💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › leftism-does-not-exist.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:00:38. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2023-03-20)

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

Title: Leftism Does Not Exist
Author: Levi Atan
Date: 10/24/21
Language: en
Topics: Leftism, anti-left, anarchy, Marxism, liberalism, identity politics, anti-identity, gender abolition, Gender Nihilism, religion, anti-religion
Source: Retrieved on 10/31/21 from tangerine-rhino-74zt.squarespace.com

Levi Atan

Leftism Does Not Exist

“I think the question is not about ‘communists’ and ‘individualists’,

but rather about anarchists and non-anarchists.”

— Errico Malatesta (1924)

“I don’t want and I don’t grant solidarity, because I am convinced that

it is a new chain, and because I believe with Ibsen that the one who is

most alone is strongest.”

— Renzo Novatore (1920)

“Amicus meus, inimicus inimici mei.”

— some absolute fucking moron who’s been proved wrong by history time

and time again

we’ve all seen that bullshit political compass. we’ve also all seen the

claims from some unoriginal Stirnerite drones that “Leftism is a spook”,

but that analysis doesn’t cut deep enough. Stirner’s “spooks” are

abstract ideas, social constructs that influence human behavior, but

have no real existence outside the imagination of the people in their

thrall, but leftism does not even have that. spooks, at least, exist in

the minds of their slaves; The State exists in the minds of the

patriots, God lives in the imaginations of the faithful, and The System™

is brought to life in the actions of those who make it up, but there is

no collective conception of Leftism for self-styled “leftists” to

believe in, and there likely never has been.

to be clear, The Right doesn’t exist any more than The Left does—that

much should be obvious, since one side of a spectrum will be defined as

the antithesis of the other, and if one side doesn’t exist, neither can

its opposite—but i chose to focus primarily on “leftism” here because of

the term’s central position in many debates among anarchists and others,

but my refutation of the concept of leftism would be more accurately

seen as an opposition to the notion of directional left/right politics

in general. unfortunately, discussions of leftism always seem to focus

on whether a particular ideology fits within the Leftist framework,

never whether such a framework exists at all.

“Anarchists are having an identity crisis. Are they still, or are they

only, the left wing of the left wing? Or are they something more or even

something else?”

— Bob Black (2009)

this urge to distance anarchism, or liberalism, or any other supposedly

left-leaning ideology from the official trademarked Left aims too low in

its critique.

of course the word “Leftism” exists, that much is self-evident, but the

word is an empty signifier. a signifier without a signified. the purpose

of language is to communicate, and words are defined collectively,

because without a general consensus on the meaning of a word, the word

communicates nothing, and therefore has no meaning. that’s the problem

with “leftism”. the word has never had a clear shared definition. “the

left” can only be defined in relation to other floating signifiers, like

“socialism”.

“Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether...What does socialism

really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then

they have their socialism.”

— Adolf Hitler (quoted by Henry A. Turner, 1985)

The “Socialism” Problem

“No sign makes sense on its own but only in relation to other signs.

Both signifier and signified are purely relational entities. This notion

can be hard to understand since we may feel that an individual word such

as ‘tree’ does have some meaning for us, but Saussure’s argument is that

its meaning depends on its relation to other words within the system

(such as ‘bush’).”

— Daniel Chandler (2001)

Leftism could be said to be any system with socialist tendencies, but

then our task is to uncover what “socialism” is, and that word is

equally hollow. marxists, egoists, syndicalists, nazis, and liberals

have all used the word “socialist” for their politics, talking about

drastically different, and mutually exclusive systems and movements.

Leftism’s connection to “Socialism” does nothing to illuminate any

distinct quality of The Left.

unlike easily defined terms like “anarchism”, and words with clear

origins like “marxism” and “fascism”, “socialism” is a word that came

into use organically, without a particular movement or manifesto

famously introducing the term, or an obvious etymology tying it to a

singular clear meaning (the way “anarchy” is derived from two Greek

words literally translating to “without ruler”, for instance). and

people use the word “socialism” to mean everything from workers’

collective empowerment and solidarity, to totalitarian nationalism, to

progressive liberalism or a welfare state.

the contradictory definitions of “socialism” are likely best illustrated

by the fact that Max Stirner had to go out of his way, in Stirner’s

Critics, to explain that the way he was using the word in previous works

was entirely different from how many readers interpreted it, stating

that his egoism was “not against socialists, but against sacred

socialists”. this distinction between “socialism” and “sacred socialism”

was necessary, because when Stirner argued against what he called

socialism, he envisioned Marxian tendencies in which “socialists” upheld

the Community or the Proletarian Class, or the State above themselves,

but his critiques confused some readers who had a much more anarchic or

egoistic interpretation of “socialism” more akin to Stirner’s own

concept of a “union of egoists”.

these different conceptions of socialism—as illustrated by Stirner’s

philosophy being both socialist and anti-socialist—went on to form the

foundations of not only distinct and oppositional, but entirely

antithetical and mutually exclusive philosophies, movements, systems,

and organizations, from the CCCP to the CNT (for example), which share

precisely nothing in common.

Dictionaries

“When you ask for definitions, it matters a lot who you’re asking.”

— MatPat (2020)

extensive experimentation on the part of myself and collaborators has

shown that expressing the meaninglessness of the word “leftism” on

social media will almost certainly and immediately lead to multiple

users (the same ones who will sarcastically post this essay on facebook

with New Developments in Horseshoe Theory tagged as the headline)

condescendingly linking to (or posting screenshots of) both the google

definition, and the wikipedia entry for the word (or related entries,

like “The Left” and “Leftist politics”), as if the thought to look the

word up simply hadn’t occurred to the person challenging the existence

of a definition. so those reference sites seem like an appropriate place

to start in our attempt to define the concept.

google defines leftism as “the political views or policies of the left”,

and “the left” as “a group or party favoring liberal, socialist, or

radical views.” i’ve already addressed the problem with defining leftism

through its connection to socialism, but the inclusion of liberalism and

“radical views”, which includes anything contrary to the status quo,

only exacerbates the issue. google’s “definition” does nothing to define

the word.

according to Wikipedia (at the time this essay is being written),

“Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often

in opposition to social hierarchy.”...but that’s just anarchism…not to

mention the redundancy of claiming that leftism “often” opposes

hierarchy, after stating that its aim is equality, which means a lack of

hierarchy. obviously no one thinks “leftism” is synonymous with

“anarchism”, otherwise we’d just use the term “anarchism”, and marxists,

liberals, and any other authoritarians would be automatically excluded

from The Left, as they are from this definition of it (since neither

marxists nor liberals “support social equality and egalitarianism”). so

we need to look elsewhere if we hope to find a usable definition of

leftism.

