Purges And Schisms example essay topic

The Damage of Purges and Schisms First of all, purges and schisms take up a lot of time and energy that could be better spent on constructive tasks. I can't tell you how many issues of various libertarian publications that I read were devoted exclusively to falling-outs, betrayals, and selling-outs. Every one of these articles could have been turned to some positive task, whether current events in the world, or history, public policy, philosophy, or what have you. Oftentimes, those writing the book-length purge-statements were great minds, who produced excellent work before they embroiled themselves in in-fighting.

Second, purges and schisms prevent great minds and schools of thought from teaching one another. "Cross-fertilization" is the term that comes to mind. Frequently, the best ideas lie scattered in the works of many thinkers. In an open and tolerant intellectual atmosphere, everyone would feel comfortable to bring the best ideas together, to synthesize. Every new idea would have the benefit of criticism from many perspectives. Purges and schisms tend to put a stop to this beneficent process.

Of course, it is conceivable that a person might be purged, but not his or her works. Conceivable, but rare. I noticed that every side in every schism tended to re-write history, downplaying or even scorning the works of the intellectual exiles. Strange as it sounds, Ayn Rand's treatment of Nathaniel Branden was actually better than average. At least she kept his essays in the Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal, though of course she and his inner circle never cited him again (to my knowledge).

It was more typical for former friends who eagerly referred to one another's work before schism to forever afterwards ignore it completely, or even scorn it. Third, purges and schisms seriously turn off newcomers. When someone first acquires an interest in libertarianism, he or she wants to learn, listen, and discuss IDEAS. When they see tha more seasoned libertarians seem more interested in PEOPLE, they will understandably be turned off. At its worst, it makes libertarians seem more like a cult than a community of thoughtful people who value individual liberty. Fourth, only very rarely did I find a purge or schism based on some REAL horrible "sell-out" or defection to another political philosophy.

There were roughly two kinds of fallings-out. The first kind was the clash of personalities. Obviously some people, especially passionate, ideological people, can get on each others' nerves. This often led to schisms and purges.

Especially if one of the people involved was well-known in the libertarian movement, they usually dragged all of their followers and supporters into the fray, creating permanent ruptures. The second kind of falling-out was genuinely based on ideological differences, but blown all out of proportion. There seems to be an instinct to assume that those who disagree with you, or - even worse -who change their minds and cease to agree with you - MUST do so out of sheer wickedness. Throughout all of the battles that I studied, it is difficult to remember a single case where I was convinced that someone had dishonestly taken on a new intellectual stance. Of course, I often agreed with one side and disagreed with the other, but that i snot the point.

The point is that all of the sides seemed like they were probably sincere, yet libertarian thinkers and activists who had often known each other for years jumped to the conclusion of willful intellectual dishonesty. Now of course a concern for ideological purity in SOME sense can be quite reasonable. If Lyndon LaRouche called himself a libertarian (which I don't think he ever did), it would upset me, and I would surely tell others that he wasn't. But in all of the cases I studied, the disagreements never took any of the participants outside of the classical liberal tradition. Their disagreements might not have been minor (though some were), but they definitely remained disagreements within body of thinkers with many shared beliefs and concerns. A Proposed Remedy for Purges and Schisms Now I am convinced that this plague of purges and schisms is one of the most serious long-run problems within the libertarian movement, and I want to do something about it.

Moreover, I think that any viable solutions must have two properties. 1. Any individual who adopts the solution will (marginally) make purges and schisms less common, acrimonious, and harmful to the libertarian movement. 2. And if the solution were to become widely accepted among libertarians, the problem of purges and schisms would for the most part disappear. (Those familiar with game theory will see why the two are not necessarily linked.) What then is my proposed solution 1.

In the event of a disagreement, to always criticize only the ideas, never the person; and moreover, to always criticize in a polite and ecumenical way. 2. If another libertarian fails to live up to #1, to STILL refrain from making any sort of personal attack, or responding in a similar way. I realize that this will be controversial. Initially, I balked at this idea myself; it seems to go against everthing Robert Axelrod said in the Evolution of Cooperation.

(Namely, the best way to get Golden Rule behavior is NOT by following the Golden Rule, but by playing tit-for-tat.) But this impression is only superficial. Oftentimes, those who make personal attacks get pleasure out of in-fighting for it sown sake. So responding in kind may just encourage them. Moreover, there are many better sanctions to impose - loss of reputation, loss of credibility on serious (i. e., non-purge / schism ) issues, etc.

And on top of this, remaining polite and respectful ON PRINCIPLE is somewhat likely to get others to respond in kind. It is hard to keep calling someone names if they just ignore it and answer your real argument. On top oft his, there are third-party effects. When you refuse to engage in personal attacks even when you seem to have every justification to dose, on-lookers will be impressed by your commitment to discuss only ideas and listen only to reasonable arguments. 3.

To never initiate a purge or schism. If you don't like someone, don't hang around them; if you disagree with their work, criticize it or ignore it. But don't go beyond this. Don't write denouncements, don't discourage people from at least reading their works, and don " make people feel like they are either for you or against you.

Now when I first considered this idea, I was worried that the libertarian movement would suddenly be filled with every sort of nut -followers of Lyndon LaRouche, Holocaust revisionists, the works. But then I thought again. Is there not a spontaneous ordering in ideological movements as well as in society Indeed there is. No on eis going to start calling himself a libertarian unless he has SOME interest in libertarian ideas. No one is going to take the trouble to engage in dialogue with libertarians if they completely disagree with us. There are "market forces", if you will, that automatically create a reasonable degree of uniformity within every ideological movement, whether there are purges and schisms or not.

What are these market forces Simply the affinity of like-minded people for each other " 's company and association. And I think that this force is more than strong enough to give the libertarian movement all of the cohesiveness that it needs. 4. If YOU are the victim of a purge or schism, refuse to acknowledge its importance. Continue to read and cite the valuable works of those who purged you; continue to encourage others to read them for themselves. If you have "followers", don't drag them in, or treat it as a personal betrayal if they retain an interest in the works of those who purged you.

Just continue your normal steady stream of positive, constructive work and don't worry about it. No reasonable person will think less of you if you refuse to get into the fray. Naturally, you may respond to criticisms of your ideas; and if some specific factual charges are made against you (e. g., that you are a plagiarist, or embezzled funds), ball means issue a reply. But keep it short, and concentrate on ideas, not people. -I'm not certain that my solution is perfect, but it seems to me to be a necessary first step. The more I read old periodicals, the more the present seemed to look just like the past.

And the more the present groupings of libertarians began to make historical sense. As a small, minority voice, libertarians can't afford to waste their energy on anything other than building a complete intellectual alternative to the status quo..