{||'''Industrial society and its future''' ('''Sociedad industrial y su futuro''') es el título del manifiesto de unas 35.000 palabras escrito por Ted Kaczcynski, el terrorista denominado Unabomber por el FBI, y publicado en la edición del 22 de septiembre de 1995 del diario estadounidense Washington Post. Se transcribe a continuación su texto completo, acompañado de su traducción al castellano por el editor de esta enciclopedia. Se ha conservado la presentación original de párrafos numerados —típico de una tesis en la institución y la época en que Kaczcynski obtuvo su doctorado en Matemática— porque facilita la comparación del texto original con su traducción. Se han reemplazado, en cambio, las mayúsculas usadas por itálicas, ya que es la forma hoy preferida para enfatizar términos. Con pocas excepciones, se han conservado las oraciones del texto original que —aunque introduce frecuentes redundancias— simplifica la interpretación de los conceptos, muy racionalmente presentados. Las negritas, inexistentes en el texto original, se han usado para enfatizar conceptos considerados importantes en el contexto de esta enciclopedia.
3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively gradual process spanning a few decades. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very general way the measures that those who hate the industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society. This is not to be a POLITICAL ''political'' revolution. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the industrial-technological system. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogether. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportant. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to say. For example, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly important.
|width=50%|
===INTRODUCCIÓN===
1. La Revolución Industrial y sus consecuencias han acarreado desastres a la especie humana. Han aumentado la esperanza de vida de los que vivimos en países "avanzados", pero han desestabilizado la sociedad, hecho la vida poco satisfactoria, han sometido a los seres humanos a indignidades, han conducido a un extendido sufrimiento psicológico (en el Tercer Mundo, también a sufrimiento físico) y han infligido severos daños a la naturaleza. La continuación del desarrollo tecnológico empeorará la situación. Con seguridad someterá a los seres humanos a mayores indignidades, infligirá mayores daños a la naturaleza, probablemente conducirá a más ruptura social y sufrimiento psicológico, y puede conducir al aumento del sufrimiento físico aún en los países "avanzados".
2. El sistema industrial-tecnológico puede sobrevivir o puede colapsar. Si sobrevive, ''puede'' tal vez alcanzar un bajo nivel de sufrimiento físico y psicológico, pero sólo después de transcurrido un largo y muy doloroso lapso de ajuste, y sólo al costo de reducir de modo permanente a los seres humanos y muchos otros organismos viviendas vivientes a productos de ingeniería, a meros engranajes de la maquinaria social. Más aún, si el sistema sobrevive las consecuencias serán inevitables. No irreversibles: no hay modo de reformarlo o modificarlo para evitar que despoje a las personas de su dignidad y autonomía.<!---3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painfulLas consecuencias pueden ser muy dolorosas si el sistema colapsa. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be'''Mientras más crezca el sistema, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than latermás desastroso será su colapso, así que si hay que destruirlo es preferible hacerlo lo antes posible.'''
4. We therefore advocate a revolution against the Por eso proponemos una revolución contra el sistema industrial system. This revolution may or may not make use of violence; it may be sudden or it may be a relatively Esta revolución puede o no hacer uso de la violencia, puede ser rápida o un proceso gradual process spanning a few decadesde varias décadas de duración. We can’t predict any of that. But we do outline in a very No podemos predecir como será, pero esbozamos aquí de modo general way the measures that those who hate the , para los que rechazan el sistema industrial system should take in order to prepare the way for a revolution against that form of society, las medidas que deben tomarse para preparar esa revolución. This is not to be a POLITICAL revolutionNo se trata de una revolución ''política''. Its object will be to overthrow not governments but the economic and technological basis of the present society'''El objetivo no es derribar gobiernos sino la base económica y tecnológica de la sociedad actual'''.
5. In this article we give attention to only some of the negative developments that have grown out of the En este escrito señalamos sólo algunos de los efectos negativos resultantes del sistema industrial-technological systemtecnológico. Other such developments we mention only briefly or ignore altogetherOtras consecuencias se mencionan sólo brevemente o se omiten. This does not mean that we regard these other developments as unimportantÉsto no significa que los consideremos sin importancia. For practical reasons we have to confine our discussion to areas that have received insufficient public attention or in which we have something new to sayPor razones prácticas tenemos que acotar la discusión a los aspectos que no han tenido suficiente discusión pública o sobre los cuales tenemos algo nuevo que decir. For examplePor ejemplo —pese a que los consideramos muy importantes— hemos escrito poco sobre la contaminación del medio ambiente y la destrucción de la naturaleza, since there are well-developed environmental and wilderness movements, we have written very little about environmental degradation or the destruction of wild nature, even though we consider these to be highly importantya que hay hoy organizaciones ecologistas bien desarrolladas.-->
|-
|valign=top|===THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM===
6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.
