A Better Way To End Racism? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I'm going to talk about how to end racism again. Previously, I have explained quite a few times why I believe critical race theory is very unhelpful in the fight against racism. I have also spent an episode outlining how our understanding of cognitive biases from empirical psychological studies can help us understand and prevent racial discrimination.

Today, I want to approach the problem from another angle: I believe that a stronger social fabric is perhaps what is most needed for the continued advancement of racial equality.

Firstly, a strong social fabric increases social trust, which makes it less likely that people would distrust others on the basis of superficial differences like skin color.

Secondly, a culture that is inclusive and not divisive makes it more likely that people will see their neighbors as being in the same boat, which would lead to a higher likelihood of caring for their welfare, regardless of race, gender or other immutable characteristics.

Furthermore, shared values like concern for one's family can provide common ground for mutual understanding, while strong social institutions can help bring people together, regardless of cultural background.

Therefore, to truly end racism, we might need to think outside the box. We might need to start doing things differently: perhaps we should start by getting rid of the influence of ideologies and theories that serve to divide people. We should probably also water down the post-1960s tendency to endlessly critique everything, and start thinking about how we can build society back up again. In other words, we should aim to make society better, not tear it down or tear it apart.

How The Culture Wars Make Us Dumb and Powerless | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I want to talk about why the culture wars are making us dumber. Basically, it comes down to the fact that culture war politics make many people choose a team based on one or several issues, and they often decide to follow the other positions of that team. What I mean is like, for example, people who choose a side for economic reasons but also adopt all their social or foreign policy positions.

The problem is that, these people are choosing social convenience over independent thinking. It is because of this choice that tribalism and polarization are on the rise. Eventually, a situation develops where those who pick a side and stick with their side all the time become the norm, and independent thinkers like myself become the exception. Politics becomes a battle between two unthinking masses.

A lot of people benefit from this model, actually. The establishment elites on both sides win, because it allows them to build coalitions that don't otherwise make sense, and win elections on empty platitudes. The business elites win, because they can pitch their media products to one side or another, and they can afford to completely ignore the non-conforming independent thinkers, which provides a much easier business model for them. Another thing is, this polarization serves to permanently divide the people, so the status quo still prevails, no matter how unpopular it is. As you can see, the establishment elites really like it this way.

Which is why, contrary to what some people may think, it is not anti-establishment at all to be tribally divided and polarized, no matter which side you are on. No real change to the status quo can come out of that, ultimately. It is also why cancel culture is not progressive at all. Cancel culture seeks to reinforce the divides. By preventing people from reaching across the divides, nothing meaningful can ever be done, and the status quo can never be changed. We should wake up to this reality, and stop being played by the establishment elites.

UBI, Medicare For All, Climate Action: Where Did Progressives Go Wrong? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I'm going to talk about why progressives who champion things like a UBI, better health care, and climate action across the Western world, have had relatively little success, compared to opinion polls which show their policies to be popular in theory. I'm also going to offer a new way forward, one that is still not talked about much by many champions of these policies.

Much has been said about why, some European countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, can have such a strong social safety net, while countries like America, and to a lesser extent the UK and Australia, cannot. Some commentators on the Right have pointed to the cultural homogeneity of Scandinavia, but I don't think that's the reason. Rather, we should take a look at history. The social safety nets of European countries were generally established in the decades following World War II. Political circumstances around that time meant that Europe, particularly Scandinavia, made the most progress during that era, America made relatively little progress beyond the New Deal, and the UK, Canada and Australia were somewhere in between. After around 1980, however, basically no Western country made any further great progress in terms of strengthening the social safety net, and most have even seen backsliding. Therefore, if European progressives were championing universal health care in 1950, they were much more likely to get it compared with American progressives who are championing it today.

So what caused that change? I think we need to look at the one or two decades leading up to 1980. It was the time of the Vietnam War, the student protests, and most importantly, the rise of the Theory Left, as I illustrated in previous episodes. The Theory Left represents a significant chunk of the Left that has broken away from the workers and the unions, and re-orientated towards the intellectuals, with a new cultural orientation replacing the previous economic orientation. The problem with the Theory Left is that, their whole worldview is rooted in a suite of critical theories, which see the world primarily in terms of power dynamics between oppressor vs oppressed groups. Furthermore, the Theory Left see the existing social institutions, like marriage, family, even morality and science in the more extreme cases, as social constructs designed to keep the oppressed down. Hence, they tend to hold a negative view towards all these pillars of the social fabric. The result of all this is five decades of both conscious and unconscious attempts to weaken the social fabric, with multiple deleterious social consequences.

