In my view, “social disillusionment” has always led the socialist or social critic to suggest tearing down society or turning it upside down. This is nihilism, a pessimism about most things. It makes life worse. Today’s nihilist says get rid of whites in higher roles. Watch how that makes society worse, as it scapegoats instead of inspiring us to improving what is already good.
Great article. A little longer than expected but I look forward to your next one. It's good to know more about the origins of bad ideas so you can debate them with other people.
But, what in the heck is with the extreme left and being weird about kids? Your example about Fourier was surprising but I guess it shouldn't be given Foucault's history of having five children and dropping them all off in an orphanage. Their intellectual progeny must be the people that follow Queer Theory.
The left is not "the enemy" James. The old left were universalists, and were opposed to Identity Politics. That included socialists and even Marxists (Zizek is an example). Until we understand that we will never win. Pure liberalism undermines itself - it needs foundations and boundaries.
We will not win by old politics, because old politics is why we're here. Read Batya Ungar-Sargon's or Patrick Deneed's articles in Compact Mag for some insight.
Corrie Mooney: The left is "the enemy" if by "the left" you mean Marxists and socialists. And it is clear by your three sentence statement that this sort of left of liberal is exactly what you mean by "the left." Typically, leftists of this sort, like yourself, Corrie, aren't very good at drawing political distinctions / are very good at dissimulating and misleading confused liberal readers. So let it be emphasized that "the old left [=the Marxists] were universalists" is entirely misleading unless the reader understands that this version is of universalism is not that of the liberal enlightenment, but that of Marxist humanism (i.e. liberation will be achieved across the world once all mankind is stamped into one cookie-cutter shaped worker class stripped of personal liberty - "universalism"). Pure liberalism needs "foundations and boundaries" really, to be supplied by thinkers like you and universalism like I have just described right? Yes, liberalism needs illiberalism that will always be what you say even wittingly or otherwise - you NDPers will always say that and you will always be wrong. As for the left of liberals being "opposed" to identity politics, they failed in this as they failed in everything. What's my justification for saying so? I would refer readers willing to give credit where credit is due, willing to call a spade a spade, to my recent article "Woke is not Right": https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/woke-is-not-right
There is a long history, Mr. M of not-Marxists social democrats in the western world. There are 'socialists', I'd argue a significant majority of "the left" you are talking about, who wanted to build from within and not tear things down. From the deeply conservative Fianna Fail of Ireland, to Germany's SDP (who didn't hesitate put revolting Communists in concentration camps in 1919 to save the Republik), to Canada's CCF- founded by men of the cloth. These social democrats helped the West create the most prosperous AND EQUAL socialites ever seen in human history from 1945 until 1992, through a balance of free-markets, social systems and nation-state-oriented economies. Remember the NDP was openly nationalist until the 1990s and a significant portion voted against abortion in 1988- and were allowed to do so.
Across the West, people in the political compass quadrant "Socially Conservative plus economically Left" have not had political representation since the 90s, and they constitute the bulk of the populist movement. Unrestrained liberalism is why we are here. Patrick Deneen (type-o above) JPB and Douglas Murray argue very well what foundations are required - historically proven/traditional ones. Yes wokeism started from neomarxism, but it fed off the liberal host until it consumed it. Why can't people, or even children, choose their gender? If humans have equal potential why are there discrepancies between groups (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/opinion/woke-definition.html)? Why does no one give a fig about heritage or culture? Why has economic security been denied to the West's working classes? These ideas are from or come through liberalism and are a sign of it without boundaries. If you try the old and tired classic liberal arguments YOU WILL LOSE. That quadrant is almost bare and on the shelf for a generation. You will scupper our fight against the woke.
Corrie: Let's digress a moment to consider what you had said in your reply from June 12 above: "the old left [=the Marxists] were universalists, and were opposed to Identity Politics." Some insights about what Marxists think, and thought, about identity politics can be gleaned from this free-to-download book "Racism after Apartheid: Challenges for Marxism and Anti-Racism" and the first chapter by Vishwas Satgar. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25726
Who is Vishwas Satgar? Well, he is a genuine dyed-in-the-wool left of liberal (like you). I point this out because I don’t think you actually read or absorb anything that a right-winger like myself says (but if you did, you’d see that what I say and what Marxists like Satgar say are actually precisely the same things —except that I disapprove of, and they approve of, the Marxist agenda under consideration).
Satgar first highlights some political and ideological history of the 20th century. From this summation, we can see that Marxist intellectuals like to frame the domain of human interaction as a struggle between Marxist universalism (self-professed "anti-racists") and that other category: racist imperialist colonialist neo-fascists. According to this (I will call it highly reductionist) dichotomy, the only way one might find themselves being racist and opposing Marxist universalism would be if one found themselves falling into that other category.