7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE ''whole'' truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
|valign=top|
===LA PSICOLOGÍA DEL ACTUAL IZQUIERDISMO===
6. Casi todos estarán de acuerdo en que vivimos en una sociedad con graves problemas. Como una de las manifestaciones más comunes de lo disparatado de nuestro mundo es el izquierdismo, una discusión de su psicología puede servir de introducción general a los problemas de la sociedad moderna.
7. ¿Qué es el izquierdismo? Durante la primera mitad del siglo XX el izquierdismo podría haberse considerado prácticamente idéntico al socialismo. Hoy en día el movimiento está fragmentado y no está claro quien puede, en rigor, ser llamado izquierdista. Cuando hablamos de izquierdistas en este escrito pensamos principalmente en socialistas y colectivistas, en "defensores de los derechos humanos", feministas, gays y activistas de la discapacidad, defensores de los animales y otros similares. Sin embargo, no todos los asociados con alguno de estos movimientos son izquierdistas. Lo que tratamos de obtener discutiendo el izquierdismo no es una caracterización de un movimiento o ideología sino un tipo o conjunto de tipos psicológicos. Lo que queremos decir con izquierdismo quedará más claro en el transcurso de la discusión de la psicología izquierdista. (Véanse también los párrafos 227 a 230.)
8. Aún así, nuestro concepto de izquierdismo no quedará tan claro como quisiéramos, pero no parece haber solución. Todo lo que tratamos de hacer aquí es señalar, aunque sea de modo tosco y aproximado, las dos tendencias psicológicas que creemos son la principal fuerza impulsora del actual izquierdismo. No afirmamos estar diciendo ''toda'' la verdad sobre la psicología izquierdista. Asimismo, nuestra discusión se aplica sólo al izquierdismo contemporáneo. Es un tema de debate si la discusión es aplicable a los izquierdistas del siglo XIX y comienzos del XX.
9. A las dos tendencias psicológicas que subyacen en el actual izquierdismo las denominaremos "sentimientos de inferioridad" e "hipersocialización". Los sentimientos de inferioridad son característicos de todo el actual izquierdismo, mientras que la hipersocialización es propia solo de una fracción determinada del mismo, pero una fracción muy influyente sobre las demás.
|-
|valign=top|
===FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY===
10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.
11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE ''are'' inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)
12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.
13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE ''are'' inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)
14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT ''not'' be as strong and as capable as men.
15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY ''say'' they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY ''grudgingly'' admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY ''enthusiastically'' points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.
16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.
19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER ''prefer'' masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.
21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.
22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT ''invent'' problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.
23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.
|valign=top|
===SENTIMIENTOS DE INFERIORIDAD===
10. Designamos sentimientos de inferioridad no sólo al complejo de inferioridad psicológico sino a un conjunto de rasgos de personalidad relacionados: baja autoestima, sentimiento de impotencia, tendencia a la depresión, derrotismo, culpa, odio a sí mismo, etc. Sostenemos que los izquierdistas actuales tienden a tener algunos de esos sentimientos (probablemente más o menos reprimidos) y que éstos son decisivos para determinar la dirección de este izquierdismo.
11. Para nosotros una persona tiene sentimientos de inferioridad cuando considera una descalificación a casi cualquier crítica que se le hace (o acerca de grupos con los que se identifica). Esta tendencia es muy marcada en los activistas de los derechos de las minorías, pertenezcan o no a las minorías cuyos derechos defienden. Son hipersensibles a las palabras que designan a minorías y a cualquier cosa que se dice sobre ellas. Términos como ''negro'' para un africano, ''oriental'' para un asiático, ''discapacitado'' para una persona con problemas físicos o mentales o ''indio'' para un indígena americano no eran originalmente descalificativos. Son los propios activistas los que les dieron connotaciones negativas. Algunos defensores de los derechos de los animales han llegado a rechazar el término ''mascota'' insistiendo en su reemplazo por ''compañero animal''. Los antropólogos izquierdistas son extremadamente cuidadosos en evitar decir algo sobre grupos humanos primitivos que pueda tener connotaciones negativas. Quieren, por ejemplo, que se reemplace la calificación de ''analfabeto'' por ''ágrafo''. Son casi paranoicos acerca de cualquier cosa que pueda sugerir que una cultura primitiva es inferior a la nuestra. (No queremos implicar que las culturas primitivas lo ''son'', sólo señalamos la quisquillosidad de los antropólogos de izquierda.)
12. Los más quisquillosos con el uso de la terminología correcta no son los habitantes de los barrios marginales, los inmigrantes asiáticos, las mujeres abusadas o las personas discapacitadas, sino una minoría de activistas, muchos de los cuales ni siquiera pertenecen a los grupos "oprimidos" sino provienen de sectores privilegiados de la sociedad. Los principales defensores del lenguaje correcto son profesores universitarios que tienen empleo estable y buenos salarios, la mayoría de los cuales son blancos heterosexuales provenientes de familias de clase media o media alta.
