Aontacht, Cancel Culture And Socialist Discussion

The recent letter criticising an article in Aontacht by Gearóid Ó Loingsigh was anonymous. 

It does not reference Gearóid’s article or indicate what it is about. 

Without reporting on the views in the article it cannot refute the article.

It substitutes critique with faux psychology. There is no argument because Gearóid is unbalanced. The attack is ironically, in line with the main claim in Ó Loingsigh’s article, that certain views are now heresy and cannot be discussed. 

This is not an attempt at debate. It is simply a scream of rage and dismissal that adds nothing to any discussion and is simply intended to shut people up – in fact a form of cancel culture.

However the purpose of this letter is not to take up that particular issue. Rather it is to use it as an example to suggest a framework for debate on the site.

The letters page requires moderation. Anonymity is a sort of passive-aggressive accusation that the site represents a risk. It also removes restraint when there is no need to deal with those responding to  you.

There should be an outline/critique of the arguments of the author you are attacking.    

There should be some attempt to link to the overall struggle of the working class. Why is the outcome of adopting your position as opposed to your opponent of importance?

The absence of such moderation sees  discussion disintegrate into a hot sticky mess. 

Debates where you demonise your opponent without answering them are one component of cancel culture. They are the opposite of socialist debate. There should be completely open debate inside organisations because they need to constantly adjust their policies to an ever-changing  reality.  There should be constant debate with other left forces to test each other’s positions and to find common ground. We should debate our enemies to expose the reactionary nature of their arguments. 

Cancelling others is seen as an extension of the “no-platform” position towards fascists. For that reason it is common to accuse opponents of fascism in order to apply the cancellation. Yet the no-platform strategy was driven, not by moral repugnance, but because the only argument of the fascists was violence and that was the only appropriate response.

A final anecdote. Many years ago a comrade of Socialist Democracy  was savagely beaten outside a polling centre. The left group behind the attack thought that their size would make them immune. We drafted a petition of condemnation to be issued to unions and worker’s groups.  We received an immediate apology.

The foundation of debate in the past was an active engagement of an active workers movement.  That can only come through struggle, but a healthy approach to debate on the left would be a help.

In Solidarity,             

John McAnulty