Marxism in the Mainstream By Bill Kilgore
Don’t miss the significance of the Sarah Jeong affair. In this story freedom of speech, double standards, and the question of whether someone should be fired are all secondary distractions from what should be most alarming about it. The most important thing to note is that Marxism is now in the mainstream.
Jeong is the poster child for modern leftism. In a genuine and unassuming way, she dislikes people based on race and gender. Of course it is racist on its face, but so what? For her, everything comes down to group identity and the didactic world of who has power and who does not. That she and the New York Times are comfortable enough to openly spout this view is telling.
Is it Marxist?
Is this Marxism in the original sense of the term? No, but it is a descendant of the original. Marxism denies that human beings are individuals first, and instead identifies them first as members of a particular class. Ultimately, it divides the world between two classes: the oppressor and the oppressed. Whereas Marx divided the world only between rich and poor—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—contemporary Marxists also divide the world along the lines of race, gender, and sexual preference. Everything comes down to power and group identity.
Those who want to be precise might take issue with me lumping together these new Left-wing categories with the old Marxist ones. As I understand it, the early progressives, themselves influenced by German idealism, unintentionally laid the foundations for this totalitarian view in America. Others, notably Antonio Gramsci, made it cultural; others still in the Frankfurt School brought it to the university. Finally, John Rawls probably made it palatable for polite society. But what does it matter? The end result is the same, and Marx was the father of it all.
To be fair, most people today who hold and espouse Marxist views may not even see themselves as Marxists. Most don’t even know they are Marxists. Very well; we can call it whatever you want: cultural Marxism, neo-Marxism, new-Left, Leftism, progressivism or neo-progressivism, identity politics, democratic socialism, feminism. The list of names is long and parts of these approaches conflict with one another, but the core thought is the same. And all of it is subversive and destructive of American ideals.
But don’t take my word for it; the Left is increasingly open about how their views come from Marx. ANTIFA and the “Occupy” turned “Black Lives Matter” now “Abolish ICE” movement, the militant wing of the Left, label everything they don’t like as fascist in the model of the Marxist Frankfurt School. They openly chant Marxist sayings like “Fuck the bourgeoisie!”
These people are not considered fringe by those called mainstream; they are not being shunned by Democrats or the media. Why should they be shunned? After all, they are doing the Democrats’ bidding! Leftist politicians embrace their causes, join their protests, and encourage them. The media covers for them either by misrepresenting their positions or ignoring them when they are beyond the pale.
Look at what happened in Portland recently. The “Occupy ICE” protest was the fruit of this Marxist ideology—the logic of it all put into practice. Yet a Democratic mayor enabled it and the media hardly mentioned it.
Now consider the mainstream defense of Jeong. Racism, they now say, must be “prejudice + power,” so only the oppressors can be racist (this point hilariously was flipped by a guest on Fox News recently). This new understanding of racism is Marxist to the hilt; it is all identity politics and power divisions.
Andrew Sullivan explained all of this in a clear and concise statement:
The . . . view—that of today’s political left—is that Jeong definitionally cannot be racist, because she’s both a woman and a racial minority. Racism against whites, in this neo-Marxist view, just “isn’t a thing”—just as misandry literally cannot exist at all. And this is because, in this paradigm, racism has nothing to do with a person’s willingness to pre-judge people by the color of their skin, or to make broad, ugly generalizations about whole groups of people, based on hoary stereotypes. Rather, racism is entirely institutional and systemic, a function of power, and therefore it can only be expressed by the powerful—i.e., primarily white, straight men. For a nonwhite female, like Sarah Jeong, it is simply impossible. In the religion of social constructionism, Jeong, by virtue of being an Asian woman, is one of the elect, incapable of the sin of racism or group prejudice. All she is doing is resisting whiteness and maleness, which indeed require resistance every second of the day.
That’s why Jeong hasn’t apologized to the white people she denigrated or conceded that her tweets were racist.
It bears repeating: “today’s political left” has a “neo-Marxist view.” The watchwords of this ideology are commonplace. As Jordan Peterson said to Tucker Carlson, any time you hear the words “equity, diversity, inclusivity, white privilege, systemic racism, any of that” you are hearing someone spout off their neo-Marxist indoctrination. One might also add terms like “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” “toxic masculinity,” and people “of color” (code for “the oppressed”).
Is It Really This Bad?
The Jeong affair simply highlights how normal this ideology is to the people who have absorbed it.
