Interesting reflection, Jamal. We have parallel thoughts that also contrast.

The horrors which humans are willing to do in the name of are disturbing, scary, and perhaps even unavoidable, given our history. But always worth remembering and reflecting on because once one has taken up the stance of self-righteous indignation one stops listening to others' -- including when they say things like "This is hurting me", and so forth. Reflecting on what it is we can become, even now, helps to keep one humble even while dreaming of something better.

There's something different in our histories that I'm not sure is worth investigating or not -- lots of my indignation came from not just my folks, who certainly didn't help things, but also the political changes that took place due to September 11th, which is when I was in my teens with nascent political thoughts. Things were bad then, in a manner which resembled the books we were assigned to read which warned against totatalitarianismtotalitarianism, like 1984 and Animal Farm, and they have only progressed in that direction.

So while I have no doubt that I have shared your flaws in being attracted to big projects and being caught up in self-righteous anger, there's also always been this reality which has only gotten worse, and which Marxism is capable of explaining better than the liberal theories I was brought up to believe in. So while no one would allow a precocious and vocal young leftist radical to say what I said and not know about the horrors of socialism, which I think are evil, there's also always been a practical element which these reflections could be applied to.

Which in turn is what lead me down various routes and is basically how I've arrived at where I'm at today, which is whatever it is. Some kind of Marxism, but without the rosey viewpoint or utopian zeal.

I think when you get older you get more complicated. The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance.

The young revolutionary is still in there, but he has to contend with the older person who realized that calling for a revolution is calling for a huge amount of suffering, which is diabolical. So now you have an internal conversation about justice and acceptance. — frank

Oh please. Don't sugarcoat the lowest form of thought as if it was something even possible to dress up as or purport as anything but exactly what it is: childish illusion and ignorance. "Everything isn't perfect so let's destroy everything that stands in our (my little) way until it is." Insolence. Myopia. Nothing more. That should be put down for the good of society as quickly as possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_grass_is_always_greener_on_the_other_side

(Ironically you are met with the prompt: "Wikipedia does not have an article on "the grass is always greener on the other side", but its sister project Wiktionary does." Which I refuse to believe is some sort of purposely-laid hint of rationale that the idea is not as sound as most would tend to believe...)

There's something different in our histories that I'm not sure is worth investigating or not -- lots of my indignation came from not just my folks, who certainly didn't help things, but also the political changes that took place due to September 11th, which is when I was in my teens with nascent political thoughts. Things were bad then, in a manner which resembled the books we were assigned to read which warned against totatalitarianism, like 1984 and Animal Farm, and they have only progressed in that direction. — Moliere

Interesting. So you're probably around ten or fifteen years younger than me. For me, my radicalization was curiously out of time, disconnected from the real world and in fact flying in the face of it, since it was the late eighties and early nineties.

So while I have no doubt that I have shared your flaws in being attracted to big projects and being caught up in self-righteous anger, there's also always been this reality which has only gotten worse, and which Marxism is capable of explaining better than the liberal theories I was brought up to believe in. — Moliere

Yes, this whole personal issue is only interesting because I do still believe this too, as Adorno himself did.

Which in turn is what lead me down various routes and is basically how I've arrived at where I'm at today, which is whatever it is. Some kind of Marxism, but without the rosey viewpoint or utopian zeal. — Moliere

Yes, and again, a lot like Adorno. But if we want a good society, and if such a society cannot be born without pain, and if one has lost the willingness to countenance such pain on the way to the good society, then what is the Marxism for except an indulgence in a tragic hope? But that's a lot of ifs.

One realizes with horror that earlier, opposing one's parents because they represented the world, one was often secretly the mouthpiece, against a bad world, of one even worse. — Theodor Adorno, Minima Moralia

Looking at this again and forgetting about myself for the moment, it's interesting to flesh out the context. It was around the time of the First World War that Adorno was a teenager (not that teenagers existed back then). The world of his parents was the world he and Horkheimer often in their work refer to as something like the classic era of the European bourgoisie. Not exactly the emancipated society but in terms of violence and oppression nothing compared to what was coming. In criticizing his own youthful opposition to them he is putting himself in the category of twentieth century destruction, in the new generation who would go on to violently remake the world and institute more brutal forms of domination, whether with fascism or communism. So the worse world of the quotation is not only the world of political extremism but also the entire world of the Second Thirty Years' War and everything that went with it: industrialized warfare, genocide and the targeting of civilians, mass mobilization, popular nationalism, and at the end, the development of weapons that could wipe out everyone.

