Why does the left support the blank slate theory? [closed]

Question

Why does the left (maybe not the entire left) support the blank slate theory (see here for instance)?

By left, I mean the diverse movements/ideologies adhering in a form or another, to a much or lesser degree, to socialism. By socialism I mean the equal sharing of the means of production and the relative absence of private property.

The Blank Slate theory is the idea that people are all innately equal, and that only the environment shapes them in a way or another.

I think Marx did recognize that individuals are unequal, but he expected that society finds ways to correct any form of inequalities, including innate inqualities such as handicap, etc. (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program):

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege.

Is it because if the left recognizes innate inequalities, it would be like recognizing that their attempts to correct inequalities is doubtful? Indeed, if innate inequalities there are, then it is possible that part of the socio-economic inequalities we observe can not really be subject of socio-economic interventions.

Or does it come from other sources, like Rousseau for instance? And the left culture is a mix those diverse influences?

Answer 1

Sigh…

First, the Left — to the extent that the Left can be treated as a unified whole — does not subscribe to the 'blank slate' theory as suggested. It holds that people are politically equal: where each person is due the same rights, liberties, and privileges as every other person, to do with as they will (for good or ill). The primary complaints of those on the Left de-evolve to patronage, racism, or favoritism, where people who are (pardon the language) stupid, incompetent, nut-jobs succeed because they are born into the right family, social circle, race, or gender, while good, intelligent, sane people born into the wrong circumstances fail for exactly the same reason. Leftists advocate true meritocracy, where people 'win' because they are truly capable of winning, not because they are given an unfair advantage at the starting line.

Leftists also tend to believe that losers should be allowed to lose with an element of grace, not be crushed under the heel of the winner. This is where most of the accusations of socialism arise: not because Leftists clamor for absolute equality, but because Leftists demand that 'losers' should still be able to live as human beings, with a degree of comfort and autonomy despite their failures. A coal miner might not be able to succeed to the extent that a coal mine owner does, but shouldn't be condemned to misery, poverty, and black-lung disease for the benefit of the mine owner. Property is a bit of a red-herring, because Marx was only concerned with productive property: property that can be used to produce goods, and optimized by employing non-owner wage-earners to carry out production.

Marx opined: "from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs". The idea there is that people should be allowed to contribute according to their talents and skills, and be rewarded for that contribution; but that no one should be left 'in need' because they cannot or do not contribute. This means that the elderly and infirm are not tossed into the cold because they cannot work; it means that the poets, philosophers, artists, and other purveyors of cultural potency can provide the intangibles they provide without fear or hardship. There's a value in that incomprehensible to those who think solely in economic terms.

I skimmed your link enough to know it's vapid. If you'd like a deeper critique, I'm happy to provide, but (frankly) you won't enjoy it so I'm refraining.

Keep in mind that many 'Leftists' are middle or upper middle class people who enjoy their privileges in society, but think that everyone else should be able to enjoy them as well. They get fussy and grumpy when they see other groups are subject to oppression because it violates their own sense of self-worth: i.e., they want to be living in a society where everyone has the opportunities they've always enjoyed, and feel ashamed to think they live in a world where they themselves were given an unfair advantage. Rightists tend to be more dog-eat-dog about it, and don't want to share the guilt of privilege — which is understandable, I suppose, though I have a hard time accepting that worldview — and neither view is entirely right or entirely wrong. Inequalities exist (and always have existed) but 'Lefists' tend to believe that those who live in that world should:

• be allowed to capitalize on their superiority regardless of any personal characteristics, and…
• show an element of compassion and grace — or at least old-fashioned good sportsmanship – to those who lose.

It's a hard balance to strike, but well worth the effort.

Answer 2

Frame challenge:

The question of innate differences between human populations is not a question of politics, but perhaps anthropology.

Politically speaking, the difference does not seem huge, and when it is significant it mostly looks random. Are there any politically meaningful reasons why descendants of Finnish peasants look successful, and descendants of Middle Eastern peasants look unsuccessful at the moment? If we would ask an ancient Greek to rank them, they would probably come up with an inverse assessment.

Even individual differencies, which are obviously very significant in humans, are usually not the topic of politics. I'm not aware of a political system where you will get a second vote for being 2m tall or finishing your PhD.