13. Muchos izquierdistas se identifican fuertemente con los problemas de grupos considerados débiles (mujeres), derrotados (indígenas americanos), transgresores (homosexuales) o de alguna manera inferiores. Los izquierdistas mismos consideran a estos grupos inferiores. Nunca admitirían que tienen esos sentimientos, pero ésta es justamente la razón por la que se identifican con sus problemas. (No estamos afirmando que las mujeres, los indígenas, etc. ''son'' inferiores; sólo señalamos un rasgo psicológico de los izquierdistas.)
14. Las feministas están desesperadas por demostrar que las mujeres son tan fuertes y capaces como los hombre. Es evidente que están aquejadas por el temor de que las mujeres ''no'' son tan fuertes y capaces como los hombres.
15. Los izquierdistas tienden a odiar todo lo que parezca ser fuerte, bueno y exitoso. Odian a los Estados Unidos, odian la civilización occidental, odian a los varones blancos, odian la racionalidad. Las razones que los izquierdistas dan para odiar a Occidente, etc., no se corresponden con sus motivos reales. ''Dicen'' que odian a Occidente porque es belicista, imperialista, sexista, etnocéntrico y así siguiendo, pero cuando estos mismos defectos aparecen en los países socialistas o en las culturas primitivas los izquierdistas les encuentran justificativos o a lo sumo admiten ''contra su voluntad'' que existen; cuando estos defectos aparecen en la civilización occidental, en cambio, los ponen en evidencia con ''entusiasmo''. Los izquierdistas odian a los Estados Unidos y a Occidente porque son fuertes y exitosos.
16. Conceptos como ''autoconfianza'', ''iniciativa'', ''emprendimiento'', ''optimismo'', etc., no son importantes en el vocabulario del izquierdismo. Los izquierdistas son anti-individualistas y pro-colectivistas. Quieren que la sociedad resuelva los problemas de todos, satisfaga las necesidades de todos y cuide a todos. No son la clase de personas que confían en su propia capacidad para resolver sus problemas y satisfacer sus necesidades. A un izquierdista le disgusta de idea de competir porque, en el fondo, se siente un perdedor.
17. Los actuales izquierdistas son atraídos por expresiones artísticas enfocadas en la sordidez, la derrota y la desesperanza, o las que apelan a los apetitos o pasiones desenfrenadas, al abandono del control racional. Las obras que prefieren son la que expresan la falta de confianza en que se puede lograr algo mediante la planificación racional y la convicción de que lo único que se puede hacer es dejarse llevar por las sensaciones del momento.
18. Los actuales filósofos de izquierda tienden a rechazar la racionalidad, la ciencia, la realidad objetiva y a afirmar la relatividad cultural. Es cierto que se puede indagar seriamente sobre los fundamentos del saber científico y sobre si es posible y cómo definir la realidad objetiva. Es obvio, sin embargo, que los actuales filósofos de izquierda no son sólo lógicos que analizan desapasionadamente los fundamentos del saber. Están emocionalmente involucrados en sus ataques a la verdad y a la realidad y lo están debido a sus propias necesidades psicológicas. Su ataque es una válvula de escape para su hostilidad y, en la medida en que es exitoso, una satisfacción para su búsqueda del poder. Más importante aún, los izquierdistas odian la ciencia y la racionalidad porque ambas consideran que hay creencias verdaderas (es decir, eficaces o superiores) y otras que son falsas (es decir, ineficaces o inferiores). Los sentimientos de inferioridad de los izquierdistas son tan profundos que no pueden tolerar que se clasifique a algunas cosas como eficaces o superiores y a otras como ineficaces o inferiores. Este rasgo también explica el rechazo de muchos izquierdistas del concepto de enfermedad mental y de la utilidad de los tests de cociente intelectual. Los izquierdistas se oponen a las explicaciones genéticas de las destrezas y comportamientos humanos, porque tiende a mostrar que algunas personas son superiores o inferiores a otras. Por eso prefieren atribuir a la sociedad el crédito o la culpa por las habilidades o falta de habilidades de las personas. De este modo, si una persona es "inferior", no es su culpa sino de la sociedad que no lo ha formado adecuadamente.
19. Los izquierdistas no son por regla general la clase de personas cuyos sentimientos de inferioridad los hacen ser fanfarrones, engreídos, matones, despiadados. Esta clase de personas no ha perdido del todo la fe en sí mismas. Tiene un déficit de autoestima y de su capacidad de logro, pero todavía puede imaginarse fuerte y el origen de sus desagradables comportamientos son precisamente sus esfuerzos para ser fuerte[1]. Los sentimientos de inferioridad de los izquierdistas son tan intensos que no pueden imaginarse a sí mismos como individuos fuertes y valiosos. De allí su colectivismo, ya que sólo pueden sentirse fuertes como parte de la organización o el movimiento de masas con que se compenetran.