The rise of the New Left was associated with widespread social upheaval in the 1960s and 70s. Although the anti-war movement and the civil rights movement were noble, there was also much that was, objectively speaking, highly damaging to the social fabric. In the wake of the cultural changes, the number of broken families skyrocketed. Repeated industrial action that was designed by the radical Left to 'bring capitalism to its knees' instead resulted in workers being out of work everywhere, effectively putting an end to the post-war guarantee of a living wage for all. Society became quite dysfunctional in general. As all this was happening, some in the Theory Left turned to their theory again, and found justification for their actions in the idea that this chaos had to come before their 'new world' could be born. Theory had not only gravely harmed society, it also blinded its adherents to this fact, thus preventing a much needed correction. Thus the erosion of the social fabric continued to some extent throughout the 1980s, 90s and beyond.

Anyway, the point is, people need to believe in the society around them, to be passionate about social and economic reforms. They need to know that the system is working, they need to know that their efforts will actually go towards making life better for their fellow humans, before they can embrace new reforms. The social dysfunction brought on by the Theory Left has prevented this from happening ever since the 1970s. Therefore, to strengthen the social safety net, to deal with the coming challenge of automation, to create the consensus to end racism and bigotry, and to adequately deal with larger problems like climate change, we first need to heal society. We need to undo the injuries of the past five decades, and make people believe that their society can work well once again. Without fulfilling this fundamental requirement, any policy for major reform would remain no more than a pipe dream.

Is This The Real Reason for Cancel Culture? | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I want to continue my discussion on Herbert Marcuse's essay Repressive Tolerance, and his general utopian worldview defined around ending the Freudian concept of 'repression'. Last time, we examined how Marcuse's work inspired the post-1960s Theory Left to conflate liberation from Freudian repression with liberation from oppression, and hence ultimately confuse all forms of emotional restraint for social injustice. This has had various harmful effects, including an erosion of the social fabric, as well as creating resistance to much needed social reforms. This time, I am going to examine the association between Marcuse's worldview and the practice of cancel culture today, and why those in favor of cancelling people in the name of social justice are ultimately confused about what they are actually doing.

While Repressive Tolerance was written in 1965, and many of today's pro-cancellation activists might not even have read it, it remains a historical fact that Marcuse was the most important thinker in the 1960s-70s student movements, and the spirit of his work has been carried on in various forms by this generation. Hence, a college student today could be influenced by the Marcusean worldview through various means, even if they had never read the original source of the ideas. This is why many people have pointed to Repressive Tolerance as the ultimate source of the ideas behind cancel culture.

Why It's 'Repressive Tolerance', not 'Oppressive Tolerance'

Let's first return to my point that the essay is titled 'repressive tolerance', rather than 'oppressive tolerance', which reflected Marcuse's primary aim being liberation from Freudian repression, rather than social oppression. In other words, Marcuse was skeptical about the free market of ideas, not just because oppressive ideas could win support, but more importantly, 'repressive' ideas could win support. It is clear that, for Marcuse, even if oppressive ideas are guaranteed to lose in the free market of ideas, if 'repressive' ideas could still win sometimes, he still wouldn't be happy about it. Hence, his primary motivation was one of preventing the popularization of 'repressive' ideas, rather than just oppressive ideas, through free speech and free debate.

If we look at things from this angle, the justification behind Repressive Tolerance suddenly begins to make sense. Oppressive ideas have generally not done well in the free market of ideas. Even if they temporarily gain an audience, in the longer run, oppressive and unjust ideas have always been defeated, in the free market of ideas. Rational debate has always favored the side of justice in the end, as most recently seen in the gay marriage debate, where support grew from less than 20% to more than 60% in less than a generation. The success of gay marriage follows on from the success of civil rights, the idea of racial equality, the idea of gender equality, and so on. The free market of ideas has delivered in spades for social justice, and there is no reason why this winning streak wouldn't continue.

However, the story is different when it comes to so-called 'repressive' ideas. For example, gay marriage can actually be argued to be a 'repressive' idea, even though it is in line with social justice. What makes marriage equality a 'social justice' cause is that it provides a fair deal to both gay and straight people alike. However, the deal, the marriage contract, is one that inherently involves a lot of restraint, as discussed in the previous episode. Hence, from a Marcusean viewpoint, the victory of marriage equality, over more radical ideas like the complete abolition of marriage, actually justified the skepticism towards free speech in Repressive Tolerance. As you can see, while the logic in Repressive Tolerance doesn't make sense if you are coming from a purely social justice angle, it does make sense when your primary aim is to abolish all forms of Freudian repression, which was where Marcuse was actually coming from.