On pages 10-11, Satgar sketches the following bits of the history which showcase the ways in which Marxism politized race and racism:
I) Marxist-Leninist parties after WW II: Marxist-Leninist parties in Europe “played a crucial role in the anti-fascist resistance. The Communist Party of the USA fought actively against racism and Jim Crow segregation. In Africa, Marxist– Leninist parties fought against colonialism, such as in Mozambique and Angola, and in South Africa, the Communist Party played a crucial role in the struggle against apartheid. In the case of the latter, many Marxist inspired movements, labour organisations and activist groups also played an important role in the global anti-apartheid movement.”
ii) Satgar states: “Revolutionary nationalist movements emerged in anti-colonial struggles and formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961. Many had a powerful Marxist influence and ideological impulse. The NAM took a stand against western imperial racism and colonialism. These countries (such as India and Tanzania) provided support to national liberation and anti-colonial movements, contributed to the call for a New International Economic Order, and the voice of the ‘darker nations’ inspired Third World Solidarity.”
In the US in the same period, a Marxist and black activist organization called RAM (Revolutionary Action Movement) would form and became the precursor to the black power movement, Malcolm X and the Black Panther Movement, from which we get such ideologies as black power, systemic racism and so forth. Satgar admits that such movements have resulted in “chauvinistic nationalisms” (i.e. black nationalism is racist) which, as it turns out, aren’t really that “anti-racist.” He states: “the practices and effects of Marxist inspired political movements have varied and complex histories. The histories show contradictory positions in relation to race and racism, often allowing chauvinistic nationalisms to come to the fore. Thus, Marxisms in the twentieth century, despite strong anti-racist political commitments in most instances, did not provide an effective anti-racist mooring in theoretical orientation and practice.”
On page 17, Satgar goes on to list the ways that current day Marxist intellectuals are engaged in promoting “anti-racism” such as by amplifying the BLM movement into a movement for black “liberation” (which, of course, would fulfill the century-old Leninist objective of splitting America by categorizing blacks as a separate nation): “Marxists have also opened up an important debate on transforming #BlackLivesMatter into a movement for black liberation and have argued for solidarities to be constituted with the working class.” One can see additional ways in which the “Old Left” (=the Marxists) have contributed to “anti-racism” policies in books like “Theorizing Anti-Racism: Linkages in Marxism and Critical Race Theories” by Abigail Bakan. On page 139 of that work, the authors discuss the “anti-racist” influence of (black Marxist intellectual and activist) Frantz Fanon in bringing decolonization to the fore – the rhetoric now being used as a wrecking ball to target European heritage and culture within the academy and without. At this point, it should be apparent (and it has been apparent in my essays at WWC) that a close reading of the history of race activism shows that Old Left Marxism, in employing the black liberation / white imperialist rhetorical analysis, pre-empts and facilitates the emergence of identity politics. So, when I said earlier that Marxism failed to oppose identity politics, this is some of what I mean. And this is without even addressing the emergence of the new Marxism.
To respond then to your stream of consciousness: “Unrestrained liberalism is why we are here ….Why does no one give a fig about heritage or culture? Why has economic security been denied to the West's working classes? These ideas are from or come through liberalism and are a sign of it without boundaries.”
“Unrestrained” liberalism is not why we are here, if by “here” you mean stuck in a society which is ideologically possessed by woke. We are here because left of liberal agitators, some who hate liberalism, some who hate capitalism, some who hate European heritage and influence, some who hate all of the above, have been remarkably successful in establishing a hegemony in (read: in subverting) our cultural and intellectual institutions. If I were wrong about this, the subtitle to “Theorizing Anti-Racism” would be “linkages to Conservative thought and Liberalism” — instead, the subtitle is “Linkages to Marxism and Critical Race Theories.”
And so you say: “Yes wokeism started from neomarxism, but it fed off the liberal host until it consumed it.” Again, your instinct is to blame liberalism for everything because you are a shamelessly biased left of liberal who doesn’t really know how to talk politics unless you open your mouth and an anti-liberal anti-capitalist critique falls out. Here, even while you liken Neo-Marxist wokism to a parasite, you insinuate that it is liberalism’s fault for getting infected and consumed by said parasite! How about it’s fucking Marxism’s fault --- get it? For existing and for being a bloody parasite?
As for the contributions of social-democrats and the NDP, I won’t bother listing out the various public stands which the NDP has taken in the name of “social justice” and in the name of “anti-racism” because there isn’t room in this reply. But try and tell me that the NDP aren’t the worst of the worst shills for woke, in your own words, “YOU WILL LOSE.”
