by Geoffrey Clarfield
If you’re an average citizen and you work hard, you’ll be paying attention to your job, your family, your children’s education, your mortgage, and surviving the economic turbulence triggered by the pandemic from Wuhan, China.
In the midst of this turbulence, you may have noticed that so many of the universities, the media, and even some of our own government branches, municipal, state, and federal, constantly bombard us with stories about the injustices suffered by ever-increasing kinds and numbers of minorities. Upon examination, each of these minorities, whether long-standing or recently created, has indeed suffered some sort of discrimination, some more and some less, that is to say, they haven’t always been treated equally under the law.
Let us begin with the most obvious. The indigenous peoples of Canada and the United States haven’t always been treated according to the values that the host society believes to be the highest moral standard, the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Relations with indigenous peoples have had a history of bad faith, broken treaties, and double standards. African American and African Canadian descendants of slaves and emancipated slaves (from the Caribbean) historically have experienced discrimination on the basis of skin color and ethnic stereotyping.
Homosexuality was once criminalized and driven underground. Now, homosexuals are free to create their own lifestyle and pass their inheritance on to their partners.
Each of these groups has suffered, each in its own way, and their suffering can’t be denied. This can be demonstrated historically. And the majority are usually open to ameliorating their situation. For example, today, 53 percent of African Americans now belong to the middle class. There has been much progress.
One would think that these persecuted groups may even band together and demand justice of some sort, and so we now hear about “intersectionality,” which, at its best, should mean that different groups are united by the fact that they’re persecuted in some way by the wider society.
All of this seems almost acceptable. But it’s not.
What the average citizen doesn’t know or understand is that each of these grievance groups, who according to natural law and universal justice may have indeed suffered to different degrees, have been harnessed by a movement that, in the name of justice and equality, would use these groups to destroy the very moral source of our sympathy with these people and, in turn, use them to power a political movement that would destroy representative democracy and put themselves in power over the rest of us, the so-called and very real majority.
They’re not fighting for individual rights but collectivist power.
Without a quite simple understanding of classical and recent Marxist theory, none of this makes any sense. Classical Marxists believe that everything is material and economic, that society is divided into warring classes, and that the entrepreneurial class has exploited and continues to exploit the workers, gaining undue profit and advantage from their control of the “means of production.” To classical Marxists, the working class are the ultimate persecuted group, even if and because they’re the majority.
Classical Marxists also believed that this form of production (capitalism or what is really the free market) supports and is supported by “bourgeois culture,” that is to say, the nuclear family, the Judeo–Christian ethic, the Anglo American legal tradition, local, state, and federal patriotism, altruism and sacrifice, as well as sexual restraint in the service of monogamy and family stability across the generations.
For them, “bourgeois culture” includes all literature, films, music, and dance that doesn’t call for the downfall of the regime or civilization as we have come to know it. Topping it all off is a belief that the purveyors of Marxism must destroy the capitalist bourgeoise and their legal and political representatives and then replace them with themselves, a “revolutionary vanguard,” who will bring on utopia through their control of a command economy. They argue that this should be done violently, for they also believe elections are a sham, just more “bourgeois culture.”
This plan hasn’t worked. Where it was tried in Russia, Ethiopia, China, Venezuela, and, yes, in its heyday, the Arab state of South Yemen, it has led to poverty, oppression, and dictatorship. As they used to say about elections in the Arab world, Marxists believe in “one man, one vote, once.”
Rather than accepting that Marxism and Marxist regimes have beggared their people and created aggressive wars with “capitalist democracies” that have caused the death of millions, the new Marxists came up with a new plan to destroy Western bourgeois capitalist democracies as far back as the 1920s.
These thinkers called themselves the Frankfurt School and they’re known as cultural Marxists. Cultural Marxists invented “critical race theory” and argue that if they can destroy the cultural expressions of democratic capitalism by making war on “bourgeois culture,” then the economic revolution wrongly predicted by old-fashioned Marxism would be triggered.
Instead of making the working class its heroes, cultural Marxists selectively adopt all or any self-declared “minority” group (some, such as “women,” who aren’t really a minority at all) and make them out to be the structural victims of democratic capitalism. Jews and Asians need not apply, for having overcome discrimination on their own dime, they don’t count.
And so, we now see radical feminism winning the hearts and minds of young women, arguing that they should stop having children because of predictions of climate change. We’ve also witnessed the intentionally violent anarchism of Black Lives Matters and Antifa, and we now have a Democratic Party in the United States that more and more reflects much of the cultural Marxist worldview.
All of this chaos and self doubt, and in Canada the media’s near-total buy-in to the argument of “structural racism” against “people of color” (which just isn’t true), emerged from these refugee European Marxists who established themselves in New York at Columbia University and NYU’s New School for Social Research in the 1930s, and whose students have since taken over the social sciences and the mainstream media.
When you read these Frankfurt School cultural Marxists’ books and articles, they make little sense, nor do they agree with one another. The only thing they do agree on is that they’re “progressive” and view our democratic capitalist society as rotten to the core, that it must be destroyed, and that by destroying its cultural productions they’ll make it ripe for revolution, which explains the anti-corporate bias of so many Hollywood films and those found on Netflix.
We’ve seen the evidence on the streets of the United States leading up to the recent U.S. election and in our “woke” media and institutions of higher learning. Only then will the “vanguard” of the revolution create justice for the working class through a command economy (and that’s not worked very well wherever it’s been tried).
Our current malaise has one common origin, and these new Marx-inspired revolutionaries adopt any legitimate or partially legitimate grievance group as additional means to destroy the West. Instead of asking for gradual amelioration and individual rights, cultural Marxists call for “Revolutionary Justice.” This is the essence of collectivist “identity politics.” “Down with the individual” and the U.S. Constitution that protects it, is what they’re really selling.
For these young revolutionaries, such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), all history written by dead white men is not to be studied, and so they know nothing about the Russian revolution, Lenin, Stalin, or Mao, and thus provide our gullible, indoctrinated youth with a time-honored recipe for terror and economic collapse.
First publihsed in the Epoch Times.
Geoffrey Clarfield is an anthropologist-at-large who has spent 20 years traveling, living, and working in East Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.