I'm not sure I have much to contribute here. I never really rebelled against my father until I was in my early twenties. And then I didn't really rebel, I just kind of slipped out the back door while he wasn't watching. I don't have the stuff to be a radical - I've always been too much the pragmatic engineer to believe in golden ages or utopias. And lazy.

Still, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate that you seem to be jumping back into active participation feet first. Turns out you have interesting things to say. Whoda thunkit, or as the Cambridge English Dictionary puts it - Who would have thunk it?

And I've always loved Peanuts. Before the cutesy Snoopy takeover it was pretty sophisticated about human nature. I did especially like Linus. Here's one of my favorites.

Still, I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate that you seem to be jumping back into active participation feet first. Turns out you have interesting things to say. Whoda thunkit, or as the Cambridge English Dictionary puts it - Who would have thunk it? — T Clark

Thank you Top Clark.

Here's one of my favorites. — T Clark

Yeah it's great. I'm sure I could make it relevant.

Interesting. So you're probably around ten or fifteen years younger than me. For me, my radicalization was curiously out of time, disconnected from the real world and in fact flying in the face of it, since it was the late eighties and early nineties. — Jamal

Yeah I'm about 10 to fifteen younger than you, as I recall you said you're in your 50's.

I wouldn't say that your views were out of time, though the popular conscious was definitely more optimistic and so would provide an odd sounding board. The reason I wouldn't say that, though, is that there's a historical through-line from Marx to today through the various struggles of the 20th century that took place "at home". The liberals like to claim the latter half of the 20th century as a kind of golden age of liberal capitalism, but as soon as the fascists were defeated we went about recreating the world in our image and then continued to try to dominate it and stay ahead of the USSR and China in terms of world influence, wealth, and military might.

In a way what I've seen is that it doesn't matter what the ideology is -- liberal or communist -- nation-states are only born through committing evil in the name of the good. In a sort of perverse natural selection the societies which valued peace were eaten up by the societies which value domination -- and just like the citizens of the USSR we have our own narratives that hide our evil from ourselves.

So out of time in the sense that the popular imagination wasn't paying attention, sure -- but there were still material reasons to be radical, even if there wasn't as many contradictions being actively expressed and seen by society at large.

I say that because I've heard many people say something along those lines back when doing my union organizing, and all it took was pointing out some facts to show them that their optimism is much like the optimism of my radical youth, when politics is very much a sausage-making process.

But if we want a good society, and if such a society cannot be born without pain, and if one has lost the willingness to countenance such pain on the way to the good society, then what is the Marxism for except an indulgence in a tragic hope? But that's a lot of ifs. — Jamal

Interesting way to put it, because I often try to think of an ethics without hope. :D

I think for me it's not much of a choice, exactly -- do I want things to continue being awful? No. Am I a worker in a capitalist society? Yes. I can give in to cynicism, and have wallowed in it from time to time, but what brings me back is reality: it continues to get worse, and no one is there to help me. So I can lay down in defeat and accept death, and in some sense have done so. But the only people who will help the working class is the working class itself. Politics is the sort of thing we ought not want to pursue, because it is more or less the exercise of necessary evil, but which is thrust upon us by the world at hand. I can make peace with this world for myself, but I cannot then truthfully tell people that we live a good life or in a good society.

And, on a personal level, last I visited the question of the ethics of my politics was when I resigned from being a union staffer. What I promised myself was that I'd remember what I learned from my organizing days, and continue to tell the truth that I know from that time. But I know that people around me aren't really ready for it. At most they are ready for is a kind of pseudo-socialism, which is basically just a liberal state with a robust safety net. But they don't actually care about a lot of the things I care about -- if totalitarianism gets them there they'll be content, so I imagine, given how easily it's been to persuade Oossians that it's OK for the government to play morality police and watch our every move.