In my view, “social disillusionment” has always led the socialist or social critic to suggest tearing down society or turning it upside down. This is nihilism, a pessimism about most things. It makes life worse. Today’s nihilist says get rid of whites in higher roles. Watch how that makes society worse, as it scapegoats instead of inspiring us to improving what is already good.
Great article. A little longer than expected but I look forward to your next one. It's good to know more about the origins of bad ideas so you can debate them with other people.
But, what in the heck is with the extreme left and being weird about kids? Your example about Fourier was surprising but I guess it shouldn't be given Foucault's history of having five children and dropping them all off in an orphanage. Their intellectual progeny must be the people that follow Queer Theory.
The left is not "the enemy" James. The old left were universalists, and were opposed to Identity Politics. That included socialists and even Marxists (Zizek is an example). Until we understand that we will never win. Pure liberalism undermines itself - it needs foundations and boundaries.
We will not win by old politics, because old politics is why we're here. Read Batya Ungar-Sargon's or Patrick Deneed's articles in Compact Mag for some insight.
Corrie Mooney: The left is "the enemy" if by "the left" you mean Marxists and socialists. And it is clear by your three sentence statement that this sort of left of liberal is exactly what you mean by "the left." Typically, leftists of this sort, like yourself, Corrie, aren't very good at drawing political distinctions / are very good at dissimulating and misleading confused liberal readers. So let it be emphasized that "the old left [=the Marxists] were universalists" is entirely misleading unless the reader understands that this version is of universalism is not that of the liberal enlightenment, but that of Marxist humanism (i.e. liberation will be achieved across the world once all mankind is stamped into one cookie-cutter shaped worker class stripped of personal liberty - "universalism"). Pure liberalism needs "foundations and boundaries" really, to be supplied by thinkers like you and universalism like I have just described right? Yes, liberalism needs illiberalism that will always be what you say even wittingly or otherwise - you NDPers will always say that and you will always be wrong. As for the left of liberals being "opposed" to identity politics, they failed in this as they failed in everything. What's my justification for saying so? I would refer readers willing to give credit where credit is due, willing to call a spade a spade, to my recent article "Woke is not Right": https://wokewatchcanada.substack.com/p/woke-is-not-right
There is a long history, Mr. M of not-Marxists social democrats in the western world. There are 'socialists', I'd argue a significant majority of "the left" you are talking about, who wanted to build from within and not tear things down. From the deeply conservative Fianna Fail of Ireland, to Germany's SDP (who didn't hesitate put revolting Communists in concentration camps in 1919 to save the Republik), to Canada's CCF- founded by men of the cloth. These social democrats helped the West create the most prosperous AND EQUAL socialites ever seen in human history from 1945 until 1992, through a balance of free-markets, social systems and nation-state-oriented economies. Remember the NDP was openly nationalist until the 1990s and a significant portion voted against abortion in 1988- and were allowed to do so.
Across the West, people in the political compass quadrant "Socially Conservative plus economically Left" have not had political representation since the 90s, and they constitute the bulk of the populist movement. Unrestrained liberalism is why we are here. Patrick Deneen (type-o above) JPB and Douglas Murray argue very well what foundations are required - historically proven/traditional ones. Yes wokeism started from neomarxism, but it fed off the liberal host until it consumed it. Why can't people, or even children, choose their gender? If humans have equal potential why are there discrepancies between groups (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/opinion/woke-definition.html)? Why does no one give a fig about heritage or culture? Why has economic security been denied to the West's working classes? These ideas are from or come through liberalism and are a sign of it without boundaries. If you try the old and tired classic liberal arguments YOU WILL LOSE. That quadrant is almost bare and on the shelf for a generation. You will scupper our fight against the woke.
Corrie: Let's digress a moment to consider what you had said in your reply from June 12 above: "the old left [=the Marxists] were universalists, and were opposed to Identity Politics." Some insights about what Marxists think, and thought, about identity politics can be gleaned from this free-to-download book "Racism after Apartheid: Challenges for Marxism and Anti-Racism" and the first chapter by Vishwas Satgar. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/25726
Who is Vishwas Satgar? Well, he is a genuine dyed-in-the-wool left of liberal (like you). I point this out because I don’t think you actually read or absorb anything that a right-winger like myself says (but if you did, you’d see that what I say and what Marxists like Satgar say are actually precisely the same things —except that I disapprove of, and they approve of, the Marxist agenda under consideration).
Satgar first highlights some political and ideological history of the 20th century. From this summation, we can see that Marxist intellectuals like to frame the domain of human interaction as a struggle between Marxist universalism (self-professed "anti-racists") and that other category: racist imperialist colonialist neo-fascists. According to this (I will call it highly reductionist) dichotomy, the only way one might find themselves being racist and opposing Marxist universalism would be if one found themselves falling into that other category.
