💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bob-black-left-rites.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:54:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Left Rites
Author: Bob Black
Date: 1982
Language: en
Topics: leftism
Source: Retrieved on October 5th, 2009 from http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/leftrites.html

Bob Black

Left Rites

In astronomy, “revolution” refers to a return to the same place. For the

left it seems to mean about the same. Leftism is literally reactionary.

Just as generals prepare to fight the last war, leftists incite the last

revolution. They welcome it because they know it failed. They’re

vanguardists because they’re always behind the times. Like all leaders,

leftists are least obnoxious when following their following, but in

certain crises they step to the fore to make the system work. If the

left/right metaphor has any meaning, it can only be that the left is to

the left of the same thing the right is to the right of. But what if

revolution means stepping out of line?

If there were no right, the left would have to invent it — and it often

has. (Examples: Calculated hysteria over Nazis and KKK which awards

these wimpy slugs the notoriety they need; or lowest-common-denunciation

of the Moral Majority obviating unmannerly attacks on the real sources

of moralist tyranny — the family, religion in general, and the

work-ethic espoused by leftists and Christians alike.) The right

likewise needs the left: its operational definition is always

anti-communism, variously drecked-out. Thus left and right presuppose

and recreate each other.

One bad thing about bad times is that they make opposition too easy, as

(for instance) the current economic crisis gets shoehorned into archaic

Marxist, populist or syndicalist categories. The left thereby positions

itself to fulfill its historic role as reformer of those incidental

(albeit agonizing) evils which, properly attended to, conceal the

system’s essential inequities: hierarchy, moralism, bureaucracy,

wage-labor, monogamy, government, money. (How can Marxism ever be more

than capital’s most sophisticated way of thinking about itself?)

Consider the acknowledged epicenter of the current crisis: work.

Unemployment is a bad thing. But it doesn’t follow, outside of

righto-leftist dogma, that employment is a good thing. It isn’t. The

“right to work,” arguably an appropriate slogan in 1848, is obsolete in

1982. People don’t need work. What we need is satisfaction of

subsistence requirements, on the one hand, and opportunities for

creative, convivial, educative, diverse, passionate activity on the

other. Twenty years ago the Goodman brothers guessed that 5% of the

labor then expended would meet minimum survival needs, a figure which

must be lower today; obviously entire so-called industries serve nothing

but the predatory purposes of commerce and coercion. That’s an ample

infrastructure to play with in creating a world of freedom, community

and pleasure where “production” of use-values is “consumption” of free

gratifying activity. Transforming work into play is a project for a

proletariat that refuses that condition, not for leftists left with

nothing to lead.

Pragmatism, as is obvious from a glance at its works, is a delusive

snare. Utopia is sheer common sense. The choice between “full

employment” and unemployment — the choice that left and right

collaborate to confine us to — is the choice between the Gulag and the

gutter. No wonder that after all these years a stifled and suffering

populace is weary of the democratic lie. There are less and less people

who want to work, even among those who rightly fear unemployment, and

more and more people who want to work wonders. By all means let’s

agitate for handouts, tax cuts, freebies, bread and circuses — why not

bite the hand that feeds you? the flavor is excellent — but without

illusions.

The (sur)rational kernel of truth in the mystical Marxist shell is this:

the “working class” is the legendary “revolutionary agent”: but only if,

by not working, it abolishes class. Perennial “organizers,” leftists

don’t understand that the workers have already been definitively

“organized” by, and can only be organized for — their bosses. “Activism”

is idiocy if it enriches and empowers our enemies. Leftism, that

parasite for sore l’s, dreads the outbreak of a Wilhelm Reichstag fire

which will consume its parties and unions along with the corporations

and armies and churches currently controlled by its ostensible opposite.

Nowadays you have to be odd to get even. Greylife leftism, with its

checklists of obligatory antagonisms (to this-ism, that-ism and the

other-ism: everything but leftism) is devoid of all humor and

imagination: hence it can stage only coups, not revolutions, which

change lies but not life. But the urge to create is also a destructive

urge. One more effort, leftists, if you would be revolutionaries! If

you’re not revolting against work, you’re working against revolt.