There's a quote I often think of, and I think it's mostly a kind of secular Marxist prayer but it brings me peace -- Victor Hugo once said "There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come". And Locke set down the philosophical foundations for liberal capitalism against the church-aristocracy in the 1600's, and here we are still living in those values and their responses. Marx was only 150 years ago, and we have learned a lot since those utopian days. The struggle moves on because the oppressed still exist, and they are the ones who either will continue to suffer -- American slaves did the same at times, and rebelled, and were put down, and rebelled, and were put down, and so forth -- or find a way to look past their petty differences so that their children can have a better life than this.

Another thing that I reflect on -- capitalism without a counterweight like the USSR is reverting back to what things were like in the 1800's. The labor movement was born out of nothing, and as things get worse it creates the material conditions for organizing once again. So there's a historical precedent of when things were even worse than now, and people could struggle and win.

It won't be easy or kind or painless, but it is still possible even in a world where fascism is making a comeback.

I'm living backwards; I become more radical with age. It always seemed obvious to me that the political world is as round as the physical, and wherever one happens to reside, the extremes of left and right meet and become one at the antipodes, where the blood is always redder.

We anarchists think we know better than anyone how not to govern, but we're not going to give away our secrets to you lot!

My dad was a communist turned socialist - how was I supposed to rebel against that? Oh, I remember now, "turn on, tune in, drop out".

- That was the most interesting post-length piece I've read in years. This variety of introspective honesty has become especially rare in the United States, perhaps at least since 2016.

optimism, amounting to a disregard of death — Adorno

Although I don't get too involved in political discussions, when my progressive friends ask why I oppose communism, that is just what I tell them. Utopianism ends up justifying too much.

Fdrake's recent thread is closely related to this one, and there I tried to say something similar:

While this is correct, appealing to the inherent mismatch of ideals with reality is a cop out, and serves as an explanation for any impermissible act consistent with the operative principles of a society that allows it. Which is to say, it exculpates any moral evil imaginable. A principle that exculpates any moral evil is, definitively, evil. — fdrake

(Proper link to fdrake's post - see bug)

Sure, but aren't we ignoring the other side of the coin? Namely that appealing to the inherent mismatch of ideals with reality is a cop out, and serves as an explanation for any act inconsistent with the operative principles of a society that disallows it? As in, there was a downside to the French Revolution, and I'm not convinced your construal is able to come to terms with that downside. The promotion of an ideal is not unobjectionably good, given both that there is moral worth to the stability of the status quo, and that false ideals are very often promoted. — Leontiskos

This thread has taken on a strong resonance with @Count Timothy von Icarus’s next door.

It seems like I ought read Adorno after all, given what you've said. Looks like we might share a perspective :D

I like the moral reflection. I feel empathy for that cuz I do it too.

But I want to provide a bit of caution to the idea that the 20th century was uniquely evil. The USA's extermination of the natives and exploitation of Africans and immigrants were liberal precursors to the evils of the 20th century; only the 20th century is more evil because of our abilities to continue the same with more firepower due to technological progress.

I appreciate the reflection you've given of Adorno, but I also think that maybe it wasn't just a rejection and rebellion leading to bad outcomes -- the bad outcomes are just what politics are in our age of the nation-state.

But a Marxist who likes anarchy would say that.

EDIT: In addition, it's worth noting how Locke himself oversaw exploitation in his later life when he abandoned some of his philosophical principles in the name of practicality. He has good arguments against church and statekingdom, but doesn't see what he proposes as possibly reinventing the same exploitation he hates by using the new values he puts forward of hard work as a basis of worth.

There is an important, difficult sort of discernment in realizing that something can be wrong, or even terrible, without it necessarily needing to be addressed by some sort of crusade. Cancer, for instance, might sometimes benefit from less aggressive treatments, without us having to forget that it's still cancer, and dangerous. Sometimes the treatment can be worse than the disease. Sometimes significantly worse. And sometimes we can even be misdiagnosed.