note: when i say “marxism” in this essay, i’m talking about

authoritarian marxist ideologies, from the Manifesto to maoism to

national bolshevism, not post-marxist ideologies like autonomism and

communization theory. since the primary point of contention between

marxists and anarchists has always been the topic of the seizure or

destruction of state power, broadly speaking, i would sooner group

non-authoritarian marxist positions in with anarchism than marxism, tho

this is sure to irritate many readers, and i don’t want to imply that

i’m equating post-marxism to anarchism; there is simply a greater gap

between classical marxism and something like communization, than between

communization theory and anarchism.

as we saw above, leftism is associated with liberalism commonly enough

that google includes liberal ideology in its definition of The Left

(despite very loud and persistent objections from many marxists and

anarchists). it’s well known that the definition of “liberal” has

changed drastically over time, flipping to the opposite position, in

regards to mainstream American politics, but precisely when this change

took place is a bit fuzzy. some time between the turn of the 20^(th)

century and the 1920s, the major American political parties had fully

swapped places after a gradual process of each party amending particular

positions one after the other (each trying to appeal to the other’s

voting demographic), ultimately resulting in the Electoral Parties of

Theseus running America.

the complete reversal of American “liberal” and “conservative” positions

in the early 1900s makes the fact that Mussolini associated “liberalism”

(note: he didn’t specify American liberalism, just liberalism) with the

left in the 1930s particularly interesting, since he must have been

either basing his idea of liberalism on a relatively new phenomenon in

America, ignoring the much more extensive contradictory history of the

term in the States and elsewhere, or—more likely—he was invoking a more

global sense of liberalism, which conflicts with the notion of American

liberalism leaning left and conservatism leaning right, since classical

liberalism is more akin to American conservatism. that contradiction,

however, is in line with Mussolini’s comments, defining “the right” as

the collectivist position, juxtaposed against “liberalism”, which he

linked to individualism.

“Granted that the 19^(th) century was the century of socialism,

liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20^(th) century must

also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political

doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the

century of authority, a century tending to the ‘right’, a Fascist

century. If the 19^(th) century were the century of the individual

(liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is

the ‘collective’ century, and therefore the century of the State.”

— Benito Mussolini (1932)

it’s almost hard to believe he used the word “socialism” to mean the

antithesis of collectivism, but that just further illuminates the

meaninglessness of that word. Mussolini seemed to associate free market

capitalism with the left, and what modern Americans think of as

“liberalism” with the right. as idiosyncratic as that may seem, he may

have come to associate individualist ideologies with the left due to

Marx’s comments on individuality.

“In bourgeois society capital is independent and has individuality,

while the living person is dependent and has no individuality.”

— Karl Marx (1848)

but if the right is collectivist, what the hell are libertarians and

objectivists? was Herbert Hoover a leftist due to his “rugged

individualism”? is QAnon the modern face of collectivism? and where is

the individualism in the politics of Nicolás Maduro or Kim Jong-un? how

does individualism flourish under a marxist regime with control over the

media, land and resources, production and distribution of goods? if

everyone grows up watching the same state-sanctioned TV, listening to

the same songs and news on the state-controlled radio, with access to

the same limited products from the state-regulated shops, generally

experiencing life as part of the same hegemonic culture cultivated by

the state, and working similar hours at state-mandated jobs...where does

individuality come into play? not to mention the requisite

state-approved sexual orientation in many countries associated with the

Left—perhaps a holdover from Marx’s own explicit homophobia.

State Capitalism

“My purpose is to compare Communism with its application in Soviet

Russia, but on closer examination I find it an impossible task. As a

matter of fact, there is no Communism in the U.S.S.R. Not a single

Communist principle, not a single item of its teaching is being applied

by the Communist party there.

To some this statement may appear as entirely false; others may think it

vastly exaggerated. Yet I feel sure that an objective examination of

conditions in present-day Russia will convince the unprejudiced reader

that I speak with entire truth.”

— Emma Goldman (1935)

Goldman wrote an excellent essay—There is No Communism in

Russia—contrasting the Soviet system to communism, and arguing that what

Lenin established and Stalin maintained was not communism at all, but

state capitalism. marxists often argue that Stalin was not a true

marxist, but an opportunist who used a twisted interpretation of marxism

to manipulate the masses and take power for himself. the problem with

that argument is that much of what Stalin did, for which he’s criticized

today, comes directly from Marx’s own writings.

“The Stalinist machines spent decades producing a version of ‘Marxism’

that met their own institutional needs. The theory of international

working class revolution was rewritten to meet the needs of nationalist

politicians, tyrannical factory managers and military generals.

[...] Turning on their erstwhile allies, they launched a violent

campaign to take charge of the Russian economy. Destroying traditional

peasant life, assuming total control over agricultural and factory

production and wiping out all political opposition, Stalin’s group

transformed themselves into unchallenged rulers of a totalitarian

system.

[...] Now ‘Stalinism’ meant something else: a particular way to organise

the exploitation and oppression of the working class, with a one-party

state in total control of the economic system, ruling through a

combination of terroristic intimidation and ‘Marxist’ ideology.”

— Daniel Taylor writing for Redflag (2019)

“We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the

working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling

class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree,

all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of

production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised

as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as

rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of

despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of

bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear

economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the

movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old

social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising

the mode of production.”

— Karl Marx (1848)

what Stalin did is precisely what Marx called for. marxism demanded a

totalitarian state in full control of the political and economic spheres

from its outset. as Goldman and others have pointed out, this isn’t the

abolition of capitalism, it’s the seizure of capital from entrepreneurs

and corporations by the state, reorganizing the economic system from

market capitalism to state capitalism.

Leftism as Fascism

“Fascism is the other face of socialism.

Both of them are bodies without minds.”

— Renzo Novatore (1924)

marxism is atheistic proto-fascism. to some this statement may appear as

entirely false; others may think it vastly exaggerated. yet i feel sure

that an objective examination of the policies and practices prescribed

by Marx and Engels will convince the unprejudiced reader that i speak

with entire truth.

“Russia must be placed first among the new totalitarian states. It was

the first to adopt the new state principle. It went furthest in its

application. It was the first to establish a constitutional

dictatorship, together with the political and administrative terror

system which goes with it. Adopting all the features of the total state,

it thus became the model for those other countries which were forced to

do away with the democratic state system and to change to dictatorial

rule. Russia was the example for fascism.”

— Otto Rühle (1939)

people are already rolling their eyes at this essay, regarding it as

another round of Everything I Don’t Like is Fascism, and i will agree

that marxism can’t be said to include every item on every checklist that

any theorist has put forward to outline their interpretation of the

defining features of fascism—a notoriously vague concept—but, with the

exception of religious propaganda, it also can’t be reasonably argued

that marxism lacks the primary tenets of fascism that appear on each of

the aforementioned lists, from militarism to glorification of the state

and its ideology, to total state control of resources and media, to the

cult of personality, and so on. but most importantly, marxist regimes

behave in the same ways as fascist dictatorships, and the people they

govern suffer in similar ways.

