Why Leftist violence goes unpunished

Letters from O'Brien #12

Dear Mr Smith,

I do hope you are well. I’ve more thoughts for you to post if you feel so inclined. I’ve been reading more on on the current iterations of Marxism and it has me stirred up!

So I’ve been digging into the origins of our current socialist problems and have come across one of the reasons (or perhaps THE reason) that riots, violence, destruction, and general terrible behaviour from the American ‘New Left’ often goes unpunished, unnoticed, or unreported. Although I have always been convinced that key people in the west (in media, tech, and most importantly government) have an allegiance to the Marxist faith, it was not until recently that I discovered this interesting idea from socialist literature.

I hope to keep this letter short - let’s see how we go...

NEO MARXISM AND THE NEW LEFT

It goes without saying that in order to understand our current socialist problem, one must be aware of Critical Theory, as I’ve written to you a number of times before. It is a school of thought that emerged out of the Frankfurt School in the 1930s. To cut a long story short, Critical Theory is practically an elaborated form of Marxism adapted to our modern time for more effectiveness. Despite its name, it is not a ‘theory’, but rather praxis, since it must be implemented physically in order to make sense.

Many people contributed to its creation, but names of importance include Theodore Adorno, Max Hockheimer, and Herbert Marcuse. Initially inspired by Hegel and Marx, the idea of Critical Theory was an attempt at reorienting Marxism into something which could be applied to modern society where classical ‘vulgar’ Marxism had fallen short. In 1933 - as the Nazis seized power - the Frankfurt School was shut down, and the thinkers relocated the America. This is important to understand, as Critical Theory changed following World War II.

This was a crucial moment, as it has impacted modern Marxism (neo-Marxism) ever since. In 1947, Hockheimer published ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’. He now believed - as did his contemporaries - that Marx was wrong on a crucial point; capitalism would not inevitably lead to socialism, but could lead to fascism instead. Thus, the theory was changed to include the belief that capitalism WILL lead to fascism, unless it is directed into revolution, destroying the existing society and creating a socialist system. In this way, Critical Theory - unlike Classical Marxism - is ‘under the pressure of time’, if you like, since it is paranoid by an abstract and unfounded belief that Nazis and Fascists will soon take power unless stopped.

With that understanding, I should also point out that following Hockheimer’s book, Marcuse would then add another element to Critical Theory; that society creates its own self-serving consciousness, which ultimately limits peoples ability to comprehend anything outside of the existing society. Therefor, it is useless to think about the ‘utopia’ in specifics, plan for the utopia, or even need to comprehend why you are in revolt. All that matters - by Marcuse’s logic - is understanding that you must throw off you chains and destroy the oppressive society.

In my opinion, this ridiculous notion holds no weight, but is useful in hiding the fact that Marcuse - like practically all other socialist thinkers - had no idea what they would do if the revolution actually occurred. It was a smart way of hiding the reality of the inevitable dictatorship.

This is where Critical Theory becomes relevant to today’s issues. Marcuse admitted that capitalism works, and works so well that no one is stupid enough to revolt against it. He admitted that a new method must be used to organise the revolutionary class. This included raising a ‘critical consciousness’ (since a class consciousness would no longer work; the working class had a great standard of living), which ultimately means to ‘critique’ society according to Marcuse’s rules. Marcuse viewed practically everything negatively, as he believed every element of western culture propagated the oppressive system. Thus, by raising a ‘critical consciousness’, those who utilise it would see everything that is good as evil. This includes such absurdities as the belief that happiness is ‘false’, made to keep you subservient to the materialist commodity-based capitalist system. It couldn’t get more Orwellian.

Marcuse also attempted to integrate Freud into his work, in an attempt to create a ‘biological’ precondition to revolution. This includes the belief that ‘Eros’ is repressed under current society by frameworks such as morality and social acceptability, and these things must be broken off. If it sounds similar to post-structuralist Postmodern ideas, that’s because it is; Critical Theory would slowly morph with it, in an attempt to use post-modern views on subjectivity as justification for the overturning of society. Many postmodern thinkers were Marxists to begin with, so this was somewhat inevitable.

The justification of violence and oppression by today’s left wing against their ‘enemies’ - stems from all of these previously mentioned beliefs.