To keep the analogy going, I suppose the opposite problem is becoming so scared of the doctor that one starts to deceive oneself about even having cancer, rejecting testing, refusing to accept test results, etc. Of course, this is all the more likely if all the doctors are crusaders who want to start loping limbs off at the first sign of disease. There is a sort of positive feedback loop between radicalism and defense of the status quo.

I think discernment at the intersection of politics and ethics is quite difficult, and it's why I imagine your experience is very common. I can certainly relate. This is why, ideally, I think personal ethics would be taught prior to political issues (whereas we tend to just flip right to the political).

Because, of course it's important to point to problems in prevailing systems, to point out how society is organized immorally, or in ways that thwart the very principles it takes to be most important. But there is a difficulty here where it is very easy to project the systemic onto the personal, without a proper recognition of the limits of personal agency in political contexts. This can lead to simplistic manichean narratives that reduce to "if only the wicked stopped being wicked and the just ruled, all problems would be fixed," or more pernicious, the derivation of personal guilt through mere "complicity" or association with systems that people have no realistic way to escape.

This is perhaps most obvious as relates to war, because war always involves extreme consequences. And, through a tendency to state things in the strongest terms possible, every war becomes a "genocide," and anything short of full mobilization to thwart the culpable parties becomes "enabling genocide." And here it becomes very easy to see how it becomes easy to find oneself supporting vile parties, or placing everything in extremely personal, moralistic terms that can also justify "any means."

You can see this in the careers of some leftist crusaders who, rightly outraged by some of the missteps of the Obama years and upset over some of the deficits in the neo-liberal global order, allowed themselves to become virtual cheerleaders for Trump, who seems almost certainly more inimical to their values. And there definitely seems to be this thought process of: "good, let him win. Then things can get so bad that we can destroy the system and start over!" Which tends to miss just how much suffering such a "tearing down" implies, or the fact that a great many revolutions do not produce better situations, and often end up reproducing many of the same problems (e.g. the Soviets were initially even worse on minority rights than the Tsars).

But this is where the "crisis of meaning" steps in and pours gasoline on the fire. Because people want conflagration. They fantasize about it. The shop for it with tactical gear and rifles. They accessorize for it. And I do think this is different. It isn't (just) about opprobrium, it becomes about fulfilling a life narrative, which I think can make it much more potent.

I think you can see something similar in the period before the First World War, a desire for conflict for its own sake.

I do rather like the developing argumentum ad peanutem.

Thanks for the topic and the Adorno & Linus quotes. :smirk:

I'm a child of the South Bronx (NYC) in the post-Civil Rights seventies in a union household with a single mother (nurse) who was too overworked to be political or even talk about politics. Fortunately, I was educated by conservative Dominicans and Jesuits for twelve years that by the end (somehow) made me an avowed atheist and nascent Marxist. But I was too pessimistic / anti-utopian (by nature? by experience even then?) so soon I dropped Marxism and, along with having read F. Douglass, Malcolm X and MLK, Jr, had also found N. Chomsky, M. Bakunin, P. Kropotkin, R. Luxemberg, A. Gramsci, A. Camus (esp. The Rebel), et al ... what became for me an archive of 'the libertarian left' – for perpetual rebellion, not revolution. Since those undergraduate days in the early eighties agitating for divestment from South Africa to end of apartheid, protesting US aggression in Nicaragua, El Salvador & Guatamala and (violent) opposition to the official "war on drugs" that disproportionately targeted (& disenfranchised) urban minority and rural poor white populations, the decades – the defeats – have only radicalized me so that I've grown even more pessimistic and more anarchistic. Until I drop, for me at least, the struggle against all forms of injustice and dehumanization goes on ...