“The Stalinists do not hesitate to kill any of those who do not blindly

accept Stalin as a second Christ. One of the refugees who came over with

me from Spain was a member of the O.G.P.U. in Spain, which, by the way,

is controlled by Russia. Every volunteer in the Communist International

Brigade is considered a potential enemy of Stalin. He is checked and

double-checked, every damn one. If he utters a word other than commy

phrases he is taken ‘for a ride.’”

— Bill Wood (1937)

side note #2: as i’m editing this essay, i just received a series of

messages, from a Venezuelan friend, about Maduro’s thugs rounding up any

dissidents there.

ironically, fascists claim to oppose “reds” and “socialists”, while

waving red flags representing what they call “national socialism”. of

course, every self-styled socialist will be quick to point out that the

fact that Hitler used socialist terminology and symbolism doesn’t mean

he was a socialist, or that fascism is a form of socialism (similarly to

how Marx’s use of communist terminology does not make him a communist),

but in practice, fascism is remarkably similar to the political and

economic system Marx and Engels proposed, and the rhetoric and

propaganda used by Marx and Hitler, respectively, was—in some

cases—strikingly similar.

“All my life I have been a ‘have-not.’ At home I was a ‘have-not.’ I

regard myself as belonging to them and have always fought exclusively

for them. I defended them and, therefore, I stand before the world as

their representative. I shall never recognize the claim of the others to

that which they have taken by force. Under no circumstances can I

acknowledge this claim with regard to that which has been taken from us.

[...] One might think, perhaps, that at least in England itself every

person must have his share of these riches. By no means! In that country

class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is

poverty—incredible poverty—on the one side, and equally incredible

wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The workmen

of that country, which possesses more than one sixth of the globe and of

the world’s natural resources dwell in misery, and the masses of the

people are poorly clad. In a country which ought to have more than

enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions of the lower

classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs, and go about

hungry.

[...] Just as the tension existing between rich and poor within a

country must be compensated for either by reason or often if reason

fails, by force, so in the life of a nation one cannot claim everything

and leave nothing to others.”

— Adolf Hitler (1940)

“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may

exist….The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god

of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god

is only an illusory bill of exchange.”

— Karl Marx (1843)

in The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels advocate the

formation of a centralized authoritarian state—dicprole—which would own

all land, resources, and means of production, and would hold absolute

political and economic power. further, they insisted at the outset that

this dictatorship must not tolerate any form of dissent, and must

maintain control of all media, as well as every other aspect of life,

from transportation to legislation.

marxists claim that their philosophy is aimed at granting workers direct

control over the means of production, and enabling them to enjoy the

full value of their labor, but the policies prescribed in the Manifesto

make it clear that this assertion is a blatant lie. step 4 on Marx’s

10-step program for establishing dicprole calls for the “confiscation of

the property of all emigrants and rebels”, meaning of course that all

anarchists and (other) egoists (who Marx especially hated, saying that

egoism “must be punished as a crime”) would have their property stolen

by the state, but also anyone who disagrees with the Party leader, and

anyone who has to go back to France to take care of their sick

grandmother, has forfeited their claim to ownership of any belongings,

in the eyes of the marxists. let’s keep in mind that this recommendation

comes from the same chapter in which Marx and Engels had already

discussed the difference between personal and private property, and

referred to capital as another form of property, so what they’re saying

here is that anyone who opposes the Party’s stance on anything, and

anyone leaving the country for any reason must be stripped of all

belongings, including money.

what this proclamation—that emigrants and rebels are to be stripped of

property—really means is that Marx sees all products and means of

production not as property not of the workers, but of the state. they

can’t take it with them when they leave because it doesn’t belong to

them; it was produced in Germany by German factories, using German

resources, so it’s property of Germania, not of the laborer who worked

to produce it. the same is true of the capital representing the labor of

the worker; the abstraction of their labor does not belong to them,

according to Marx, it belongs to the state. no matter how loudly

marxists scream into the void that marxism is an anti-nationalist

position, it gets harder and harder to deny its nationalistic tendencies

the closer you look at it.

the next two items on the Manifesto’s 10-step strategy (”Centralisation

of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with

State capital and an exclusive monopoly”, and “Centralisation of the

means of communication and transport in the hands of the State”) simply

hammer home the fact that marxism is aimed at creating state capitalism

through the establishment of a totalitarian state, rather than actually

doing away with the privatization of resources and establishing worker

control of workspaces.

item 8 on the same list is especially disturbing in its call for “equal

liability of all to work”, particularly since the same chapter states

that sex work would be abolished in a marxist system. this means that

“work” in step 8 refers to “entering the workforce”, i.e. working a

Party-approved job. you want to live in a cabin you built and grow your

own food? fuck you, get a job. want to find your own way to support

yourself in a marxist economy? eat shit, libcuck; everyone has to

work—and it’s only real work if the Party sanctions it. it’s easy to see

how the implementation of gulags naturally followed from the application

of Marx’s ideas in Russia.

at this point, marxists—and even many anarchists—may take exception to

me focusing exclusively on Marx’s worst writings (not true; i haven’t

quoted The German Ideology at all!) and the fact that i’m totally

ignoring all 3.5 volumes of Kapital. in addition to the undeniable fact

that Marx’s earlier works were especially horrendous, this is because

the Manifesto is arguably his most influential text, despite being one

of his worst, and it’s still being cited by marxist dictators to this

day, like Nicolás Maduro, who read aloud from it and discussed the

book’s “importance” in a public statement in February 2021. marxism

today still utilizes the strategy layed out in the Manifesto of the

Communist Party, even after we’ve seen time and time again that this

praxis leads to a system more in line with fascism than communism.

while fascists aren’t known for their economic theories—in fact many

scholars include a lack of economic plans in their defining features of

fascism—we do have one example of a self-identified fascist economy

existing outside of wartime; Francoist Spain. ignoring fascist Spain’s

infamously expansive illegal black market, Franco’s autarkic

state-controlled economy was hardly different from the state-dominated

economy marxism generally leads to, exemplified perfectly by Venezuela

today.

despite the clear animosity between authoritarians who call themselves

marxists and those who call themselves fascists, the systems they

advocate are strikingly similar. of course fascism (when self-identified

as such) is the most universally reviled political system of the past

several centuries due primarily to the nazis’ genocidal practices...and

at least marxism can’t be linked to anything as gruesome as the

Holocaust...unless of course you take into account the Holodomor, the

Killing Fields in Cambodia, literally everything the NazBols hope to

accomplish, etc...

both Marx and Hitler built nominally “socialist” movements—which would

be more accurately described as state capitalist movements—on an

antisemitic foundation, scapegoating Jews, and then extending their

racism to a disdain for the upper classes, preaching anticapitalist

rhetoric, while doing nothing to actually combat private ownership of

resources and the means of production. other than their differing

stances on religion, the only real difference between fascism and

marxism is the stated end-goals of each philosophy. marxism claims that

totalitarian dictatorship is one step on the road to the true goal—a

stateless classless society—whereas fascism identifies totalitarian

dictatorship itself as the ultimate goal. regardless of the professed

goals of marxists, the result of their philosophy is nearly identical to

that of the fascists.