But how did it get so bad? The stated goal of the radicals is to destroy the culture that, as they see it, served as a bulwark against the original Marxism (hence the name “cultural Marxism”). They want to destroy the family, religion, and traditional mores with a “long march through the institutions.” They adhere to a stated goal of making things “weird” in order to make room in American life for socialism.
And they have succeeded. Things are weird! And one can see the influence of Marxism everywhere today in American life.
Curious about what truly inspired Kaepernick’s protests?
Have you ever wondered why every new “Star Wars” film suddenly has a disproportionate number of minorities and women (especially as military leaders), historical dramas always have some gay character being oppressed now, or why every other movie seems to be about liberating one’s homosexuality (usually from oppressive religion)?
Have you seen mothers (some even with sons) talk about how “the future is female” or how every streaming service has some version of a “girl power” category?
Ever think about how critical pedagogy is meant to liberate our children’s sexuality in schools or desensitize them to queerness?
Concerned about militant black power or feminism in the military? Do you think it strange that college teachers talk about killing white people? Heard about “racial justice” or “multiculturalism” in your church or how the Holy Spirit is a she?
These things are not mere passing fancies or done out of some misguided hope to correct some historical wrongs in order to help ensure equality of opportunity. All of these things emphasize group identities and power distribution or are meant to be attacks on old “power structures” and the traditional ways of western civilization.
Don’t believe me? Ask yourself: does getting married to the opposite sex, starting a family early, having more than two kids, worshipping in church every Sunday, revering the nation’s founders, or even avoiding crass music and movies seem cultural or countercultural? If a couple does all of that and also embraces traditional gender roles of men making the living and women raising the kids, they are basically considered weirdo bigots in the eyes of most people today.
Jeong is just the natural product of all of this. She is a normal, modern American raised with a progressive, public education that “insists” on “the plasticity of the child” to cure children of the traditional moral teachings of their parents.
In line with critical theory, she see everything that is a part of what was once considered the American mainstream as bad (“it sucks” she says) and as a product of power and group identity. Or as Victor Davis Hanson put it, her behavior “is consistent with the profile of an embittered but otherwise mostly undistinguished social justice warrior who had fueled her bias at Harvard Law School and honed its expression in the no-consequences world of left-wing blogs.”
What Does this Mean?
Up till now Michael Walsh has been a lonely voice willing to label what we see from the Left as Marxist, even Satanic. But, how can the rest of us continue to deny it now?
Worse still, think of the ramifications.
There are two conceptions of justice that are diametrically opposed. Republican government and liberty are based on the principle that “all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” From this, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” [emphasis added]. The statist religion of Marxism denies all of this. It denies God exists and, therefore, that men are created equal. Social justice, be it racial, economic, or whatever else, determines the just powers of government, not consent. The former results in limited government, the latter in totalitarianism. The former wants government to protect you; the latter wants government to control you.
The Left today will say that they are for true liberty and equality, but they do not mean it in the way our founders did or the way that most Americans still understand it. And the Left is banking on your misunderstanding of them. One of the first things they were sure to do in their long march through our institutions was to redefine the foundational words of “liberty” and “equality.” They had to. Their view of government begins with men being defined not as human beings, but as members of groups who have an unequal share of power. It ends with perfect conformity to the will of the State.
There are two warring conceptions of justice stemming from two distinct sets of principles. These two principles of government cannot coexist. This is why some NeverTrumpers know they must overtly bow to the Marxist gods as they take their side in the current controversies. As Lincoln emphasized, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.”
One might say that not all liberals are Marxists. Maybe so, but they have overtly and willingly aligned themselves with them. Even if one is charitable, much of the Left is, at best, only partly invested in this destructive and divisive political philosophy. Some comfort.
But I would go further. Until now the standard line is to assume most liberals are not Marxists. Given Sarah Jeong’s comfortable racism, perhaps we should assume the opposite.
This leads to some tough questions. If the Left does not care about consent, why would they care about persuading anyone? History shows that their statist religion justifies the use of force to make you obey, whether you want to or not. Remember, Marx called for the complete destruction of the bourgeoisie. So what do we do when a significant portion of our country, including many in powerful institutions, think this way?
We are already seeing them purging dissenting opinions and “doxxing” others to create fear in the way of Mao or Stalin. This changes the dynamic. The cold civil war may not stay cold, and talking might not be enough. Be warned: Marxism is in the mainstream.
Comments are closed.
