Too often during the 20th century, the leftist warning that
freedom in law will not be sufficient was mistaken to mean that freedom in law
is itself unimportant, or worse, a mere rationalization for other forms of
privilege, be it economic class dominance (think Leninism) or the more recent
emphasis on race or gender privilege.
This mistaken interpretation has been disastrous before, in
the USSR and its satellites, and will be disastrous again in the hands of the
western regressive left should they end up in a real position of power.
The hollowness of mere equality in the law in a bourgeois
society does not mean that equality in law doesn't doesn't matter and can
simply be dispensed with as a means of achieving some higher, more transcendent
kind of equality. Quite the opposite.
It reminds me of Bakunin's formulation that liberty without
socialism is privilege and injustice, while socialism without liberty is
slavery and brutality. A wise man, Bakunin.
We're kind of the new old left, as it were. A lot of these guys: Sargon, Jordan Peterson
etc. start off as reasonable anti-SJW liberals, but always end up drifting
right. That doesn't happen to us.
"Yes, this is my biggest problem with Sargonism: The critique of the Cultural Left is fine, but let's realize he's not on the economic Left" - Realist Left, Oct 26, 2017
Phrases like "white people don't get to decide what's
racist" or "males don't get to decide what's sexist" should
raise red flags for left wingers, and not the kinds of red flags left wingers
typically like and are associated with.
"You don't get to question the diktats of the
leadership, the party line or the church doctrine" is the statement of
what kind of leader? An authoritarian leader, by definition. What kind of
group? A cult, a fundamentalist religious sect or a fascist party, that's what
kind.
These statements are a kind of linguistic dishonesty. They
depend for their effect on definitions of racism and sexism that are already
commonly understood. Meaning that discrimination and supremacist views on the basis
of race or sex, which are commonly held to be bad things. So there's actually
no real need to discuss whether or not whites get to decide what's racist or
males get to decide what's sexist because we already know what those terms
mean.
When it is stated that whites/males don't get to decide
what's racist/sexist, what it is really being used to convey is that they do
not get to question what this or that self appointed representative of feminist
or minority interests deems racist or sexist. This suggests to me that they
wish to appropriate the moral force of anti-racism and anti-sexism for their
own benefit in some manner, such as to police culture with impunity. This
suggests to me that these so called anti-racists and feminists do not want
their ideologies and the nature of their activism scrutinized. This suggests to
me that these self appointed representatives might have something to hide.
Of course claims of racism and sexism should not simply be
hand waved away as the hypersensitivity of easily triggered SJW snowflakes in
need of a safe space either, as the alt-right would suggest. Rather we should
scrutinize the claim of racism or sexism and ascertain whether or not it's
actually describing discriminatory practice, supremacism etc., or advocacy
thereof.
The adherents critical race theory and feminist theory have
declared that white males do not get to question them on what is racist or
sexist. For the alt-left, we must take this as being true, in a way. For we
have not merely the right to question them so, but now the responsibility to.
And this responsibility is not despite the fact that we are liberals, but
because of it.
Follow Ernest on these formats:
No comments:
Post a Comment