“Whether party ‘communists’ like it or not, the fact remains that the

state order and rule in Russia are indistinguishable from those in Italy

and Germany. Essentially they are alike. One may speak of a red, black,

or brown ‘soviet state,’ as well as of red, black, or brown fascism.

Though certain ideological differences exist between these countries,

ideology is never of primary importance. Ideologies, furthermore, are

changeable and such changes do not necessarily reflect the character and

the functions of the state apparatus.”

— Otto Rühle (1939)

“There are naive people who believe that at least some features of

Communism have been introduced into the lives of the Russian people. I

wish it were true, for that would be a hopeful sign, a promise of

potential development along that line. But the truth is that in no phase

of Soviet life, no more in the social than in individual relations, has

there ever been any attempt to apply Communist principles in any shape

or form. As I have pointed out before, the very suggestion of free,

voluntary Communism is taboo in Russia and is regarded as

counter-revolutionary and high treason against the infallible Stalin and

the holy ‘Communist’ Party.”

— Emma Goldman (1935)

of all the bad predictions Marx and Engels made, the idea that the State

would “wither away” was undoubtedly and (now) demonstrably the most

ludicrous. the absurdity of this idea was called out by anyone with at

least a half-functioning brain who considered it for even a moment at

the time, and disturbingly, even after multiple regimes disproved the

“withering away” fantasy, the idea is still being spread.

“This fiction of a pseudo-representative government serves to conceal

the domination of the masses by a handful of privileged elite; an elite

elected by hordes of people who are rounded up and do not know for whom

or for what they vote. Upon this artificial and abstract expression of

what they falsely imagine to be the will of the people and of which the

real living people have not the least idea, they construct both the

theory of statism as well as the theory of so-called revolutionary

dictatorship.

The differences between revolutionary dictatorship and statism are

superficial. Fundamentally they both represent the same principle of

minority rule over the majority in the name of the alleged ‘stupidity’

of the latter and the alleged ‘intelligence’ of the former. Therefore

they are both equally reactionary since both directly and inevitably

must preserve and perpetuate the political and economic privileges of

the ruling minority and the political and economic subjugation of the

masses of the people.

Now it is clear why the dictatorial revolutionists, who aim to overthrow

the existing powers and social structures in order to erect upon their

ruins their own dictatorships, never were or will be the enemies of

government, but, to the contrary, always will be the most ardent

promoters of the government idea. They are the enemies only of

contemporary governments, because they wish to replace them. They are

the enemies of the present governmental structure, because it excludes

the possibility of their dictatorship. At the same time they are the

most devoted friends of governmental power. For if the revolution

destroyed this power by actually freeing the masses, it would deprive

this pseudo-revolutionary minority of any hope to harness the masses in

order to make them the beneficiaries of their own government policy.

[...] These elected representatives, say the Marxists, will be dedicated

and learned socialists. The expressions ‘learned socialist,’ ‘scientific

socialism,’ etc., which continuously appear in the speeches and writings

of the followers of Lassalle and Marx, prove that the pseudo-People’s

State will be nothing but a despotic control of the populace by a new

and not at all numerous aristocracy of real and pseudo-scientists. The

‘uneducated’ people will be totally relieved of the cares of

administration, and will be treated as a regimented herd. A beautiful

liberation, indeed!”

— Mikhail Bakunin (1873)

“The interference of the state power in social relations becomes

superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The

government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and

the direction of the processes of production. The state is not

‘abolished’, it withers away.”

— Friedrich Engels (1878)

Marx and Engels were just the South Park Underwear Gnomes of theory.

<sc>Phase 1: use state apparatus to centralize the ownership of land,

resources and means of production, the management of distribution,

transportation, and media, and the establishment and enforcement of laws

in the hands of a totalitarian state that tolerates no dissent

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: stateless classless society</sc>

anarchism is the struggle for a stateless, classless, egalitarian

society. fascism is the struggle for a totalitarian nationalist

dictatorship. marxism is the belief that fascism will magically give way

to anarchy on its own.

Leftism as Progressivism

the word “leftist” is often used interchangeably with “progressive”.

progressivism, however, is just a fancy way of saying liberalism.

“In politics, left refers to people and groups that have liberal views.”

— dictionary.com

the marxists and anarchists huddled under the Leftist banner are likely

screaming at me by now that liberals are not true leftists, but there

are two clear problems with this claim. first, a lot of what’s commonly

considered “leftist” today is undeniably liberal; identity politics,

advocacy for religious freedom, support for politicians who call

themselves “socialist”, etc. all of these tendencies are widely regarded

as leftist, and are distinctly liberal, and entirely antithetical to at

least anarchism, and generally marxism as well.

my aim here is not to write a polemic against identity, religion, and

electoral politics—those analyses exist already, and will continue to be

produced, elsewhere—but to show the constant unavoidable friction

between liberals and other supposed members of the the mythical Left,

due to the different milieus’ contrasting positions in regards to these

topics.

Identity

“In my experience as a ‘marginalized voice’ I’ve seen identity politics

used by activists as a tool of social control aimed at anyone who fits

the identity criteria of ‘oppressor’. The traditional power-struggle for

equality has turned into an olympic sport for social leverage, inverting

the same social hierarchy that should have been destroyed in the first

place.”

— Flower Bomb (2020)

from Bædan to Against Gender, Against Society, to Bash Back! fliers

stating “my preferred pronouns are negation”, anarchists and marxists

have circulated tons of analyses of identity and identity politics,

their harmful nature, and and our opposition to them, in contrast to the

way liberals tend to glorify identity, but some of the most direct

commentary on this friction comes in the Identity Crisis portion of

Tegan Eanelli’s essay, Bash Back! is Dead; Bash Back Forever!;

“One side takes identity as a given and a precondition that must shape

our organizing and struggle, the other locates identity as the enemy

itself.”

as a point of clarification, it should be noted that the two “sides”

referenced in Eanelli’s quote are not regarded as liberals and

anarchists within that statement; rather, this comment specifically

refers to conflict “between militants or insurrectionists who differed

in regard to the question of identity”, after “certain circles within

Bash Back! had thoroughly rid themselves of liberal-pacifist

tendencies”...however, i would assert that the identity politics in

question are a product of the sort of liberal influences Bash Back! as a

group had been struggling to free itself of, regardless of whether the

other political views of any given identitarian were also liberal.

liberals see identity, in its various forms, as a desirable, liberatory

badge to be worn proudly, as well as an effective tool to be used for

dismantling oppression. identity, to liberals, is something to be not

only willingly adopted, but celebrated—sanctified—as one of the holy

sacraments of Progressive Democratic Politics, and a commonality around

which movements must be centered. they believe that people who are

grouped (willingly or not) into the same identity categories will

inevitably share similar experiences to one another, meaning any

person’s position on a spectrum of Privileged™ to Oppressed™ can be

easily located by adding together the quantities of privilege and

oppression allotted them by each identity category with which the person

is associated, and tallying the results. this assumed commonality (the

privileges and oppressions each supposed member of each identity group

is assumed to share) is generally viewed by liberals as the ideal basis

for organizing.

