of course the bolsheviks elites would have little qualms about adopting a quasi-bourgeoisie lifestyle if they were always focused on material wealth. Of course a centralised and bureaucratic elite could justify the repression of workers representatives in the name of socialism if the real personal desire was power. I think there’s a very substantial truth in the claim that real equality cannot be achieved through prioritising materialism, but most come from fostering loving relationships and community with one's neighbour.

Of course it is far more complex than that. I don’t think these people's claims to the workers' interests are completely irrelevant, it is not merely a ‘mask’ that cunning machiavellians wear with the intent of fame and riches. I just think it’s common for socialist to not realise they prioritise ideas of the revolution over the workers themselves. I think it’s awfully convenient that every action is justified under utopian notions of fighting injustice, and not at all the pleasure of being a political actor. Foucault made a very interesting point that much of 20th century socialism, through its hostile prejudice against the ‘bourgeoisie’ and subsequent ‘counter-revolutionaries’, used revolution to further state repression over the workers. And Jordan Peterson’s point that many socialists use politics as a way out of the working class; for all their allegiance, they wish to distance themselves from working 12-hour warehouse shifts. And this is what I think is the real hypocrisy of socialist activists who don’t make changes in their personal lives; it’s not so much the change they can manifest, but that it's emblematic of not taking seriously the underlying forces which guide their politics at a personal level. In not taking seriously all of the ways in which they would reproduce abuses and inequalities if only they were given the opportunity.

Is it actually Capitalism?

Structurally this doesn’t fit well, but fuck you, I’ve finished Uni miss me with that ‘proper formatting’ requirements

One of the funnier things I’ve noticed is that many people who direct complaints about capitalism, actually aren’t talking about anything inherent to capitalism at all. In many instances ‘capitalism’ becomes this broad umbrella term for any antagonisms against contemporary Western socio-economics. Which I think points towards a certain nuance of systems which is frequently ignored, anti-capitalism often is treated as merely an issue of interests, that rational reflection would reveal clearly that capitalism sucks. It is hardly ever appreciated that we are dealing with systems which are so infinitely complex, and whose ramifications extend so far, that it is impossible to grasp the significance of changes. 

A significant amount of the problems attributed to capitalism appear to be a result of profit incentives. Yet it is entirely unclear how socialism would sufficiently address such concerns rather than through government regulation. If we are exploiting the planet’s resources for profit, and make fast-consumable products so people have to continually pay more money; how would distributing the profit more equitably make a difference to immoral production practices? There is this implicit assumption that a cooperatively owned business would make more ethical and sustainable production practices, but there is no reason to assume the collective wouldn’t be just as swayed by profit incentive as a CEO.

Yet if we wish to criticise the market incentive, you have to keep in mind that historically the technological advancements of capitalism have had a liberational impact. Lenin in the early years of the USSR was a progressive advocate for women’s equality, part of which he opened up and encouraged women towards gaining employment. This merely became an extra burden however, since families expected women to maintain their previous household work. In gaining political equality, women were actually worse off than they had previously been. What was of greater liberation value was the invention of tools that reduced time spent on household chores, so that maintaining a house no longer was itself a full-time job. Yet the USSR’s command economy was notoriously terrible at producing consumer goods, because the temptation was to prioritise more ‘essential’ industries. 

There is a whole fascinating history of the development of tampons and other menstrual products where technology was foundational in women’s liberation. Which you can investigate into a variety of marginalised groups: I am currently writing this article with my sound-cancelling headphones, which being neurodivergent is invaluable for my ability to work in a public library - which has been essential for my ability to succeed within my degree. That isn’t to say with absolute conviction that capitalism hasn’t served its function, and that it wouldn’t be more valuable to transition to a different economic system. But you cannot ignore the weight of this history of technological liberation when discussing such.