It is sad that so many people don't get what you are writing about. Please don't be discouraged. This is the type of article that makes Substack worth visiting. Great stuff
Having spent most of my life around liberal-left types, progressive to a greater or lesser degree, your essay resonates with me on so many levels. While I have known very few genuine Marxists, I know the people who forgive them everything because "they meant well!" Good intentions are everything in this world view. You can't overestimate their naiveté. A fable indeed.
Always remember: Marxism in any variant is a sick religion and as a religion, rationality counts little. Faith in the cannon of Marxism is what matters above all else. Facts contrary to the faith? Get them out of the way! Makers of facts that might be contrary to the faith? Denounce them and burn them at the stake! NOTHING must come between the faithful and their Paradise!
I'd say, just measuring by burning at the stake, MANY groups outstrip the Puritans. Roman Catholics for example. Slaveowners in the US. There weren't a lot of Puritans, and they weren't for very long.
Great analysis as always and well articulated. Just wanted to mention that the British philosopher John Gray has pointed out that populism is a response to 'hyper-liberalism'; that its worth reading Gentile on the process of deification, particularly relevant to the emergence of woke as a replacement, at least for needy, pseudo elites, for religion and community in absence of the normative and communal frameworks they destroyed; that woke has become. of course, a class signifier. With respect to the progressive left being contemptuous of the rural population, it worth observing that in Britain this is now perhaps the working class outside of the cosmopolitan, metropolitan hubs; look at where the recent unrest took place.
"Those who attempt to politicise everything degrade all they touch." This is an amazing quote. I am going to write it down into my quotes collection. Thank you
The biggest failure of Marxism/socialism/leftism/communism/progressivism, or whatever they call it this week, is the absolute contempt for and the religious desire to destroy the individual. The individual must be extinct since an individual can ask why or tune out the propaganda. With leftism, it is all about the collective, the collective must be one in all things; just like the Borg in Star Trek, everyone is assimilated into a hive mind and individuality does not exist except for those at the top.
If the left did not control much of the media and many education systems in the west, the crimes of socialism and communism would be much more pronounced and not as many people, especially younger people would still believe it still should exist and that it hasn’t been tried “successfully” yet. The key is continuing to resist and educate impressionable minds with history and the real facts of leftism before the progressives and their media allies get to those minds first. It’s a tough battle but surrender is not an option; for those who do not take liberty for granted it is better to be dead than to be subjugated.
“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”- Ayn Rand.
“If there is one thing my Soviet childhood taught me, it’s that subscribing to someone else’s ideology will always inevitably mean having to suspend your own judgment about right and wrong to appease your tribe. I refuse to do so.”- Konstantin Kisin.
“Conversely, liberal-conservatives are often very well aware of the possibilities of their own political tradition metastasising, which helps inhibit—and divide—their responses to the social and institutional imperialism of left-progressives. This is then aggravated by centre-right politicians, staffers and so forth generally being Anywheres, thus lacking resonance with—or understanding of—the concerns of Somewheres: folk whose identity and networks are very much based on locality. “
Okay, who the hell are you, Lorenzo? This essay is an excellent exhibition of our current, dire circumstances. Bless you for you work. A new, and likely loyal reader.
Ta. I have no higher degree: no Masters or Doctorate. So, clearly not an intellectual. As I say on my X.com bio, I am an accidental small businessman who reads a lot and thinks about what he reads, sometimes productively.
Well, I dare say that is why you write so well and have such great analysis - you haven't been lobotomized by doing a Masters or Doctorate! Long live autodidacts and independent thinkers! You are inspiring me to lift my game.
COMPLETELY agree! Fascinating, illuminating analysis. I always learn so much and have my mind blown. And find much to agree with. Also a new and likely loyal reader.
Great analysis, thank you. Been reading Solzhenitsyn’s novel In the First Circle and chewing on the fact that conservatives calling Dems fuckin commies wasn’t hyperbole.
I was steeped in Marxist critical theory for years - have a degree in sociology/economics from Portland State and live in the Pac NW. Very scary political environment here, you’re very much not allowed to be openly conservative.
Ever seen the comedian who performed a bit on Dry Bar Comedy that included a bit about "if you're from California, and you're a Republican, you want to keep that, to yourself!"
"Republicans are just mythical creatures that live in the bushes, jump out, snatch your children, and force them to get a job."
Many people will not recognise the factualness of what you write because they have a serious lack of perspective. I belong to a unique group: people who spent early years in the communist bloc and recognise everything that is happening. Lysenkoism, Zdanovscina, I am aware of all these phenomena and could easily spot them developing in the woke/prog-left movement.