Poe’s Law makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine which of

them are satirical, and which are earnest, but the internet is rife with

questionnaires and quizzes, toolkits for determining one’s supposed

level of privilege, mathematically...the most famous being Peggy

McIntosh’s laughably absurd piece, “White Privilege: Unpacking the

Invisible Knapsack” from 1988. i wouldn’t argue that there are no ways

in which white people are often privileged over others in modern

society—white people generally won’t have to worry about being raided or

arrested by I.C.E. in the U.S., for instance—but Peggy chooses to focus

primarily on class privileges (despite the whole point of the piece

being Peggy’s supposed goal of illuminating privileges that AREN’T a

product of class) with a secondary focus on ridiculous minor issues like

magazine covers mostly featuring white models, and even “privileges”

that just make Peggy herself seem racist, like her insinuation that it’s

a privilege to be able to choose to be in the company of one’s own race.

(to be clear, white models were certainly privileged at the time that

checklist was written, since they had more work opportunities than other

models, but to insinuate that their presence on billboards and in

commercials significantly benefited other white people in their

day-to-day lives is just stupid.)

these thinkpieces, buzzfeed quizzes, etc. have done nothing but further

solidify the notion of identity into rigid categories which are used to

judge a person’s overall level of influence within any given system, and

in some cases determine “what side they’re on”. the primary effect of

this tendency is the empowerment of politicians who can lean on any

membership in an Oppressed Identity Group™ that they may be able to

claim, like Obama “representing Black people” while carpet-bombing the

Middle East, or Ruth Bader Ginsberg acting as “Women’s champion”, while

endorsing destructive gas pipelines and intensifying the threat of the

prison industrial complex by supporting stronger sentences for violating

parole, each of them gaining popular support due to their identity (and

assumed commonality with other members of their perceived identity

group), despite their actual policies and actions.

anarchists and marxists, on the other hand, often see identity as a

microcosm of the State; roles that are affixed to us, to which we’re

socialized to conform, and which we’re brainwashed into reproducing. we

recognize identity politics as inherently abstract, and removed from

real lived experience (by presenting a generalized approximation of the

average experience of the collectivity of individuals who share any

given identity as if every member of each group has lived the same life,

rather than acknowledging the unquantifiable variances in people’s

unique experiences), and as an extension of the oppression identity

represents.

“The work of many decolonial feminists has been influential in

demonstrating the ways that western gender categories were violently

forced onto indigenous societies [sic], and how this required a complete

linguistic and discursive shift. Colonialism produced new gender

categories, and with them new violent means of reinforcing a certain set

of gendered norms. The visual and cultural aspects of masculinity and

femininity have changed over the centuries. There is no static gender.

[...] The liberal feminist is not aware of the ways power creates

gender, and thus clings to gender as a means of legitimizing themselves

in the eyes of power. They rely on trying to use various systems of

knowledge (genetic sciences, metaphysical claims about the soul, kantian

ontology) in order to prove to power they can operate within it.”

— Alyson Escalante (2015)

“Here, I examine the extent to which racism by intent produces

structural consequences in the social milieu. Such a focus reveals that

the idea and conception of whiteness derives from the dynamics of racism

by intent, a type of racism that is founded upon custom and tradition,

but shatters against social scientific principles.

[...] It is now well accepted by social scientists, that the notions of

‘race’ and whiteness, in their social significance, are guided not so

much by any biological foundation as by the social meanings that are

ascribed to them. That is, they depend on the social definition their

situation is accorded. Uncovering or deconstructing the social

construction of ‘race’ and whiteness begins with a definition of the

situation or context in which these ideas tend to define social

interaction patterns.

[...] Thus, we find that the concept ‘race’ is based on socially

constructed, but socially, and certainly scientifically, outmoded

beliefs about the inherent superiority and inferiority of groups based

on racial distinctions.”

— Teresa J. Guess (2006)

“Indeed, Europeans prior to the late 1600s did not use the label, black,

to refer to any race of people, Africans included. Only after the

racialization of slavery by around 1680 did whiteness and blackness come

to represent racial categories.”

— Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg (2006)

recognizing that gender/sex can’t exist without sexism, nor race without

racism, and that the assumption of commonality along identity lines

provides the ruling classes more opportunities to manipulate those they

govern, and obfuscates any real potential commonalities, by replacing

analysis of experience and personal politics with abstractions, the only

possible anarchistic position in regards to identity is pure negation,

working toward the abolition of fixed categorical identity, while also

acknowledging the ways people are oppressed in the present world as a

consequence of the identities by which they’re categorized, and

combatting those oppressions directly. understanding identity as a

product of identity-based oppression (rather than the other way around),

identity itself must be recognized as not only nonsensical, but as a

framework of oppression.

“We come together to fight for a reality where identities such as ‘man,’

‘woman,’ and ‘trans’ are logical impossibilities.”

— anonymous writers identified only as “Anarcha Feminists” (2010)

liberals loudly—deafeningly—champion Identity in its various forms

(whether it’s by marketing the next Marvel movie as boasting a Diverse

cast, or drawing unearned attention to a Disney character whose

flamboyant outfit apparently signifies them as Gay, or urging “POC”

voters to elect a particular candidate whose views and interests must

certainly be aligned with their own, because they too are a Marginalized

Person®), while a growing number of us look on in disgust as this

incessant exaltation of identity further cements us into the oppressive

identitarian structures they pretend to be combatting, while

simultaneously granting more social and economic power to the ruling

class through the commodification of “otherized” identities through

which billionaire CEOs can sell us “representation”.

“Having stood up to fight for a sexless society, we now find ourselves

entrapped in the familiar deadlock of ‘woman is wonderful.’ Simone de

Beauvoir underlined particularly the false consciousness which consists

of selecting among the features of the myth (that women are different

from men) those which look good and using them as a definition for

women. What the concept ‘woman is wonderful’ accomplishes is that it

retains for defining women the best features (best according to whom?)

which oppression has granted us, and it does not radically question the

categories ‘man’ and ‘woman,’ which are political categories and not

natural givens. It puts us in a position of fighting within the class

‘women’ not as the other classes do, for the disappearance of our class,

but for the defense of ‘woman’ and its reinforcement. It leads us to

develop with complacency ‘new’ theories about our specificity: thus, we

call our passivity ‘nonviolence,’ when the main and emergent point for

us is to fight our passivity (our fear, rather, a justified one).”

— Monique Wittig (1981)

while liberals fight for the proliferation, validation, and

representation of endless new identities to which corporations and

politicians can market their “progressive” policies, anarchism

necessarily opposes identity on the whole, but individuals who identify

as anarchists often take a more liberal stance on identity...and with

marxists the reverse is true; there’s nothing inherent to marxism that

necessitates an opposition to identity, but we see time and time again

that marxists almost universally oppose idpol entirely.

