cross-posted from: https://hexbear.net/post/7373861
This might be a silly question, so I want to preface it with an apology in advance and if you think there is a better place to ask please let me know.
I’ve come across a large number of self-described “anarchists” or “non-communist leftists,” or the like, mostly online,thanks to where I live (谢天谢地). But whenever you look a bit closer, the pattern is the same: underneath the aesthetics and language, it’s just liberalism. Pro-NATO positions, contempt toward the global periphery, and extremely reactionary responses when imperialism or capitalism are seriously questioned.
So my question is: Is adopting these leftist identities a kind of defensive mechanism (an attempt to distance themselves from the real-world damage caused by liberal ideology) or am I misunderstanding what’s actually going on?
Who Paid the Pipers of Western Marxism goes in-depth into this.
There’s an entire industry of ideological production to create non-revolutionary “Marxists” that reject the contributions of non-Western Marxist theorists and revolutionaries. Their job, which has been largely successful, is to recuperate Marxism into a form that is class collaborationist, aligned with Western hegemony, and (most importantly!) aligned against actually existing socialism.
They’re not just online here in the West. They’re respected in academia, they’re on TV, and they’re always publishing works.
I just got my copy of this book. I love how like 10% of each page is citations.
Some are baby leftists grappling with decades of propaganda.
Some are opportunists trying to alter the definition of words and dictate discourse so they can hijack popular socialist rhetoric for anti-socialist goals.
Some are genuinely confused and haven’t fully grasped the contradictions of liberalism; believing the liberalism they see all around them is in fact a distortion or corruption of liberalism rather than actual liberalism and so are ideologically liberal while espousing apparent anti-liberalism because they don’t understand that the consequences of their ideals when put into practice results in the very system they claim to oppose.
The “crony capitalism is the problem, not capitalism” crowd
and the “its just Neo-liberalism” people too
I think most think they are either further left than they actually are or just don’t understand the label.
I think this just happens when they see problems with the current system (a natural consequence of living in capitalist society) but still dogmatically support it. Anarchism and “non-communist leftism” and “progressive” liberalism are useful to the capitalist state because they allow people to question and oppose what’s happening in our society but still come to the conclusion that almost nothing can be done. It’s not a big leap for people to say that imperialism is bad or that people’s basic needs should be met, but it takes a lot for masses of people to turn against ruling class ideology, so it’s expected that these kinds of leftist/liberal identities would be common in a capitalist society.