The Reason Why 'Liberation from Repression' is Justifiably Unpopular

The reason why so-called 'repressive' ideas may win in the free market of ideas is because they have inherent value. Indeed, the example of marriage shows us that restraint of our primal instincts comes with its rewards. Restraint can make us happy, secure and fulfilled. Just as importantly, restraint is the foundation of many pillars of the social fabric. A politics built around liberation from nearly all restraint would mean the decimation of the social fabric, and is something that is going to be logically rejected by the majority of people. Hence, the fact that ideas Marcuse considered 'repressive' often win in the free market of ideas is not a sign that free speech and democracy aren't working. Rather, it's a sign that they are!

Furthermore, as I argued in the last episode, a robust social contract is required for a healthy liberal democracy, and this can only happen with a good dose of emotional restraint from all citizens. Moreover, the process of debate, and indeed the process of democracy itself, is often about negotiating adjustments to the social contract. The level of restraint required in different areas of life is an important part of this. A politics built around a general rejection of restraint would thus refuse to recognize the validity of many important aspects of a healthy politics. As a Moral Libertarian, my ideal for society is for everyone to be equally able to live by their moral values, and demonstrate by example the validity of the model of morality they live by. Again, morality is inherently about restraint, and any model of politics that rests on morality would also be deemed invalid by a politics built around refusal to recognize the necessity of restraint. By extension, since a politics devoid of restraint is morally empty, there is also no possibility of real social justice of any kind. The overall conclusion from all this is, the Marcusean ideal of liberation from Freudian 'repression' is necessarily incompatible with a healthy and morally driven politics.

In conclusion, there really is no reason to practice cancel culture, the set of practices informed by the logic of Repressive Tolerance, for social justice reasons. Free speech and rational debate has a strong track record in delivering victories for social justice. Rather, the Theory Left has been under the influence of the Marcusean conflation of Freudian repression with social oppression for so long that they are basically unconsciously serving a completely different goal, that is, the abolishment of the civilized restraint of our primal instincts. Such a goal can only be achieved by abolishing free speech, because most rational people wouldn't support it. It is also a goal not worthy of supporting, or even serious consideration, because it will basically destroy civilization as we know it.

The Real Problem with Repressive Tolerance by Herbert Marcuse | TaraElla Report Reset

Today, I want to talk about a topic that is very important, but has been generally overlooked: the conflation of Freudian repression with oppression in a social justice sense in the Theory Left, and what effects this has had on the social and political landscape.

Let's start by revisiting that infamous 1965 essay Repressive Tolerance by Herbert Marcuse. In the past few years, a lot has been said about the anti-free speech implications of that essay. Its premise has been simplified by some, to be simply about withdrawing tolerance to hateful ideas so that oppression can be prevented. As if we were simply talking about a more militant version of Karl Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. However, I believe that is an oversimplified view of things. Indeed, if it were about preventing intolerance and oppression, if Marcuse's concern was about free speech leading to oppression of minorities, why would the essay be titled 'repressive tolerance' and not 'oppressive tolerance'?

How Marcuse Conflated Two Kinds of 'Liberation'

To put it simply, 'repression' and 'oppression' refer to different things. Marcuse was clearly aware of this, given that both terms were used in the essay. To understand what Marcuse meant by repression, I think we need to look at the broader context of Marcuse's work. Much has been said about Marcuse's roots in Marx, but I think Marcuse's worldview, and hence the Western Theory Left in general, owes even more to a particular interpretation of Freudian psychoanalysis. Those familiar with Marcuse's work would know that when he used 'repression', he meant it in the Freudian psychoanalytic sense. Hence, given the title of the essay was 'repressive tolerance' and not 'oppressive tolerance', his main complaint against the free market of ideas was that 'repressive' cultural values could prevail. Of course, there also appears to be a conflation of 'repression' and 'oppression' throughout this work and some of his other works, so sometimes his works have been used to justify withdrawing tolerance from oppressive ideas. But it is clear that he is rather more concerned about 'repression' than 'oppression'. Indeed, those familiar with Marcuse's 1955 book Eros and Civilization would know that Marcuse disagreed with Freud that repression is inevitable in civilization, as he devoted an entire book to his counter argument that society could be reorganized so as to minimize the need for 'repression', which he thought was the key to making human beings happier. This provides further evidence that Marcuse was actually primary concerned with liberation from Freudian repression, rather than ending oppression in the social justice sense.