My dad was a communist turned socialist - how was I supposed to rebel against that? Oh, I remember now, "turn on, tune in, drop out". — unenlightened

:victory: :cool:

I do rather like the developing argumentum ad peanutem. — Banno

:smirk:

But I want to provide a bit of caution to the idea that the 20th century was uniquely evil. The USA's extermination of the natives and exploitation of Africans and immigrants were liberal precursors to the evils of the 20th century; only the 20th century is more evil because of our abilities to continue the same with more firepower due to technological progress. — Moliere

This kind of claim pisses me off elicits a negative reaction in me, not because I don't recognize the scope and consequences of the actions of the British and Americans in what is now the US starting in 1600 and on till today and not because I don't recognize our, my, ongoing responsibility. What I object to is the misuse of these historic and contemporary actions here to make the case that somehow the past was better than the present. In the list of war casualties in Wikipedia, only one - World War 2 - took place after 1900. A quick look at World War 2 indicates that about 3.5 % of the world population was killed. For the Mongol invasions of Europe and Asia, the comparable number was 10%. Of course the Mongol invasions took place over a period of about 150 years while World War 2 took place over a much shorter period.

If you look at genocides, it's harder to tell. There certainly are a lot of 20th century examples in Wikipedia. One question I can't find an answer to is how many of those are related to colonialism that took place earlier. I would guess most of them, but I don't have evidence to back that up.

So, as I noted, saying that the 20th century is uniquely evil is a misrepresentation. A lot of the increased numbers could probably be attributed to improved weaponry as opposed to a more violent human nature. Empires kill people - it's what they do.

What I object to is the misuse of these historic and contemporary actions here to make the case that somehow the past was better than the present. — T Clark

I don't think I've said the past was better than the present. I've said things have gotten worse in various regards, but the idea that the 20'th century is not uniquely evil means that the past was not better than than the present. I agree with you here:

So, as I noted, saying that the 20th century is uniquely evil is a misrepresentation — T Clark

Rather than progress I'd say we're about the same, but with more ability to enact our will.

And humans will both good and evil, for better or worse.

Rather than progress I'd say we're about the same, but with more ability to enact our will. — Moliere

Yes.

Although I don't get too involved in political discussions, when my progressive friends ask why I oppose communism, that is just what I tell them. Utopianism ends up justifying too much. — Leontiskos

My mind implodes thinking through this because "progressive" is not "communism" to my mind. Just to tell you my feelings -- what I want to ask is "What are you thinking about the anti-utopian sentiments expressed which are still, more or less, Marxist?"

My mind implodes thinking through this because "progressive" is not "communism" to my mind. — Moliere

They don't consider themselves communists, but they are flirting with the idea. So the question is sincere, "I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with communism after all... What do you have against it?" I don't find it strange that those on the far left are flirting with communism.

They don't consider themselves communists, but they are flirting with the idea. So the question is sincere, "I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with communism after all... What do you have against it?" I don't find it strange that those on the far left are flirting with communism. — Leontiskos

OK, that makes sense when you put it like that. Gotcha. Thanks.

Brilliant and vulnerable OP. Good stuff. I'll have a think and say something deeper, but this struck me:

"

But now I look back and don't see a bold radical, but rather a brat, childishly excited by grand projects and noble causes, to the extent that I was willing to brush aside the suffering that I thought necessary to bring about a great future. — Jamal

Well. fucking. done. If more could see this, we would be much better off IMO.

the quote isn't precisely apropos, but its thrust is in the ballpark: "If at age 20 you are not a communist, you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not capitalist you have no brain." - George Bernard Shaw, possibly.

The young are more likely to settle on radical sounding politics and moral severity for the same reason they are likely to settle on any other far-out sounding thing -- music, clothing, slang -- whatever. One's youth is embarrassing later in adulthood.

Then too, as much as young people won't/don't/can't admit it, the young tend to be kind of stupid (this opinion based on my experience). It's unavoidable. Why, after so few years, would they be otherwise?

For my part it took many years, several decades really, to become the sensible person I now wish I had been at 18.