The tragedy is that everything that is happening has been done before - and just like warnings from Eastern Europeans about Russia it was ignored by the comfortable Western elites.
The words "woke" and "wokeness" are controversial to the point that they're almost impossible to rationally discuss across the aisle. Some on the left deny that there are such things or, if there are, they mean only caring for others and being sensitive to their feelings. Some on the right claim that they're synonymous with Marxism. The following is my attempt at a neutral, non-pejorative definition of "wokeness" that, I hope, will allow rational discussion rather than angry people talking past each other. Feel free to offer amendments.
Wokeness is a social and cultural movement grounded in Critical Theory, which critiques existing power structures and suggests that laws and norms are often created to benefit those in power. It draws from frameworks like Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Feminist Theory, Post-Colonial Theory, and intersectionality, with a focus on addressing and rectifying social inequalities.
Wokeness emphasizes the importance of lived experience and personal narratives, particularly in discussions of race, gender, and identity, sometimes prioritizing these perspectives over traditional notions of scientific or objective truth. It seeks to highlight the ways in which marginalized groups are impacted by systemic issues and advocates for centering their voices in social discourse.
The movement promotes activism and advocacy, encouraging individuals and communities to engage in social justice causes, support policy changes, and challenge perceived inequalities through organized efforts and grassroots initiatives.
It also promotes the idea of identity fluidity, rejecting fixed categories and embracing complex, intersectional, and evolving understandings of gender, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity.
Wokeness endorses the idea of “equity,” or equal outcomes across different demographic groups. Additionally, it can involve strong moral commitments, encouraging accountability and, in some cases, calling for social consequences — such as "cancellation" — for those who question or reject its principles.
The woke culture rolled out the ideology of "equity" because the previous social norm "equality" (ie egalitarian treatment) failed to provide proportionally distributed outcomes. IE some socio-economic groups still had higher crime rates or lower educational attainment.
The base belief of leftists is that in a natural state all outcomes would be equal - therefore any outcomes that are not necessarily prove the existence of malfeasance(discrimination//oppression whatever). That is why they can never provide any true evidence of wrongdoing and resort to making up "institutional x y z-ism" to justify their demands. If women are not 50% of a profession to them it proves women are discriminated against and thence demand "equity" action.
The challenge in being a social scientist is being a scientist… so easy to get attached to a particular faction. It took thousands upon thousands of years to figure out what actually powers the sun and photons are (photons started getting clearer after Planck I introduced quantum of energy, and Einstein used it to explain photoelectric effect; explaining the sun took another 20 years of quantum mechanics and atomic & nuclear physics to develop). It’s likely to take us thousands of years to get the same level of insights in social science… also needed, Einstein level scientists in social sciences… not clear to me who those are, or if any are close😎)
Yes, do tell what the Bolsheviks were reacting to when they killed, gaoled, worked to death, tyrannised on a scale orders of magnitude worse than Tsarism?
It is sad that so many people don't get what you are writing about. Please don't be discouraged. This is the type of article that makes Substack worth visiting. Great stuff
People in America in general don’t understand the history of Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Castro
Which seems crazy because I did by age 12 just by casually reading.
The average person is dumb as a brick when it comes to matters beyond the base material.
Having spent most of my life around liberal-left types, progressive to a greater or lesser degree, your essay resonates with me on so many levels. While I have known very few genuine Marxists, I know the people who forgive them everything because "they meant well!" Good intentions are everything in this world view. You can't overestimate their naiveté. A fable indeed.
Always remember: Marxism in any variant is a sick religion and as a religion, rationality counts little. Faith in the cannon of Marxism is what matters above all else. Facts contrary to the faith? Get them out of the way! Makers of facts that might be contrary to the faith? Denounce them and burn them at the stake! NOTHING must come between the faithful and their Paradise!
MARX WILLS IT!
The Puritan spirit is alive and well…
I'd say, just measuring by burning at the stake, MANY groups outstrip the Puritans. Roman Catholics for example. Slaveowners in the US. There weren't a lot of Puritans, and they weren't for very long.
Great analysis as always and well articulated. Just wanted to mention that the British philosopher John Gray has pointed out that populism is a response to 'hyper-liberalism'; that its worth reading Gentile on the process of deification, particularly relevant to the emergence of woke as a replacement, at least for needy, pseudo elites, for religion and community in absence of the normative and communal frameworks they destroyed; that woke has become. of course, a class signifier. With respect to the progressive left being contemptuous of the rural population, it worth observing that in Britain this is now perhaps the working class outside of the cosmopolitan, metropolitan hubs; look at where the recent unrest took place.
