Constructive Critique: Being Truthful during Principled Political Struggle

“Constructive criticism and self-criticism are extremely important for any revolutionary organization. Without them, people tend to drown in their mistakes, not learn from them.” 

– Assata Shakur

“Don’t be in a hurry to condemn because he doesn’t do what you do or think as you think or as fast. There was a time when you didn’t know what you know today.” 

– Malcolm X 

Principled struggle means that we start from a place of mutual respect and dignity, and requires that we engage in honest, constructive critique. That includes  self-critique, which requires a level of both  intellectual humility and also emotional maturity. Shouting at someone or belittling them does not educate or persuade.

We have to be honest, but there is no need to be brutal. Honesty requires that we use clear and sharp language, but it  does not require that we cut each other down. As my Mamaw taught me, “We are all better than the mistakes that we make.” 

The point is that we are all going to make mistakes, and we are in a collective process together. As we struggle together and offer constructive critique, one goal should be to make sure we understand each other. And we should strive to conclude our political disagreements with as much political unity as is possible. In that spirit, I offer some suggestions:

1. Make a distinction between an objective fact and your belief/opinion

As Leftists, we share a basic set of core principles and values. A definitional bedrock conviction of any Leftist is a belief in the need for Class Struggle. We can and should struggle over the best way to win that Class Struggle. Doing so sharpens our shared understanding and is the essence of finding strategic alignment.  

Having said that, I strive to never allow a strategic debate to turn a comrade into an enemy. I believe that goal is the fundamental difference between a principle struggle over strategy and a sectarian commitment to dogma. If I find myself in an unresolvable strategic disagreement with a comrade, then I remind myself that it is OK to disagree and that not every strategy can be pursued in the same organization at the same time.   

I don’t compromise my principles and values, and I do not ask others to do so.  I do my best to  listen to others and try to understand their principles and values, because my opinion (no matter how principled or well-reasoned) is not the same thing as “ultimate truth.” And neither is anyone else’s.

I’ve often heard people say, “I’m not mean, I just tell it how it is” as if how they see something is the same as “how it is.” One way to avoid this trap is to separate objective fact from narrative or story. In addition to listening to what the other person has said, consider a broader context: What behaviors did they exhibit when they communicated? Is this a repeated position? A frequently repeated position is much more likely to be an attitude, as opposed to an opinion that can be more easily changed. I have found that the more I focus on objective facts, the better my political conversations.

2. Communicate your opinions as opinions and acknowledge that they are not  facts

Far too often we state our opinions as if they are facts. Neuroscience teaches us that we tend to do this because we want to add more weight to our views, so others will agree with us. Here are some techniques I have found helpful:

• Instead of saying “the fact of the matter is” try using “From my perspective”
• Instead of saying “you always do/say this” try “the last several times”
• Instead of saying “you are seeing” try “have you considered”
  
  

3. Ask clarifying questions

Clarifying questions are essential to any effective communication and are especially critical during political debate amongst comrades. Asking good clarifying questions is a skill that anyone can develop if they are committed to learning it. 

A clarifying question is designed to reduce or eliminate ambiguity and to assure that you are correctly interpreting what is being said. It has the added bonus of demonstrating that you are actively listening.

You can use open-ended (often framed  as who, how, when, where or why) questions  to encourage a response where you need more specificity.  You can use closed-end questions (usually framed as a “yes or no”) to make sure you understand an exact point or confirm an intention.

Try to ask clear and simple questions. As Kali Akuno frequently says “Break it down without dumbing it down.” Try to come from a place of good faith inquiry, instead of accusation.  When asking a question, don’t include your personal opinions or biases. 

4. Honesty does not need to be mean

Honesty is not about being hurtful, mean, or venting. Unfortunately, our culture teaches us to equate “letting off steam” with being honest. Being honest is about being more clear, specific,  sincere, and authentic. 

I certainly believe it is important to always be honest, but it isn’t necessary to be “brutally” honest at every moment. And when emotions are high, and things get heated, rational and principled disagreement can be extremely difficult. Although it isn’t political, check out this video. It is less than two minutes, and captures the essence of this point.

5. Have your struggle in the right place/time with the right people

There are some disagreements that prevent us from collaborating, and that is OK. Not everyone is a comrade, and not every meeting is the right place to have every disagreement.

It is equally important to acknowledge and recognize that explicit Fascists are our enemies, and unless a Fascist has some profound personal epiphany they will remain an enemy. I know there are examples of some folks who do the hard work of “converting” fascists, and I am sincerely grateful for such people. 

Personally,  I do not engage with explicit fascists. In the mid-80’s I was a concert promoter, and sometimes booked leftist political skinhead shows. (If you don’t know this history, check out Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice). In that context, fascist skinheads would sometimes show up and “contest the space.” What I learned from those experiences was this– When actual Fascists arrive you either drive them out, or they drive you out. Fascists don’t negotiate, they don’t engage in debate. They have an ideology based on hate, and a commitment to violence as a strategy to impose their worldview.  

My lived experience teaches me that if I enter dialogue looking for disagreement I find it. If I enter dialogue looking for agreement I find it. So I try to enter into dialogue with a commitment to find greater clarity and understanding, and that commitment is the foundation for solidarity.