Is the "Omnicause" real?

I’m sure it does for some people.

I don’t think that what I do or don’t believe on these kinds of issues makes me a better, more ethical person. There are things I strongly believe in and things I haven’t really formed an opinion on and things I disagree with. I am well aware others will disagree with some and that I may be objectively ‘wrong’ on some points. But I don’t lecture or hector other people about their views unlike some people, and I don’t tell people outright, nor imply, that their beliefs mean they’re not decent people. I really dislike the ‘right side of history’ phrase that gets chucked around from all directions.

Most humans like to be right and we tend to stay wedded to our rightness and beliefs unless we have learned to question ourselves and challenge our thinking. I’m not remotely infallible in this.

I wonder what the opposite is?

The large group of people who don't go on marches and couldn't give a 💩 in general unless it's something that directly has an impact on their life...

Bloody insomnia!

I really don't understand this refusal on the part of the op and a couple of others to believe that the omnicause exists.

There are a set of beliefs that are considered to be the "right" beliefs by many on the modern left. They include trans rights (not just that people who identify as trans shouldn't be discriminated against but a belief that people should be treated as a member of the opposite sex if that's what they say they are); support for Palestine (which often leads to support for Iran despite the regime's terrible abuse of its citizen's human rights) and support for immigration (not just sympathy towards genuine asylum seekers and refugees but a sense that anyone who questions the scale of immigration must be a racist).

It is a fact that there are many people who espouse this bundle of causes. They see themselves as supporting the oppressed and as being on the right side of history.

Those who are fed up with these people, including me, use the omnicause as a handy shortcut when referring to them.

If someone supports the omnicause (or is a disinterested observer) then it's absolutely fine to disagree with the term. But it's nonsense to pretend that the phenomenon doesn't exist or that it's something that only exists on the Internet.

I am, as I said in a previous post, firmly on the Left and always have been but am an old school Leftie who dislikes modern identity politics.

Too many believers in the Omnicause (and I speak from personal experience, particularly as a women's rights activist and as a member of the Green Party) lack nuance; are unwilling to accept that both sides of an argument often have valid points and speak in thought terminating cliches. They often espouse luxury beliefs, the end result of which wouldn't affect them personally.

Does the old left still exist? The ones with common sense who don’t buy wholesale into ideology? What do we call them? (Gen x? Critical thinkers?)

My WhatsApp groups are full of people on the old Left. We seem to have become minorities within our political parties and trades unions.

Although I'm not a communist, I'm fond of the Morning Srar newspaper which has stayed true to its roots. It's very different from the Socialist Worker rag.

Your posts don’t make sense. You might disagree with the use of the word but you haven’t explained why it’s ’internet nonsense’?

I think the OP is obejcting that some people in the right will reject arguments from the left as being part of "the omnicause" rather than engage with the detail of what's being claimed and examine the case on its merits. That's undoubtedly true, and of course cuts both ways - many on the left dismiss right-wing arguments for very superficial reasons too.

However, this isn't a reason to reject the term "omnicause", which does describe a fascinating phenomenon. As another example, look at Exctintion Rebellion which originally started as climate change activism with a 2018 manifesto that was solely about biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions, but has now expanded to cover trans rights, colonial reparations, and pro-Palestine causes too. Here's Rupert Reed, a founder of XR:

"Those who want to participate are expected to accept a 'package deal' of positions on issues such as race, gender and social justice. These issues are important in their own right. But when agreement on them becomes a condition of entry into climate activism and action, the movement closes the door to a majority of people who share its concern."

This is a significant phenomenon. In left wing activism, and being able to name and talk about it is useful.

Does the old right still exist? The moderate Conservative who leans towards a right wing economic model for society but doesn't feel the need to demonise people in poverty, disabled people or immigrants? Who understands our society has more issues to fix than stopping the boats?
Its a rhetorical question obviously. Of course they do. 'The right' is a broad church with angry, one issue extremists at its far end, simply making the most noise. Why do you suppose its different on the left?

This is spot on.

Extinction Rebellion is a perfect example of the phenomenon. I have friends who were involved in XR in its early days and share Rupert Read's frustration.

It pretty much is true. I attended Durham Miner's gala this year for the first time and loved the processions, banners and music.
However while at the meeting - a large grassy area with stalls representing various groups, food stalls and a stage at one point we were told if you don't agree with us, leave!
They had covered so much ground of every 'oppressed' group on that stage that surely there were few that agreed with everything.

I left as it was Angela Egan's turn to speak.

For those not understanding.

The Omicause is called that because even if you agree with most of the causes, speak out against just one of them and you will be ostracised, harassed, kicked out of the group/club/ be called right wing, ie a whole heap of shit will rain down on you, etc etc.

Its why so many lefties say 'The Left left me'.

It's not a new thing, just a new word surely?