“Identity politics, and ideas derived from it such as privilege theory

and intersectionality, have produced possibly the lowest level and most

simplistic understanding of class consciousness in the history of modern

capitalism.”

— Albert L. Terry III, (writing for Left Voice, 2017)

some marxists may agree with liberal analyses regarding identity, but

their praxis will certainly differ. where liberals take identity as the

common denominator around which to organize movements, marxists focus

primarily on class.

“For Marxists the struggle against oppression is connected to the

struggle against capitalism because all oppressions are rooted in class

society.”

— Ylva Vinberg (2020)

“Identity politics, as practiced by middle class people, rarely raises

the economic and political issues that concern women from poor peasant

or low-paid working class background. The identity politics does nothing

to ensure that all toilers—toilers from all castes, all races and

genders, and all people with varying sexual orientation—get what they

need in life. So those who benefit by exploiting the toilers and all

those who benefit from such identity-based divisions are let off the

hook. The exploiters and their political supporters have little to fear

from identity politics.”

— Raju Das (2020)

unlike anarchism which inherently opposes all hierarchy, marxism does

not necessarily oppose bigotry (as evidenced by Pol Pot and NazBols),

but most modern marxists seem to share anarchist sentiments regarding

bigotry. marxist dictators, for the most part, have explicitly opposed

racism, but their collective track record with non-cishet identities,

behaviors, and lifestyles, is less favorable, and marxism certainly

hasn’t always been associated with anti-racism.

“It is now quite plain to me — as the shape of his head and the way his

hair grows also testify — that he is descended from the negroes who

accompanied Moses’ flight from Egypt (unless his mother or paternal

grandmother interbred with a nigger). Now, this blend of Jewishness and

Germanness, on the one hand, and basic negroid stock, on the other, must

inevitably give rise to a peculiar product. The fellow’s importunity is

also nigger-like.”

— Karl Marx, in a private letter to Frederich Engels (1862)

of course, we can also talk about things like Kropotkin calling darker

skinned people “savages” and Bakunin thinking marxism was a Jewish

conspiracy as well, but anarchists didn’t name their philosophy

“Kropotkinism”, and aren’t making giant statues of Bakunin’s big dumb

Jew-hating head.

anarchists and marxists are usually in agreement on the topic of idpol,

while liberals are generally on their own, coming up with silly slogans

like “Step Up, Step Back” and writing off any analysis put forward by

someone they arbitrarily identify as a straight cis white man, simply on

principle of the circular reasoning of their identity politics, and

trying to mobilize support for Female candidates and Black-Owned

Businesses...but the contrast between liberals and the rest of the

supposed Left is even more apparent in the realm of faith. if anarchists

and marxists have one thing in common, it’s hatred of religion.

Religion

“The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is

the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their

illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a

condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is,

therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which

religion is the halo.”

�� Karl Marx (1844)

“For the Revolution to be a fact, we must demolish the three pillars of

reaction: the church, the army, and capitalism. The church has already

been brought to account. The temples have been destroyed by fire and the

ecclesiastical crows who were unable to escape have been taken care of

by the people”

— anarchists writing for Tierra y Libertad (1936)

“The constitutional freedom of religion is the most inalienable and

sacred of all human rights.”

— Thomas Jefferson (1819)

liberals fight for freedom of religion, while marxists and anarchists

fight for freedom from religion. while it is certainly possible for an

anarchist to think that a creator or deity of some sort likely exists,

it should be obvious to everyone with even a cursory familiarity with

the concept of anarchism that the act of worshipping such a deity, or

participating in any system which dictates how people must or should

behave is inherently antithetical to anarchism, as is the tendency to

take a belief on faith because an authority figure (such as a priest,

rabbi, imam, or parent) preaches it, or because it’s written in a book

that’s deemed to be “holy” or “divine” by any such authority figure.

and while it is possible for someone to consider themself a marxist, and

uphold many of Marx’s (and other marxists’) ideas, while also holding

religious beliefs, Marx himself apparently considered opposition to

religion to be the most crucial central element of his philosophy, and

we’ve seen this marxist antitheism play a major role in most marxist

uprisings, from the application of Juche in North Korea to the Cultural

Revolution in China, to the CPK’s execution of religious practitioners

in the Khmer Rouge, and so on.

“These four authorities—political, familial, religious, and

masculine—are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology

and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people,

particularly the peasants.”

— Mao Tse Tung (1927)

as the PRC continues to wage war against Islam in Xinjiang, using

methods that further illustrate my earlier point about the similarities

between marxism and fascism, May 2021 was legally recognized in New York

as the first official Muslim History Month in the United States, and

liberals around the world celebrated a victory for religious equality

and “freedom”, while politicians like Scottish SocDem Nicola Sturgeon

and American Democrat Bill de Blasio promoted further normalization of

Islam through movements like #WorldHijabDay, while ignoring the

desperate pleas from Islam’s victims to stop glorifying the religion,

writing off anarchist, marxist, and other critiques of Islamic beliefs

and culture—and calls for opposition to the religion and its

practices—as racist and ignorant, despite the fact that many of those

spearheading various movements against Islam are ex-Muslims from

countries that enforce Islamic laws, like Zerin Firoze, Zara Kay, Amina

Tyler, etc.

“In Germany, in August 1997, an 18-year-old woman was burnt to death by

her father for refusing to marry the man he had chosen. A German court

gave him a reduced sentence, saying he was practicing his culture and

religion.

In Iran, women and girls are forcibly veiled under threat of

imprisonment and lashes, and cultural relativists say that it is their

religion and must be respected.

In Holland, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs states that Iran’s prisons

are ‘satisfactory for third world standards,’ allowing the forcible

return of asylum seekers.

Cultural relativism serves these crimes. It legitimizes and maintains

savagery. It says that people’s rights are dependent on their

nationality, religion, and culture. It says that the human rights of

someone born in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan are different from those of

someone born in the United States, Canada or Sweden.

Cultural relativists say Iranian society is Muslim, implying that people

choose to live the way they are forced to. It’s as if there are no

differences in beliefs in Iran, no struggles, no communists, no

socialists, and no freedom-lovers. If so, why have 150,000 people been

executed for opposing the Islamic Republic of Iran?”