But I want to provide a bit of caution to the idea that the 20th century was uniquely evil. The USA's extermination of the natives and exploitation of Africans and immigrants were liberal precursors to the evils of the 20th century; only the 20th century is more evil because of our abilities to continue the same with more firepower due to technological progress. — Moliere

That's a deep can of worms. If I wanted to get into it I'd want to reference Dialectic of Enlightenment, J.G. Ballard's novel Crash (sceptical towards the dichotomy of humans variously using or misusing technology; it's more like technology is an expression of us and also remakes us), and possibly Straw Dogs by John Gray, but I'm not sure I do right now. It's a good point to bring up though.

I mean I take your point, and certainly the Frankfurt School were fixated on Europe and traumatized by what happened there to the exclusion of everything else, and I should be careful to correct their Eurocentrism. But still, I'm still inclined to say there is something importantly unique in the evil of the twentieth century, and that this wasn't just a technical issue --- I just don't have any arguments as yet.

I appreciate the reflection you've given of Adorno, but I also think that maybe it wasn't just a rejection and rebellion leading to bad outcomes -- the bad outcomes are just what politics are in our age of the nation-state. — Moliere

Yes, I don't want to give the impression that I think, or that Adorno thought, that the worst disasters were brought on by angry youths and revolutionaries. I'm not making the conservative argument here, not exactly. Certainly I agree it's the case that the disasters of the twentieth century were generated by the capitalist and imperialist order, by nationalism, the reaction against the workers' movement leading to fascism, etc., and on a deeper level the inherent movement of Enlightened Europe towards domination, over peope and nature.

I'm just digging down through the layers of Adorno's deep pessimism and shame on behalf of Europe.

That was the most interesting post-length piece I've read in years. — Leontiskos

Thank you, glad you liked it :smile:

Sure, but aren't we ignoring the other side of the coin? Namely that appealing to the inherent mismatch of ideals with reality is a cop out, and serves as an explanation for any act inconsistent with the operative principles of a society that disallows it? As in, there was a downside to the French Revolution, and I'm not convinced your construal is able to come to terms with that downside. The promotion of an ideal is not unobjectionably good, given both that there is moral worth to the stability of the status quo, and that false ideals are very often promoted. — Leontiskos

Having for years appealed to the mismatch between ideals and reality in an effort to protect the ideals, I think I see what you mean (I was radicalized by Trotskyists who were able to casually wash their hands of Stalinism since he represented "the revolution betrayed").

So I guess what you're saying is that the problem is in the very pursuit or promotion of an ideal? And for a couple of reasons: it tends to devalue everything about how things are, the status quo (which is bad because a lot of what exists is valuable); and it's difficult to distinguish bad ideals. Makes sense.

The answer might be something boring like finding a middle way. On one end you have Marinetti and the futurists positively rejoicing in war and the destruction of existing society --- an attitude that can characterize not only fascism but left-wing movements too --- and on the other you have conservatives and traditional reactionaries (as opposed to radical ones like the Nazis).

And maybe that middle way necessitates the relinquishing of the ideal --- or perhaps the shelving of the ideal to the secret Utopian corner of one's mental library.

Fortunately, I was educated by conservative Dominicans and Jesuits for twelve years that by the end (somehow) made me an avowed atheist and nascent Marxist. — 180 Proof

:cool:

the decades – the defeats – have only radicalized me so that I've grown even more pessimistic and more anarchistic. Until I drop, for me at least, the struggle against all forms of injustice and dehumanization goes on — 180 Proof

:up:

Yes, and I guess there's always a risk that my kind of reflections are effectively conservative.

But there is a difficulty here where it is very easy to project the systemic onto the personal, without a proper recognition of the limits of personal agency in political contexts. This can lead to simplistic manichean narratives that reduce to "if only the wicked stopped being wicked and the just ruled, all problems would be fixed," or more pernicious, the derivation of personal guilt through mere "complicity" or association with systems that people have no realistic way to escape. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a great point. I haven't thought about it like that. Maybe it's an argument not only to teach ethics early on, but to teach political philosophy before or during the teenage years of radicalization --- for me, I first learned about politics in this personalized way and found it difficult to recover from that.