Watch 'Pride' for example and you'll see the lesbians and Gays Support the Miners'.

Is this not the same as when posters on the right accuse those of us on the left of dissonance?

As you said, if you’re opposed to Israeli actions in Gaza you must be pro trans rights?

It really, really pisses me off. I’m sure it’s supposed to. I am on the left in terms of my beliefs on the welfare state and taxation, I fully own that. I am also very much of the belief you can have good capitalism and bad socialism and vice versa.

I am capable of holding more than one idea in my head when it comes to immigration, gender issues and much more.

I resent deeply being told what I believe. I would say I’m actually small c conservative and have old fashioned standards. But I also believe in fairness and equity.

I don’t assume everyone who votes Conservative is a fascist. I have respect for Kemi and like her high standards and forthright manner.

I’m sick of how we have to be one side for everything. This has come from the USA. It’s shorthand for thinking. It’s the internet’s algorithm which is dividing us up like this and really should resist it and grow up.

Rant over.

But you didn't get kicked out of miners' unions for not supporting gay marriage.

I hate the term - I think it’s used to shut down debate, and nuance, and I think critical thinkers, of whatever political persuasion should resist the idea, and actually engage in the arguments and ideas being debated.

That wasn't my point.

It was about the 'lesbians and gays' adopting a cause, not the other way round. Likewise , the feminists of the 60s and 70s who supported the civil rights movement or Red Wedge in the 80s who supported a range of causes under a generic banner of being 'red'. Or poll tax marches as another example.

This is a really interesting point, and made me think about Cable Street, when Irish dockers, communists, and trade unionists came out to stand alongside the Jewish community against Oswald Mosely and his black shirts. I don’t think solidarity between minority groups is all that new.

I don't know if these situations are exactly the same as what gets called the omnicause now, but even if they were, I wouldn't expect some brand new form of human behaviour to have emerged here, of course it will have echoes of group dynamics and political factions from history.

True but there are discussions about 'cause adopting' in the film. The main guy was actually a Communist , which is avoided in the film!

People on the Left have always supported causes other than their own or stood by demographics other than their own eg Cable Street and the gays and lesbians who supported the miners strike (2 good examples cited by pp).

The difference between then and now is that you weren't expected to endorse a bundle of causes and weren't disapproved of or excluded from your original group for failing to sign up to the other causes. It was a matter of choice and an individual decision made on a case by case basis.

Compare that to the opprobrium thrown at Left Wing GC feminists at the Durham Gala over recent years; the anti "Terf" signage at the Green Gathering or the hostility shown to a gay man and a small group of GC lesbians at the recent Brighton Dyke Pride (as shown on Mr Menno's video on his YouTube channel).

I'm on the Left but hate what it has become.

I do agree with you that in certain spheres - mainly online, but maybe at protests and demonstrations too - there is a level of aggression against people who don’t think the same as their group, that does feel more pronounced than perhaps it historically has.

But I absolutely don’t think it’s exclusive to the Left. What would happen if someone turned up to a Stop for the Boats protest for example, wearing a pro Palestine T-shirt? Where in fact, there’s no reason that wanting less immigration into your own country, should dictate how you feel about a conflict in the Middle East.

And this is where I think embracing the concept of an “omnicause” is unhelpful all round, it cements the idea that complex debates are black and white, and makes it easier for us to dismiss other people’s ideas - and harder for us to really interrogate our own.

But people with 'causes' have also always fallen out with each other. This is the whole history of feminism , is what Reform and Restore are doing with their own 'omincauses' (don't tell me they don't think they are adopting/ supporting/claiming 'women's rights') and is also covered in 'Pride' when iirc some of the lesbians leave.

If one can define the left, or the right, as having an omni-cause (a single set of views everyone is supposed to support) then that can also define an anti-omni-cause (the set of views everyone is supposed to be against). My observation of its use, is that only the opposition has an omni-cause. Beams and motes.

Political parties have always tried to do this. Everything our party says is right; everything every other party says is wrong... here's the cookie-cutter robo-politico, script to learn to give a pat response to every point the opposition makes. But to be electorally successful in a first-past-the-post system they have had to be "board churches".

But I feel something has changed, perhaps it is the algorithms that are dividing us, and rewarding the extremes.

I, as someone who likes to think of myself as an evidence based free thinker feel uncomfortable with this division of people into two camps, us and them. With a disposition sensitive to control and abuse, I'm immediately suspicious of anyone claiming the other side has an omni-cause as trying to corral them. Corral me. I will not be herded.

Thank you. That's a really clear and helpful post.

I know exactly what "omnicause" describes. I've seen it play out in various hobby and volunteer communities I'm part of. It is a genuine dynamic.

It reminds me of the 80s actually, when it was all anti-Thatcher, vegetarianism, cnd and support the Sandinistas. Come to think of it, keffiyeh-wearing for Palestine was big then as well.