— Maryam Namazie (1998)

to be clear; 150,000 was the number Namazie used in 1998. since then,

Iran—which is still ruled by an islamic republic that punishes things

like adultery, homosexuality, atheism, etc. by death—has executed often

more than 500 people per year, prompting Javaid Rehman to say in a

report to the U.N. that “the number of executions remains one of the

highest in the world,” after the number had been cut in half in 2018.

the quintessential liberal maxim of “I disapprove of what you say, but I

will defend to the death your right to say it” was introduced to the

modern political lexicon by Evelyn Beatrice Hall describing Voltaire’s

perceived attitude toward a book burning, and it’s since become

shorthand for the liberal sentiment on every topic from fascism (and

liberal opposition to the antifa “no platform for fascists” policy) to

democracy (and their insistence on the importance of the electoral

process and the right of all to vote) to religion (and the right of each

person to proudly uphold their faith, even when it stands in stark

contrast to liberal ideals; as all major religions do), and it’s the

direct antithesis of revolutionary and insurrectional ideology and

praxis (not to mention egoism, illegalism, etc.), which necessitate

directly fighting against contradictory ideas and movements.

anyone seeking to do away with present conditions (or simply break free

of their constraints) can’t respect the views of the status quo’s

defenders, or their supposed “right” to their views. respecting the

views of political opponents would mean stagnation and ineffectuality.

nothing would ever change. the stagnation implied by the belief in each

person’s right to their own views fits perfectly with liberal goals tho,

since they don’t want to drastically change anything. in contrast, the

anarchist sentiment regarding disagreement and opposition was arguably

best summarized by The Feederz, who said “destroy what bores you on

sight.”

all abrahamic religions are fundamentally misogynistic, anti-queer,

moralistic and authoritarian, and explicitly command actions that

directly oppose liberal ethics (like the murder of atheists,

gender-deviants, and sexually promiscuous individuals), and Buddhism is

also notoriously sexist and homophobic, and all of these religions are

directly causing widespread oppression around the world, from the

Palestinian genocide and apartheid enacted by Zionists inspired by

Judaism’s myths of a “promised land” to the Ejercito de Dios destroying

the Zapatistas’ crops in Chiapas, to ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya

people in Myanmar, perpetrated by nationalist Buddhists, etc., but

liberal ethics counterintuitively push their devotees to hypocritically

respect the views of others, and support their “rights” to their views,

even when those views directly conflict with the rest of their liberal

values, and perpetuate oppression and murder.

“A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel.”

— Robert Frost (quoted by Guy Davenport, 1981)

to quote extensively from Anarchism and Religion;

“There is no doubt that the prevailing strain within the anarchist

tradition is opposition to religion. William Godwin, the author of the

Enquiry Concerning Political Justice (1793), the first systematic text

of libertarian politics, was a Calvinist minister who began by rejecting

Christianity, and passed through deism to atheism and then what was

later called agnosticism. Max Stirner, the author of The Individual and

His Property (1845), the most extreme text of libertarian politics,

began as a left-Hegelian, post-Feuerbachian atheist, rejecting the

‘spooks’ of religion as well as of politics including the spook of

‘humanity’. Proudhon, the first person to call himself an anarchist, who

was well known for saying, ‘Property is theft’, also said, ‘God is evil’

and ‘God is the eternal X’. Bakunin, the main founder of the anarchist

movement, attacked the Church as much as the State, and wrote an essay

which his followers later published as God and the State (1882), in

which he inverted Voltaire’s famous saying and proclaimed: ‘If God

really existed, he would have to be abolished.’ Kropotkin, the

best-known anarchist writer, was a child of the Enlightenment and the

Scientific Revolution, and assumed that religion would be replaced by

science and that the Church as well as the State would be abolished; he

was particularly concerned with the development of a secular system of

ethics which replaced supernatural theology with natural biology. Errico

Malatesta and Carlo Cafiero, the main founders of the Italian anarchist

movement, both came from freethinking families (and Cafiero was involved

with the National Secular Society when he visited London during the

1870s). Eliseé and Elie Reclus, the best-loved French anarchists, were

the sons of a Calvinist minister, and began by rejecting religion before

they moved on to anarchism. Sebastien Faure, the most active speaker and

writer in the French movement for half a century, was intended for the

Church and began by rejecting Catholicism and passing through

anti-clericalism and socialism on the way to anarchism. Andre Lorulot, a

leading French individualist before the First World War, was then a

leading freethinker for half a century. Johann Most, the best-known

German anarchist for a quarter of a century, who wrote ferocious

pamphlets on the need for violence to destroy existing society, also

wrote a ferocious pamphlet on the need to destroy supernatural religion

called The God Plague (1883). Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekker), the

great Dutch writer, was a leading atheist as well as anarchist.

Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis, the best-known Dutch anarchist, was a

Calvinist minister who began by rejecting religion before passing

through socialism on the way to anarchism. Anton Constandse was a

leading Dutch anarchist and freethinker. Emma Goldman and Alexander

Berkman, the best-known Jewish American anarchists, began by rejecting

Judaism and passing through populism on the way to anarchism. Rudolf

Rocker, the German leader of the Jewish anarchists in Britain, was

another child of the Enlightenment and spoke and wrote on secular as

much as political subjects. In Spain, the largest anarchist movement in

the world, which has often been described as a quasi-religious

phenomenon, was in fact profoundly naturalistic and secularist and

anti-Christian as well as anti-clerical. Francisco Ferrer, the

well-known Spanish anarchist who was judicially murdered in 1909, was

best known for founding the Modern School which tried to give secular

education in a Catholic country. The leaders of the anarchist movements

in Latin America almost all began by rebelling against the Church before

rebelling against the State. The founders of the anarchist movements in

India and China all had to begin by discarding the traditional religions

of their communities. In the United States, Voltairine de Cleyre was (as

her name suggests) the child of freethinkers, and wrote and spoke on

secular as much as political topics. The two best-known American

anarchists today (both of Jewish origin) are Murray Bookchin, who calls

himself an ecological humanist, and Noam Chomsky, who calls himself a

scientific rationalist. Two leading figures of a younger generation,

Fred Woodworth and Chaz Bufe, are militant atheists as well as

anarchists. And so on.”

— Nicolas Walter (1991)

of course, in Anarchism and Religion Walter settles on a drastically

different conclusion than i do; that anarchism is usually but not

necessarily atheistic. but, then again, i disagree with pretty much

every conclusion that pacifist dipshit ever settled on.

anarchism is, always has been, and must be adamantly opposed to religion

in its entirety, despite the undeniable fact that some confused

individuals refer to themselves as anarchists while also professing

religious beliefs, such as the so-called “christian anarchists” and

those who adhere to “judeo-anarchism”. these positions are no more

anarchistic philosophies than “anarcho-capitalism”. just like the

capitalists, the religious “anarchists” take many of anarchism’s

arguments and positions, and ignore those that preclude their inclusion

in the milieu (such as refusal to worship, serve, or obey a “higher”

being or a moralistic earthly institution), and proclaim themselves to

be anarchists, without understanding that opposition to any form of

religion is not only foundational, but essential to anarchism (the same

way opposition to capitalism is foundational and essential to

anarchism), and the removal of antitheism from anarchism fundamentally

and profoundly changes the philosophy into something else entirely.

side note #2: i’m fully aware that my assertion that Tolstoy wasn’t an

anarchist because he worshipped a god can be expanded on to make the

assertion that Stalin wasn’t a fascist because he was an atheist,

seemingly contradicting my earlier premise that fascism and marxism are

essentially identical. that’s fine. i made sure to say that marxism is

atheistic fascism, indicating that the difference between the two

trajectories is their differing stances in regards to religion...but if

you define fascism as being inherently religious, such that divorcing it

from religion fundamentally changes it...ok. my point—that the effects

of marxism are essentially the same as those of fascism—remains.

the history and literature of so-called “leftist” movements make it

perfectly clear that of the three ideologies commonly associated with

The Left—anarchism, liberalism, and marxism—the only one that supports

freedom of religion is liberalism, yet that concept is widely considered

a staple of Leftist thought today.