You can see this in the careers of some leftist crusaders who, rightly outraged by some of the missteps of the Obama years and upset over some of the deficits in the neo-liberal global order, allowed themselves to become virtual cheerleaders for Trump, who seems almost certainly more inimical to their values. And there definitely seems to be this thought process of: "good, let him win. Then things can get so bad that we can destroy the system and start over!" Which tends to miss just how much suffering such a "tearing down" implies, or the fact that a great many revolutions do not produce better situations, and often end up reproducing many of the same problems (e.g. the Soviets were initially even worse on minority rights than the Tsars). — Count Timothy von Icarus

I certainly recognize the appeal of this viewpoint and I was attracted to accelerationism for a while. Its central point seems to be to face up to that suffering and embrace it, since it is unavoidable and might lead to a better world. What makes this interestingly different from earlier versions of that familiar ends-justify-the-means attitude (both left and right) is that it positions itself counter-culturally against a "soft" mainstream (again, both left and right), thus posing as a radical advancement beyond the various liberalisms and leftisms feebly surviving in the remains of the post-war consensus.

(Incidentally, this could be the Trotskyist in me talking again but I thought it was mainly under Stalin that the minorities suffered, having enjoyed more rights and autonomy from 1917 to 1923, when non-Russian languages were encouraged and ethnic cultural traditions were combined with, rather than replaced by, new socialist ones.)

But this is where the "crisis of meaning" steps in and pours gasoline on the fire. Because people want conflagration. They fantasize about it. The shop for it with tactical gear and rifles. They accessorize for it. And I do think this is different. It isn't (just) about opprobrium, it becomes about fulfilling a life narrative, which I think can make it much more potent.

I think you can see something similar in the period before the First World War, a desire for conflict for its own sake. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Ah, the tragic heart of your post. What do you mean by "And I do think this is different"? Different from the past?

the quote isn't precisely apropos, but its thrust is in the ballpark: "If at age 20 you are not a communist, you have no heart. If at age 30 you are not capitalist you have no brain." - George Bernard Shaw, possibly. — BC

It's a great quote, and I have it at the back of my mind in all this. But it's such a familiar thought that it's become a cliché. Adorno has a way of taking a cliché and making it fresh and thus more serious (or, as some would say, pretentiously rewording it). Another example from Minima Moralia I was thinking of last night was...

the power of experience breaks the spell of duration and gathers past and future into the present.

When I read that I thought, this is "time flies when you're having fun" but without the fun (since the "experience" could be any kind of experience); and, as if underlining that, at the end of the section he concludes with a single sentence: "Time flies."

Anyway, yeah, you might say that the OP is an attempt to, egotistically, dignify a really common experience and dress it up as something more than it is. However, as I've been saying to Moliere, I haven't really become a conservative (or "capitalist"), so the trajectory is not quite the same.

The young are more likely to settle on radical sounding politics and moral severity for the same reason they are likely to settle on any other far-out sounding thing -- music, clothing, slang -- whatever. One's youth is embarrassing later in adulthood.

Then too, as much as young people won't/don't/can't admit it, the young tend to be kind of stupid (this opinion based on my experience). It's unavoidable. Why, after so few years, would they be otherwise?

For my part it took many years, several decades really, to become the sensible person I now wish I had been at 18. — BC

Yes. However, I had an interesting experience recently. I'm accustomed now to thinking I was an idiot in my youth, but I found an old diary in which I was going on about politics and philosophy, and it was actually quite good, more subtle and sophisticated than I thought I was back then.

On reflection, I realized that this was not good news at all, because what it meant was that I had forgotten most of what I knew, and I have not in fact been getting more wise but just unknowingly treading water, learning the same things over and over again while becoming slightly less angry. That was a yikes moment.

I'm living backwards; I become more radical with age. It always seemed obvious to me that the political world is as round as the physical, and wherever one happens to reside, the extremes of left and right meet and become one at the antipodes, where the blood is always redder. — unenlightened

I used to scoff at this idea, thinking it reactionary, not to mention facile and simplistic. It's galling to find myself now gravitating towards it.

My dad was a communist turned socialist - how was I supposed to rebel against that? Oh, I remember now, "turn on, tune in, drop out".

And look how that turned out!