Why are Marxists destroying each other?

Letters from O'Brien #29

Dear Mr Smith,

I would like to write to you today about a particular civil war within the political Left. Specifically, I have noticed a strange trend in which modern ‘liberal’ (‘new’ New Left) socialists and Marxists have begun attacking the Classical (or Vulgar) Marxists, who’s primary concern is class solidarity and the raising of Marx’s ‘Class Consciousness’. But why?

To begin with, such occurrences are not unheard of. I believe they are practically guaranteed within the political Left. In keeping with socialist tradition, the various factions and political ideologies are essentially at each others throats perhaps more than they are at the throats of their enemies.

CLASS vs RACE

The Classical Marxists have taken this attack as proof that the CIA (and by extension the ‘capitalist monopoly’) have infiltrated Leftist communities in order to produce a vanguard force who will defend the capitalist system and its interests against a true Communist revolution. The Classical Marxists - many of whom, dare I admit, are rather intelligent people - are somewhat correct in their analysis of the situation, but not entirely. Alphabet agencies may very well be manipulating the way the public thinks in order to create a ‘vanguard’, however this is not a byproduct of the capitalist system, nor the ‘capitalist monopolies’, but rather the current evolution of Utopian socialism self-replicating through the systems it has infected (the CIA, courts, banks, state apparatus, etc.). This should be self-evident if one were to read about the Communist infiltration of the OSS (and by extension the CIA), US state and federal government, and so on. There is no doubt (in fact, there is ample proof from the 1950s) that the Soviet Union had effectively infiltrated every sector of the American government and the superstructure the surrounds it, beginning in the 1930s and yielding incredible results by the 1950s (the demonisation of McCarthyism) into the 1960s (the student movements emerging off the back of the Civil Rights movement, resulting in the Counter Culture).

By this point, the Soviets were well versed in promoting radical forms of utopianism which would inevitably result in social unrest and possibly revolution. This had been the goal since the early 1920s, when Classical Marxism was shown to be unattractive, and the focus on Class Consciousness was not having the desired effect on the incredibly prosperous capitalist societies of the west. Lenin (among many others) were at a loss as to why the International Workers Revolution never occurred, and turned to the public intellectuals to come up with an answer. That answer was first extrapolated by Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukacs, and Willi Munzenberg, who highlighted that revolution could only be achieved in the west through the active worsening of society (demoralisation) and the brainwashing of several generations of youth into believing that they were born into - essentially - a Gnostic prison world, which can only be overcome through the destruction and rebuilding of society. This idea was then advanced by the Critical Theorists, particularly Max Horkheimer and soon thereafter Herbert Marcuse, who explicitly stated that the west is too good, and thus man has to be convinced that his own happiness is nothing more than an illusion to keep him in servitude to the capitalist slave masters.

By the 1990s, neo-Marxist ideology had taken an interesting new form, widely known as ‘Intersectionality’. Emerging in large part during the 1980s, Intersectionality is almost entirely the work of the Critical Theorists, one of whom (Herbert Marcuse) had a profound impact on America’s ‘New Left’ movement, which can be (either directly or indirectly) linked to modern neoliberalism.

Intersectionality was surprising, and rather off-putting, to many earlier Marxists, including many Critical Theorists themselves, as it attempted to merge the socialist ideas espoused by the Marxist tradition with postmodern Theory. This merging was done partially because it allowed the public intellectuals behind it to promote a new idea untainted by past failures, but also because it allowed for the integration of a radical subjectivist worldview which had initially been presented by thinkers such as Jean Paul Sartre. This meant that society - through a modernised form of Marx’s Conflict Theory - could be seen as many stratified and fragmented groups, each of which had varying and overlapping degrees of ‘oppression’. This could be seen as ongoing or historical oppression. Historical oppression - by the way - is a term used to highlight the ‘inherent contradictions’ within a society, regardless of how long ago it occurred, under what circumstances, or whether the society has learned and moved on from such mistakes. All past mistakes (so long as they are beneficial to the Critical idea) are still relevant, be it to certain people groups, cultures, genders, etc. The point is not to build a better society at all, but to stratify society into warring factions seeking revolution.

Since the ‘predominant’ oppressor can be shifted with the narrative, an intersectional framework also allows those in power to neutralise any groups they dislike, and justify it under the claim of intersectional oppression. This is not unique to intersectionality, as the Soviets also found ways of eliminating opponents by digging up a relevant piece of information (lets say a Soviet politician had once known a Kulak land owner) no matter how obscure, and highlighting the inherent oppression found within. This is the inevitable outcome of this way of thinking, and it is why the feminist movement was so quickly uprooted by the equal marriage movement, which was then uprooted by the trans movement, with each successive movement throwing the previous one into the fire as the ideology is pushed forward. As Hegel said; “history uses people and then discards them”.