The more important thing is that, the influence of the Marcusean worldview, which was indeed very influential among the student activists of the late 1960s and the 1970s, means that in much of the Theory Left's theory, oppression, as in the social injustice sense, and repression, as in the Freudian sense, are often conflated. This, in turn, is related to the fact that Marcusean 'liberation' is very different from our conventional understanding of liberation, in that it is ultimately about removing Freudian repression, rather than simply removing social injustice. To a large extent, many on the Theory Left appear to even be no longer consciously aware of the difference. However, social oppression and Freudian repression are two very distinct concepts. To get to the bottom of all this, and to understand one of the core problems of the Theory Left, I think we need to end this conflation once and for all.

Is 'Repression' Always Bad?

I think we should start with what 'repression' means. The problem with Freudian psychoanalysis is that it was from a time before psychology became empirical and scientific. Therefore, like all Freudian terms, the concept of 'repression' is likely to be a mixture of different phenomenon, some good, some bad, and some perhaps confused. Therefore, to oppose 'repression' as a whole, as Marcuse (but not Freud) did, could risk throwing out some essential things about our civilization, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes. In the most basic sense, 'repression' simply refers to the restraint of our primal, animalistic desires for the sake of maintaining civilization. Freud actually thought this was an inevitable part of civilization, but Marcuse disagreed. Marcuse believed that society could be reorganized so as to minimize the need for 'repression', which would be the key to making human beings happier. Now, there is of course no empirical evidence, or even logical argument, that Marcuse's ultra-utopian vision would work. Indeed, Freud thought that freeing human beings from all 'repression' would lead to civilization collapsing. And I think common sense, as well as the implications of what we know about human biology today, would be on the side of Freud rather than Marcuse.

Anyway, what is clear is that Freudian repression is an entirely different thing than oppression in the social justice sense. Racism is, by definition, oppressive, but it can't really be said to be repressive. On the other hand, to enter into a commitment of lifelong monogamy, as in marriage, is clearly not oppressive in the social justice sense, because it is a voluntary choice made by individuals. However, it could indeed be said to be repressive, because it does include a promise to restrain from certain primal instincts in the future, for the sake of building a relationship and a family together. Hence, what is oppressive may not be repressive, and vice versa. And more importantly, while oppression is always bad, some forms of repression can be good and necessary, and even make us happy! After all, the joy of being a human being is that we live in a civilization, and we are not at the mercy of our primal instincts all the time. I think this is something that Marcuse failed to appreciate enough.

A Dystopian World Without Emotional Restraint

The conflation of liberation from oppression with liberation from Freudian repression in the work of Marcuse and others have had a long standing effect on the Theory Left, with the effect of wrongly assuming whatever is 'repressive', that is whatever requires emotional restraint, to be oppressive. However, this view is not only wrong, it is actually harmful to the cause of social justice. While unfairly distributed demands of emotional restraint may be part of a picture of social injustice, it is clear that not all demands of emotional restraint are incompatible with social justice. Where emotional restraint is fairly and proportionally expected of each individual, it can be the essential ingredient in many civilizing pillars of the social fabric, like the example of marriage previously illustrated. As I argued in previous episodes, I believe the Theory Left's erosion of civilizational foundations, at least partly inspired by the Marcusean ideal of abolishing Freudian repression, has led to a breakdown in the social fabric, causing a rise in reactionary conservatism and resistance towards various social reforms. Therefore, I believe that the misguided aim to abolish 'repression' has indeed harmed the actually important aim to end oppression.

Furthermore, an important part of a healthy and vibrant liberal democracy is the concept of a social contract. Indeed, it is sometimes argued that every society needs a strong social contract. But in liberal democracies, where ideas are freely debated, and the people choose their governments and their policies, having a strong social contract is especially important. And part of having a strong social contract is emotional restraint on the part of citizens. We all need to participate in the agreed process, in a rational and decent manner, for the democratic process to work. This is why it is not oppression or 'tone policing' to encourage people to present their concerns in a rational and polite manner. Rather, it is the key to achieving effective consensus and reform. The dominance of anti-restraint thinking has led to this point being forgotten all too often.

The effects of anti-restraint thinking are not limited to the Left either. A libertarianism without emotional restraint ceases to be an intellectual libertarianism, and rather becomes vulgar libertarianism, in the style of 'I should be able to do whatever I want, whenever I want'. Among conservatives, the loosening of emotional restraint has led to the unleashing of reactionary rage towards all unfamiliar and uncomfortable phenomenon, a change that has effectively turned much of conservatism into kneejerk reactionarism. As you can see, the Marcuse-inspired encouragement of liberation from emotional restraint in the past few decades has had really unhealthy effects on the political culture, across the political spectrum. We should start recognizing this, so we can turn the ship around before it's too late.