REPRESSIVE TOLERANCE

The Critical Theorists knew that people would fight back against the advances of their ideology. To justify this, Marcuse elaborated on the idea of ‘repressive tolerance’. Since - by his logic - the revolutionary class was fighting against the hypothetical ‘fascists’ and thus for the betterment of mankind, any use of force or suppression was justified. In contrast, anything from the ‘right’ (which mean anything not inline with his radical leftist ideals) is evidence of fascism, or at least a sign that people - particularly conservatives - were holding on to the ‘existing system’. In this manner any move by ‘the right’ to fight back, or even defend themselves is condemned.

Critical Theorists have since shown a particular dislike for conservatism more than radical right wing extremism, since conservatism holds onto the existing societies core elements. They ultimately dislikes them because they do not want to destroy the world. Marcuse calls for “censorship, even pre-censorship” and the banning of “words and images that feed this consciousness”. That is to say, Marcuse calls for a system of oppression using violence, subversion, and censorship to… stop fascism.

The hope of the Critical Theorists - and more broadly most neo-Marxists - was that these ideas would be held by those in power, and thus the ‘system’ would not fight for its own survival. This is the so called “slow march through the institutions” initially originating from Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, who believed that educators and policy makers must be subverted so that the system collapses in on itself.

IN ACTION

This belief has actually manifested itself in reality before, and it occurs more often than one may think. In 2020 alone, riots and violent protests, discrimination, suppression, and other tools of oppression were put to use in advancing neo-Marxist ideas. Critical Race Theory and Whiteness Studies (both offshoots of Critical Theory) were forced into various educational institutions. Equity policies and quotas were enacted in the employment process. The media, the corporate world, and the government ignored or justified these assaults on the west, and those who disagreed were labelled as racist, sexist, etc. etc.

We need only look to Mao Tse-tung and his murderous Cultural Revolution to see just what such a ‘critical consciousness’ would look like on a grand scale. Although it is uncertain as to how much Mao was influenced by Critical Theory, he achieved what Marcuse had envisioned, and on a tremendous scale.

Perhaps the most relevant and graphic - given its recent 33rd year anniversary - is the Tienanmen Square Massacre in China. The brutal repression (through killing and arrests) of Chinese students advocating for freedom and liberty came just over a decade after Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Despite the fact that both were primarily student movements, the key difference was ideology. Just as Marcuse had envisioned, any idea (such as liberty and freedom from communism) would be violently destroyed and wiped from memory. By Marcuse’s logic, Mao’s revolution and the violence that went along with it was ‘acceptable’, since its revolutionary nature ‘stopped’ fascism from arising by destroying the previous society. The Tienanmen Square protest, however, was a ‘right wing’ (or more accurately, not ultra-left Maoist communist) show of power, and therefor must be repressed forcefully to stop the reemergence of freedom, opening the supposed doors to ‘fascism’.

The Tienanmen Square massacre is a bleak reminder of what happens once the Marxist idea has taken a hold of society. America seems to be on the same track, despite peoples best efforts to convince themselves that everything is OK. Unlike China, Russia, Eastern Europe, South America, and so forth, the United States and western Europe (particularly France) has not suffered in the past under a communist dictatorship, and thus has no real understanding of just how bad it could get. Hence, they are particularly open to these so called ‘intellectual endeavours’ such as studying Marxism and Postmodern thought in college.

Ultimately, I believe these ideas are ‘unnatural’. Not just in an abstract sense, but in a literal and observable sense. If they are presented as they truly are, an overwhelming majority of people will reject them. As Soviet-era dissident Igor Shafarevich highlighted in his study of socialist ideas across human history, every attempt at implementing idea - no matter the time period or people group - has ended in destruction. Likewise, he points out that - if seen through to its ‘proper’ and ‘uncorrupted’ end - socialism will ultimately lead to the extinction of humanity, as its core principles are quite literally ‘anti-human’.

Sorry Mr Smith, this was a bit longer than I expected, but nevertheless I feel that it was necessary to express a few key ideas that give us more clarity for what is happening today. I will finish up by saying that it is essential to continue standing against these ideas. I believe an overwhelming majority of people will reject these socialist ideas, but first they must be made aware of them. We need to keep speaking, writing, debating – keeping the dialogue alive in the town square, so to speak. Understanding that those in support of Critical Theory will label anything one does to defend himself as ‘evil’ is the first step in realising that one must stand his ground. Giving into their demands will not make it easier, since their demand will never end until the current society is completely and absolutely destroyed. Standing against these ideologies is not ‘wrong’, it is necessary.

Sincerely yours,

O’Brien