20. Nótese la tendencia masoquista de las tácticas izquierdistas, que protestan tirándose al suelo delante de vehículos, provocando a la policía o a los racistas para que abusen de ellos, etc. Estas técnicas frecuentemente son efectivas, pero los izquierdistas las usan porque ''prefieren'' las tácticas masoquistas. El odio a sí mismo es un rasgo izquierdista.
21. Los izquierdistas suelen alegar que su activismo está motivado por la compasión o por principios morales, y estos factores son efectivamente importantes para los del tipo hipersocializado. Sin embargo, la compasión y los principios morales no son los motivos principales del activismo izquierdista. La hostilidad es un factor prominente del comportamiento izquierdista, como lo es la búsqueda del poder. Más aún, gran parte del comportamiento izquierdista no está planificado para beneficiar a las personas que los izquierdistas proclaman querer ayudar. Por ejemplo, si el ejercicio de derechos negados (''affirmative action'') es bueno para la gente de color, ¿tiene sentido llevarlo a cabo de modo agresivo o dogmático? Obviamente sería mejor un encaramiento más diplomático y conciliatorio, con concesiones verbales y simbólicas que eviten que la gente blanca se sienta agredida o discriminada. Los izquierdistas no eligen este encaramiento porque no satisface sus necesidades emocionales. Ayudar a la gente de color no es su verdadero objetivo. El racismo les sirve de excusa para expresar su hostilidad y su frustrada búsqueda de poder. Al obrar de esta manera dañan en la práctica a la gente de color, porque la agresividad de los activistas hacia las mayorías blancas tiende a intensificar el odio racial.
22. Si su sociedad no tiene problemas sociales, los izquierdistas los ''inventarán'', creando así una excusa para hacer lío.
23. Enfatizamos que dicho antes no pretende ser una descripción exacta de un izquierdista cualquiera. Es sólo la identificación de una tendencia generalizada del izquierdismo.
|-
|valign=top|
===OVERSOCIALIZATION===
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
|valign=top|
===HIPERSOCIALIZACIÓN===
<!--
24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.
25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]
26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.
27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.
28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.
29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.
30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.
31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.
32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.
-->
|}
===THE POWER PROCESS===
16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. We quote from “Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives,” edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, pages 476-478:
“The ''The progressive heightening of standards of propriety, and with it the increasing reliance on official law enforcement (in 19th century America) ... were common to the whole society.... [T]he change in social behavior is so long term and so widespread as to suggest a connection with the most fundamental of contemporary social processes; that of industrial urbanization itself....”Massachusetts in 1835 had a population of some 660,940, 81 percent rural, overwhelmingly preindustrial and native born. It’s citizens were used to considerable personal freedom. Whether teamsters, farmers or artisans, they were all accustomed to setting their own schedules, and the nature of their work made them physically independent of each other.... Individual problems, sins or even crimes, were not generally cause for wider social concern....”But the impact of the twin movements to the city and to the factory, both just gathering force in 1835, had a progressive effect on personal behavior throughout the 19th century and into the 20th. The factory demanded regularity of behavior, a life governed by obedience to the rhythms of clock and calendar, the demands of foreman and supervisor. In the city or town, the needs of living in closely packed neighborhoods inhibited many actions previously unobjectionable. Both blue- and white-collar employees in larger establishments were mutually dependent on their fellows; as one man’s work fit into anther’s, so one man’s business was no longer his own.''
“The ''The results of the new organization of life and work were apparent by 1900, when some 76 percent of the 2,805,346 inhabitants of Massachusetts were classified as urbanites. Much violent or irregular behavior which had been tolerable in a casual, independent society was no longer acceptable in the more formalized, cooperative atmosphere of the later period.... The move to the cities had, in short, produced a more tractable, more socialized, more ‘civilized’ "civilized" generation than its predecessors.”''
17. (Paragraph 117) Apologists for the system are fond of citing cases in which elections have been decided by one or two votes, but such cases are rare.
16. (Paragraph 95) When the American colonies were under British rule there were fewer and less effective legal guarantees of freedom than there were after the American Constitution went into effect, yet there was more personal freedom in pre-industrial America, both before and after the War of Independence, than there was after the Industrial Revolution took hold in this country. In “Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspectives,” edited by Hugh Davis Graham and Ted Robert Gurr, Chapter 12 by Roger Lane, it is explained how in pre-industrial America the average person had greater independence and autonomy than he does today, and how the process of industrialization necessarily led to the restriction of personal freedom.