On a side note, the postmodernists often claimed that they were not affiliated with socialism, since postmodernism is ‘by definition’ an anti-ideology. However, read practically any book on the subject and it will become obvious that the postmodern beliefs are almost always left-leaning in their philosophy. Almost all well known postmodern thinkers also happened to come from socialist backgrounds. One could go on if they were to do the research, but it is possible that postmodernism emerged as an iteration of Marxist thought, adapted to an audience who had ‘given up’ on the classical ideas of social revolution.

With this in mind, it is clearly the case that the same underlying motive that lead to the Russian October Revolution is behind such things as race-based Marxism. The difference is that class conflict - as Herbert Marcuse admitted - was unlikely to occur in western capitalist societies thanks to the sheer material success and luxury that capitalist nations afforded their citizens. Thus, the neo-Marxist thinkers had to turn to more culturally pressing issues which could be superimposed over the success of the free market, such as race relations or climate. In both cases, the results have been outstanding, with educational institutions, governments, and large corporations bowing to it. This has been a wake up call to many on the ideological left who previously aligned themselves with class-based Marxism (many of whom have renounced leftism all together), as political groups such as the UK’s Labour Party proudly announce crackdowns on workers unions, socialist party leaders across the world disregard the working class in favour of race ideology, and so forth.

COMPETING IDEAS

As I mentioned earlier, the infighting between leftist groups is not only ‘common’, it is practically guaranteed (based off of historical precedent). The closer an ideology is, the more likely it is to compete violently with its counterpart. This is why 1920s Germany saw much hostility between the Socialists (SPD) and the Communists (KPD) who both viewed each other as ‘heretical’.

Likewise, when arming the French Resistance, US and British intelligence began withholding shipments after discovering that the weapons were rarely being used against the occupying Nazis, but rather by competing French socialist groups. This meant massive changes had to be made for the French resistance to pose any real threat.

Even then, the idea of Communists and socialists fighting the Nazis was in essence another example of the same ideological competition. They were sister ideologies with National Socialism, and as such (despite all of these collectivist groups universally claiming western democracy as their primary enemy) exhausted all of their resources fighting each other. Why? Because they are more competing than contrasting ideologies. They see each other as heretical interpretations of the same core idea (socialism). Add to this the fact that the societies they are supposedly unified in fighting against are usually passive in their response, then it is only natural that fighting break out amongst the radicals.

As mentioned previously, this shift can also happen within the party itself. In fact it is almost inevitable that it will, due to the shifting of players and the obsession with the accumulation of power. Ideas are reordered in terms of newfound importance, and those who uphold the old must adapt or be cast out.

To restate, this exact thing happened with the radical feminists - perhaps the most pronounced of the ‘useful idiots’ in recent memory. The movement was nothing short of a socialist revolutionary tool made to destroy the traditional male/female roles, decreasing the perceived importance of family (and increase the role of the state) to fundamentally destabilize the culture. After roughly a decade of this third-wave feminism, many unhappy, disenfranchised women in their midlife began voicing discontent with the state and with feminism. This was quickly crushed, as the Marxist idea moved on to the trans issue, done in such a way as to both nullify feminism, and demonize those who still upheld it. This mirrors the actions of Stalin, who so quickly took it upon himself to track down and execute the Bolshevik Revolutionaries, who were no longer needed.

THE REALIZATION

It is not surprising that the majority of Classical Marxists I have seen are unwilling to sway in their ideological claims, but they should, because the same ideology they bow to is responsible for the cultural rot that is taking place today. Nevertheless, I hope that an awakening will occur amongst these Marxists, and a retreat from these destructive collectivist ideologies. I have seen some glimmers of hope. Those who have renounced their Marxist faith are usually well versed in the ideological subtleties taking place around them, and an influx of such people would almost certainly lead to a strengthened resistance against the current tyrannical ideas emerging.

This, of course, only comes with humility, and the willingness to admit that the ideas of social liberation through revolution may not be the best idea. In fact it comes with the admittance that it is probably the worst outcome. Regardless, this highlights the necessity to continue speaking the truth, be it to people that agree or disagree. If one continues to merely speak the truth, then the truth continues on.

Thank you again Mr Smith for your time and attention.

Yours sincerely

O’Brien

From the archive:

Marx's Anti-Reality