Peterson’s neo-marxism as Orwellian totalitarianism
JP’s neo-marxist critique is right and wrong at the same time. Blaming postmodernism right blaming French philosophers wrong. Blaming authoritarian mentality right blaming neo-marxists wrong. There is a correct assumption in the authoritarian left but this is not due to the French nor is it anything leftism genuinely stands for.
Picking on the neo-marxists can only be understood metaphorically. Any literal explanation fails to understand Marx at all. And yet it is his ideas that are weaponised to shut others down. A guise used to bolster their position. Many of them are not manipulative geniuses but ideological fools. Bandwagoning a noble cause in a forceful manner. Doing whatever it tales to ensure victory for the downtrodden. Minorities deserve to be treated equally and force is the sole way to ensure that will occur. It is not about bad acting and more about mishandled strength. Well intentioned with a spark of hope only if the dangers dissipate.
Their position is not original. Abolitionist and civil rights activists went beyond the pale to deride the slavish horror. Lincoln himself overwhelmed the South with his rule. FDR did the same with the new deal and Johnson with civil rights. This a step down with people taking initiative. Not waiting on the government to legislate and cultivating their own norms. Safe spaces are socially constructed exorcised shields. A firewall enchantment to suspend attacks. Overwhelming the narrative with preconceived norms. The use of power is in force relations. It is not institutional but relational. Silencing speech and diversity is a power grab that denies difference. The populace accepted custom is scarier than an out of control government. Government’s can be replaced, ideas not as easily.
Their model is a bottom up model. Put enough pressure on the public and officials and changes will be made. Gaining more people to their cause is the beginning to overpower elected officials. Either to back them into a corner or elect someone who fits their narrative. The ideology is laced with moral underpinnings. It is a messianic type vision. Young people an affect great change by coming together with a unified ideology. Silencing others opposing or ignoring their tragedy is avenging the underprivileged’s stock. Changes need to be made now. They must be saved. Victims cannot remain mercilessly distraught. Narrowly focused on this one goal with little concern who gets caught in the crossfire.
For all the good intentions, this is dangerous. It is these people who Peterson alludes. They share affinities with Marx and the revolutionary agenda. While there is more catcalling Marx than actual alignment, it is important that they are weaponising his ideas. Marx despised the state as a totalitarian episode but he did believe that the state, at least in the short run, is instrumental in bridging the gap by giving the people power. These coined marxists are short run looking. Long lasting consequences is irrelevant. Everyone needs to be included and loved. Changes need to be executed swiftly and efficiently. A revolutionary push instead of an evolutionary push. There is no time for waiting, it must be overcome immediately. This mindset is mindless. It is inconsequential eroding rights for the sake of another’s. Infringing on someone else’s for one’s own goal.
The pure irony is that these advocates are content with infringing on others for their goal. Since the infringed have enjoyed the benefits others haven’t, it is alright if they lose something precious. If they lose their rights so be it. If the downtrodden can gain an edge then it’s worthwhile and moral to do so. Making life as simple and isolated from the struggles of disagreement. Short term harm for long term success. Avoiding confrontation and argumentation maintains an innocence preceding any tribal division. Unsolicited concessions group in numbers. While the passivity of private affairs is ignored, it is the public proactive profundity that is problematic. Maligning people for their insolence. Deriding others' moral efforts. They can only be saved if they buy into the authoritarian jargon. They can be saved the embarrassment and online harassment from declining to accept.
This marks differently from the stateless neo-marxists. Yet it would be unfair to designate all state neo-marxists as college snowflakes. There are two sides of marxism: an authoritarian side and a libertarian side. The stalinists versus the the Trotskys. The failure of twentieth century communism was its tyrannical uniform methodology to ensure a brighter future. The disaster was less evil and more teleological. When Peterson says if you were there you would have done the same thing, he is probably right. Counting for the recent attacks on free will it is notable that there is a consistent authoritarian model proposed. Tyranny was the answer to change with little wiggle room. What Peterson leaves out is the other side of marxist philosophy. Using historical examples does not mitigate its potential.
Twentieth century marxism was a single kind of marxism. Just as democrats and republicans run the country differently so do autocrats and libertarians. The fuel for tyrannical hierarchy blended the old monarchy with the modern superman. The leaders from Stalin and Hitler believed they could usher in a prosperous energy unrivalled. When Peterson bashes students for arrogantly assuming they would bring the utopia or calls out contemporary marxism for what it is on campus he is not wrong. Those claiming that was not real socialism are the same individuals purporting authoritarian ideas to be superimposed on the public. They are pushing a narrative that keeps their hands clean. Only true libertarian marxists can claim that was not real socialism. Though it was real socialism, one corrupt version just as the southern democrats were capitalistic and democratic despite the clear inequality.
Socialism is not a one size fits all, it is a varied equation as is capitalism. Libertarians acknowledge the situation but do not believe state enforcement will bring about that change. Tyrannically imposing ideology on another is utterly undemocratic and a violation of human rights. Those upholding a more anarchistic outlook fundamentally wish to void society more along Marx’s initial intentions. This group needs to speak up. Brett and Brendan’s explanations coherently sum up the issue. The authoritarians have grabbed the marxist banner even if it’s a loose reading of his work. They are pushing Stalinism. While he was successful socially and economically, it came at a heavy price. Too heavy for any civilisation to bear. Pulling away from the government and solving situations through human connection is a far better outcome.
Libertarians in the shadow of these neo-stalinists (Lenin’s failures) are perpetuating the same narrow-minded dangerous ideas. The arguments they make for impeding on others for the sake of someone else is the same manipulating excuses Lenin used. Slogans like white men are racist, black lives matter among others purport a Leninist legacy of fragmented society for the benefit of all. It was this fragmentation that turned murderous for those standing in the way namely remembered as the white terror. The reds were also Jew terrorisers despite the aid of Jewish involvement in communist facilitation. When the Jews stood up to the reds coup they were slaughtered. Anyone who gets in the way of the uni movement’s goal is attacked and barraged. Scores of videos depict deranged emotionally upset individuals carrying out violence for their cause.
Replacing an authoritarian with new authoritarian was a sweet transition. From Tsarist Russia to Stalinist Russia. The same goes for the uni students who speak to power are just fighting to be in power. Replacing one tyrant with another. There is a misnomer of shutting up those who have historically had power (though a very unfair characterisation—most men were poor and had little power). Giving people power to reign while silencing and marginalising others for a taste of their own medicine is quite disastrous. Propping up others at the “privileged” expense is dubious and only furthers the cycle. Revenge is tormenting and eternal. I hurt you, you hurt me then I retaliate and then you retaliate. Yet what they’re doing is slamming you for your granddad’s sins who most probably was living abroad as a peasant in eastern Europe. They are punishing the population for a bygone generation with little linkage to the past or present.
Despite the prevailing polarisation, it is necessary that libertarians stand against their authoritarian counterparts. Authoritarianism is the failure of the twentieth century. The libertarians must reclaim their marxist truth. They cannot be bulldozed by these individuals. These “bad actors” who are maligning genuine marxism are establishing an unbalanced future. Using the marxist ideology as a stepping stone to a revolutionary perspective. This must be halted by those who are their side. Do not let others torch your position with grumbling derangement. The left will stop eating itself when lefties stand up against them. When lefties distance themselves from them. Will the true marxists please stand up.
No comments:
Post a Comment