The Second Problem

the second problem with the attempt to delineate between liberalism and

“true” leftism, is that, regarding the logic of liberals not being “left

enough” to be leftist, this implies a left-to-right spectrum on which

something can be MORE or LESS left (or right). what exactly is it that

marxism does MORE than liberalism, which signifies it as being MORE

leftist? more state control? more homophobia? more beards? if liberals

were simply more extreme in their views, would that make them leftist?

if they didn’t stop at wanting to ban guns, but went on to criminalize

knives, baseball bats, and sharp corners on kitchen counters, would that

be leftist?

concepts like “left of left” and the “ultra-left” imply a gradient of

moderate leftism—which advocates the introduction of mildly left

policies into the existing political system—to extremist leftism—which

strives to wholly eradicate the current system in favor of producing a

new “leftist” status quo in its place—but they don’t indicate any shared

view or goal of leftists by which leftist tendencies could be defined. a

common assumption is that the further left an ideology is, the more

power the working class would have within the corresponding system, but

that would exclude marxists from the left entirely, since dicprole takes

all power away from the working class, and consolidates it in the hands

of a new “proletarian” ruling class. if the Left were defined by the

empowerment of the working class, marxism would be a far-right ideology.

liberals support a rhine capitalist system featuring both a strong

central government and globalist corporations...marxists fight for the

abolition of such corporations under a totalitarian state...and

anarchists advocate the abolition of both market and state capitalism.

these three ideologies are on completely different and oppositional

trajectories, struggling directly against one another. it’s not a matter

of degrees on a moderate to extreme spectrum, it’s simply entirely

different sets of goals and positions. so-called “leftists” often have

absolutely nothing in common, and describing a position as leftist (or

post-leftist, anti-leftist, or right wing, for that matter) illuminates

nothing about that position’s actual politics. “The Left” signifies

nothing.

unsurprisingly, if we try to define the left by contrasting it to the

right, we come to the same problem: the ideologies typically thought of

as “right wing” are vehemently opposed to one another, and share little

to nothing in common. libertarians famously distrust and oppose any form

of government, while championing entrepreneurship and the “free market”,

preferring to lick the boots of the CEO instead of the führer, while

fascists oppose the idea of an unregulated market, and blindly follow

political leaders, essentially worshipping their favorite politicians.

the “alt right” primarily consists of meme-obsessed gay furries with

hentai fetishes, and most republicans would rather shoot themselves in

the head than be stuck in a room with one of them...but these are the

ideologies that are supposedly aligned as “The Right”.

none of the interpretations offered up for “leftism” stand up to

scrutiny, but the term is continually associated with three distinct,

mutually exclusive political trajectories that have little to nothing in

common, and strive for contradictory goals. if “leftism” can mean

everything from atheistic fascism to “inclusive” capitalism to anarchist

syndicalism, and implies anything from gender-nihilism to

gender-essentialism, while encompassing sentiments toward religion

ranging from militant antitheism to universal acceptance and apologism,

the word really has no meaning at all, and only serves to confuse people

on all sides of every issue, tho most people don’t even realize they’re

confused.

so why does anyone use the word at all?

Leftism as Moderate Propaganda

“By maintaining the public image of a common struggle against

oppression, leftists conceal, not only their actual fragmentation,

incoherence and weakness, but—paradoxically—what they really do share:

acquiescence in the essential elements of state/class society.”

— Bob Black (2009)

the concept of leftism accomplishes two things: first, it allows the

ruling class and their sycophants to write off all opposition to the

status quo as “extremist” (thereby grouping anarchists in with nazis and

Isis by using the same dismissive word for each group), labeling rebels

as members of the “extreme right” or “extreme left” in order to

cultivate fear of change, and bolster their own power (by justifying

further militarization of police forces and the implementation of

perpetually more invasive surveillance methods) through fear-mongering.

secondly, it liberalizes anarchism and marxism by associating those

three disparate ideologies with one another, in a primarily liberal

society.

“Antifa is an amorphous movement whose adherents oppose people or groups

they consider authoritarian or racist, according to the Anti-Defamation

League (ADL), which monitors extremists.”

— Reuters (2020)

in the first case, we’ve seen clearly in the past few years of liberal

protests, antifa riots, and republican coups in the U.S., how the

rhetoric of extremism and the dangers of anything too far outside the

(imaginary) center of the (non-existent) political spectrum is used by

politicians like Trump, Biden, and the rest, to impress on the moderate

American populace the alleged need for strong police and military forces

to deal with “harmful extremists” (to borrow facebook’s terminology).

if “leftists” refused to be “leftist”, and instead asserted precisely

what they fight for (whether that’s myopic reforms, totalitarian

tyranny, or egalitarian relations), it stands to reason that the media

and conservative politicians would have a much harder time convincing

the average working class American that antifa is a soviet organization

funded by Russia, aiming to steal and redistribute the retirement funds

of American workers and kick them out of their homes to collectivize the

land they live on. maybe if instead of identifying collectively as “The

Left” and promoting nonsense like “leftist unity” and “a united front”,

we acknowledged that we’re not on the same side, we have little to

nothing in common, and are in fact political opponents, conservatives

wouldn’t keep grouping us together, and perpetuating the idea that

opposition to capitalism leads to a marxist total state.

secondly, the use of an umbrella term like “leftist” or “right wing” is,

broadly speaking, an appeal to populism. liberals who would be put off

by their associations with the term “anarchist” (like ACAB banners and

Durruti’s kinky rhetoric about gestating in rivers of blood or whatever)

might feel more welcome in a movement or protest described using

non-descript left/right directional terms vaguely related to a horseshit

political compass. the problem is that any effort made to appeal to “the

masses” serves to water down any antagonistic movement, and replaces

negation with compromise. by identifying as leftist, rather than

anarchist, “left anarchists” declaw their movements.

instead of focusing on recruiting, marketing to moderates, attempting to

seem approachable and relatable, and presenting an image of cohesion and

coherence, we need to be “infighting” and gatekeeping. turning our

enemies off of our ideas and rhetoric is preferable to turning our

movements and actions into something that would appeal to

authoritarians.

if The Left ever existed, no one alive today remembers what it was.

there is no common thread among supposedly-leftist ideologies by which

“leftism” can be defined, and attempting to force incompatible

antithetical positions into a nonsensical alliance or shared identity

only serves the interests of the status quo.

“The state is nothing but an instrument of opression of one class by

another—no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy.”

— Frederich Engels (1871)