The Necessity of Anger

Perhaps in an effort to provoke, I'll just say it; anger is a necessity. 

It seems as though the modern individual has forgotten the value of well-placed anger, of well-intentioned rage, and has instead replaced it with this 'softened' variety of false struggle -- one that lacks the vigor to fundamentally change anything. This is a primary concern and a major impediment to mobilization. It is this dilemma that cripples the common man's mind, forcing him to adopt deceptive reformist positions and play the elusive game of politics. This seemingly divides many of us to the point of abandoning personal convictions, limiting us to an inhumane extent, and ultimately renders us useless rather than a catalyst for change. 

The supposed cause, from my understanding? Bourgeois liberalism and the decaying of the left. Seldom ever do you witness any real economic criticism from today's left, rather you see some trivial reformist position and a pandering to identity politics. That is really all it has come down to: petty unsubstantial reformism. And consequently, there has also been some 'softening' in the left's once-held convictions -- they've relinquished them and trampled on them. The modern left must be reinvented and revived if it wants to hope to even establish itself to the status it once held. Even worse so, they've also become inexcusably weak in their criticism (when they do criticize something substantive). When did we start espousing this implied platform that everyone is 'free from offense' and 'nobody can be offended?' The supposed 'socialist' parties of Europe are notorious for this in their willingness to relinquish basic Enlightenment principles (i.e free speech, secularism & other civil liberties) to comfort smaller groups, especially the religious. It is sad that these parties, carrying the title of 'socialists,' are our only alternative to the right. This kind of liberalism is truly dangerous, because it has shown that it is willing to forgo our own freedoms all in the name of "improving public relations." Christopher Hitchens tackles this in one of his TV interviews much more eloquently than I have, in response to the Muhammad Cartoon Controversy of 2005; you can see that here.

Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the left has been in shambles. Rather then use their former criticisms, which are still valid, and reinvent themselves, many have adopted the positions of 'liberalism' and 'humanitarianism,' instead of tackling the issue of poverty itself. They've adopted the position of 'stop climate change' instead of questioning the destructive environmental effects the accumulation of capital brings. They've adopted the position against racism, which is very important, but they have been completely ignoring its linkage to class and socio-economic status. Why is it now that the primary concern of any 'leftist' is legalizing marijuana, or global warming, or some other reformist position that fails to tackle the crux of the issue? I just don't understand. 

Another point, that was actually first mentioned by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, is this; the demographic of leftist politics is changing. The Tea Party has begun to resemble something like the workers' rallies of the 1960s, with the same enthusiasm and conviction. This is disheartening as it is tragic. The right has managed to shift the layman's blame onto 'big government' rather than 'big business' and all the liberal left has done is make concessions, especially in the United States. The worst aspect, however, is that these people are voting against their interests. They have been convinced that such nicely-packaged 'change' will heighten their economic condition, when in retrospect this 'change' includes disproportional benefits to the wealthy. They are supporting the plutocracy, and status quo, and they've grown too numb to realize it. Their concerns are misguided, and their reasoning is skewed, and to mend their hearts and minds into the direction it once was is a task that the left has to wrangle with if it wants any real change; but seeing the slump they are in now, I fear the future is rather dim. Perhaps a threat to western privilege is what is necessary to wake the people from their apathy or misdirection, but until that opportune moment arises I remain an involved pessimist.

Now that I've laid down some of the criticisms, perhaps it is more obvious why there could be no better time to be angry. Be angry at politics, be angry at the inequitable system, and be angry at the dehumanizing culture, will you! Sensible rage is perhaps what we need to rekindle that emotional connection to struggle that has recently been absent. However, the most crucial step is translating all this agitation into real subversive action, and that is what the modern left must capitalize on -- as Stéphane Hessel writes in his small affront manifesto, this is indeed a "Time for Outrage!"

The Invaluable Right of Freedom of Speech

It is certain that in the west, secularism has prevailed; Well, at least in Europe, replacing religious ethics with cultural hedonism that is paradoxically more restrictive than religion ever was. Hedonism, rather then being the construct of a divine text, is directly derived from the individual. This creates something of a more limiting environment. The west has embraced this pleasure-seeking ideal, but not without a few strings attached. The west's hedonistic culture has in itself created artificial walls of conduct that has proved to be more restraining than dogma at times, because it is a product of something much more fundamental; one's own mind; and we must cherish this right and not let it be dwarfed in the name of "protection from offense." This is where I fear most of all that the west, especially Europe, might relinquish their Voltairean principle of free speech.

In January of 2012, France passed the 'Armenian Genocide Bill' which criminalized the denial of it happening. Although noble in writing and true in its intent, this type of legislation is particularly dangerous. Why are we constructing a society free of offending? The real purpose of free speech, as espoused in the age of Enlightenment, is for the protection of unpopular speech; popular speech has little to be protected from. It is this dilemma from which I fear the subtle censorship that is present in European society, which is done in the name of protection from offense. As Christopher Hitchens, the prominent journalist, eloquently put it in this video; "don't take refuge in the false security of consensus" simply because you are in majority. If one person disagrees, and says so, then there should be special protection bestowed to that individual because what that person has to say is intrinsically more important. Now, this is not because that person has something more of substance to say; it is because what that person has to say is vital to reverifying truths that may be taken for granted. It refreshes the principles of the majority, in this case the recognition of the Armenian genocide. And moreover, if your opinion is truly the correct one you should not fear the dissenting opinion of one mere individual to the point where you have to resort to censorship.

Furthermore, who is going to protect you from the offensive language? When you empower the state to censor your society, to decide who is the harmful speaker, you have relinquished your right to dissent; and pity you when you need that right of speech, if you ever do.

The largest threat to limiting our fundamental right of speech, it seems, is those claiming to be protecting in the name of religion. Islam, especially, in European society feels it is entitled to special protection under the law. In the case of the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005, where pictures of Muhammad were drawn and printed in a newspaper, they were said to be "offensive" by some Muslims in the community. They protested the cartoon, and there was a global movement where they called for the Danish government to bring it down. Self-censorship ensued. Is this the society we've grown into, where it's forbidden to offend and exercise one's right to say what he or she wishes? Retrospectively this is offensive to us, those who follow the Enlightenment, to have to see our rights of speech slandered for the religious. No creed deserves to special protection under the law, for then it becomes tyranny to all those not under the that umbrella of "tolerance."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hitchens on the Danish riots.