On pages 10-11, Satgar sketches the following bits of the history which showcase the ways in which Marxism politized race and racism:
I) Marxist-Leninist parties after WW II: Marxist-Leninist parties in Europe “played a crucial role in the anti-fascist resistance. The Communist Party of the USA fought actively against racism and Jim Crow segregation. In Africa, Marxist– Leninist parties fought against colonialism, such as in Mozambique and Angola, and in South Africa, the Communist Party played a crucial role in the struggle against apartheid. In the case of the latter, many Marxist inspired movements, labour organisations and activist groups also played an important role in the global anti-apartheid movement.”
ii) Satgar states: “Revolutionary nationalist movements emerged in anti-colonial struggles and formed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in 1961. Many had a powerful Marxist influence and ideological impulse. The NAM took a stand against western imperial racism and colonialism. These countries (such as India and Tanzania) provided support to national liberation and anti-colonial movements, contributed to the call for a New International Economic Order, and the voice of the ‘darker nations’ inspired Third World Solidarity.”
In the US in the same period, a Marxist and black activist organization called RAM (Revolutionary Action Movement) would form and became the precursor to the black power movement, Malcolm X and the Black Panther Movement, from which we get such ideologies as black power, systemic racism and so forth. Satgar admits that such movements have resulted in “chauvinistic nationalisms” (i.e. black nationalism is racist) which, as it turns out, aren’t really that “anti-racist.” He states: “the practices and effects of Marxist inspired political movements have varied and complex histories. The histories show contradictory positions in relation to race and racism, often allowing chauvinistic nationalisms to come to the fore. Thus, Marxisms in the twentieth century, despite strong anti-racist political commitments in most instances, did not provide an effective anti-racist mooring in theoretical orientation and practice.”
On page 17, Satgar goes on to list the ways that current day Marxist intellectuals are engaged in promoting “anti-racism” such as by amplifying the BLM movement into a movement for black “liberation” (which, of course, would fulfill the century-old Leninist objective of splitting America by categorizing blacks as a separate nation): “Marxists have also opened up an important debate on transforming #BlackLivesMatter into a movement for black liberation and have argued for solidarities to be constituted with the working class.” One can see additional ways in which the “Old Left” (=the Marxists) have contributed to “anti-racism” policies in books like “Theorizing Anti-Racism: Linkages in Marxism and Critical Race Theories” by Abigail Bakan. On page 139 of that work, the authors discuss the “anti-racist” influence of (black Marxist intellectual and activist) Frantz Fanon in bringing decolonization to the fore – the rhetoric now being used as a wrecking ball to target European heritage and culture within the academy and without. At this point, it should be apparent (and it has been apparent in my essays at WWC) that a close reading of the history of race activism shows that Old Left Marxism, in employing the black liberation / white imperialist rhetorical analysis, pre-empts and facilitates the emergence of identity politics. So, when I said earlier that Marxism failed to oppose identity politics, this is some of what I mean. And this is without even addressing the emergence of the new Marxism.
To respond then to your stream of consciousness: “Unrestrained liberalism is why we are here ….Why does no one give a fig about heritage or culture? Why has economic security been denied to the West's working classes? These ideas are from or come through liberalism and are a sign of it without boundaries.”
“Unrestrained” liberalism is not why we are here, if by “here” you mean stuck in a society which is ideologically possessed by woke. We are here because left of liberal agitators, some who hate liberalism, some who hate capitalism, some who hate European heritage and influence, some who hate all of the above, have been remarkably successful in establishing a hegemony in (read: in subverting) our cultural and intellectual institutions. If I were wrong about this, the subtitle to “Theorizing Anti-Racism” would be “linkages to Conservative thought and Liberalism” — instead, the subtitle is “Linkages to Marxism and Critical Race Theories.”
And so you say: “Yes wokeism started from neomarxism, but it fed off the liberal host until it consumed it.” Again, your instinct is to blame liberalism for everything because you are a shamelessly biased left of liberal who doesn’t really know how to talk politics unless you open your mouth and an anti-liberal anti-capitalist critique falls out. Here, even while you liken Neo-Marxist wokism to a parasite, you insinuate that it is liberalism’s fault for getting infected and consumed by said parasite! How about it’s fucking Marxism’s fault --- get it? For existing and for being a bloody parasite?
As for the contributions of social-democrats and the NDP, I won’t bother listing out the various public stands which the NDP has taken in the name of “social justice” and in the name of “anti-racism” because there isn’t room in this reply. But try and tell me that the NDP aren’t the worst of the worst shills for woke, in your own words, “YOU WILL LOSE.”