The way bad migration policy accentuates the metro/provincial divide in UK, France and the US is one of its more corrosive effects.
"Those who attempt to politicise everything degrade all they touch." This is an amazing quote. I am going to write it down into my quotes collection. Thank you
The biggest failure of Marxism/socialism/leftism/communism/progressivism, or whatever they call it this week, is the absolute contempt for and the religious desire to destroy the individual. The individual must be extinct since an individual can ask why or tune out the propaganda. With leftism, it is all about the collective, the collective must be one in all things; just like the Borg in Star Trek, everyone is assimilated into a hive mind and individuality does not exist except for those at the top.
If the left did not control much of the media and many education systems in the west, the crimes of socialism and communism would be much more pronounced and not as many people, especially younger people would still believe it still should exist and that it hasn’t been tried “successfully” yet. The key is continuing to resist and educate impressionable minds with history and the real facts of leftism before the progressives and their media allies get to those minds first. It’s a tough battle but surrender is not an option; for those who do not take liberty for granted it is better to be dead than to be subjugated.
“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”- Ayn Rand.
“If there is one thing my Soviet childhood taught me, it’s that subscribing to someone else’s ideology will always inevitably mean having to suspend your own judgment about right and wrong to appease your tribe. I refuse to do so.”- Konstantin Kisin.
Those who try to bring heaven to earth create hell
There are simply too many people, trying to sit in the same chair.
Quite. Elite over-production. Peter Turchin provides the go-to analysis.
“Conversely, liberal-conservatives are often very well aware of the possibilities of their own political tradition metastasising, which helps inhibit—and divide—their responses to the social and institutional imperialism of left-progressives. This is then aggravated by centre-right politicians, staffers and so forth generally being Anywheres, thus lacking resonance with—or understanding of—the concerns of Somewheres: folk whose identity and networks are very much based on locality. “
Okay, who the hell are you, Lorenzo? This essay is an excellent exhibition of our current, dire circumstances. Bless you for you work. A new, and likely loyal reader.
Ta. I have no higher degree: no Masters or Doctorate. So, clearly not an intellectual. As I say on my X.com bio, I am an accidental small businessman who reads a lot and thinks about what he reads, sometimes productively.
Well, I dare say that is why you write so well and have such great analysis - you haven't been lobotomized by doing a Masters or Doctorate! Long live autodidacts and independent thinkers! You are inspiring me to lift my game.
COMPLETELY agree! Fascinating, illuminating analysis. I always learn so much and have my mind blown. And find much to agree with. Also a new and likely loyal reader.
Great analysis, thank you. Been reading Solzhenitsyn’s novel In the First Circle and chewing on the fact that conservatives calling Dems fuckin commies wasn’t hyperbole.
I was steeped in Marxist critical theory for years - have a degree in sociology/economics from Portland State and live in the Pac NW. Very scary political environment here, you’re very much not allowed to be openly conservative.
Ever seen the comedian who performed a bit on Dry Bar Comedy that included a bit about "if you're from California, and you're a Republican, you want to keep that, to yourself!"
"Republicans are just mythical creatures that live in the bushes, jump out, snatch your children, and force them to get a job."
Many people will not recognise the factualness of what you write because they have a serious lack of perspective. I belong to a unique group: people who spent early years in the communist bloc and recognise everything that is happening. Lysenkoism, Zdanovscina, I am aware of all these phenomena and could easily spot them developing in the woke/prog-left movement.
The tragedy is that everything that is happening has been done before - and just like warnings from Eastern Europeans about Russia it was ignored by the comfortable Western elites.
The words "woke" and "wokeness" are controversial to the point that they're almost impossible to rationally discuss across the aisle. Some on the left deny that there are such things or, if there are, they mean only caring for others and being sensitive to their feelings. Some on the right claim that they're synonymous with Marxism. The following is my attempt at a neutral, non-pejorative definition of "wokeness" that, I hope, will allow rational discussion rather than angry people talking past each other. Feel free to offer amendments.
Wokeness is a social and cultural movement grounded in Critical Theory, which critiques existing power structures and suggests that laws and norms are often created to benefit those in power. It draws from frameworks like Critical Race Theory, Queer Theory, Critical Pedagogy, Feminist Theory, Post-Colonial Theory, and intersectionality, with a focus on addressing and rectifying social inequalities.
Wokeness emphasizes the importance of lived experience and personal narratives, particularly in discussions of race, gender, and identity, sometimes prioritizing these perspectives over traditional notions of scientific or objective truth. It seeks to highlight the ways in which marginalized groups are impacted by systemic issues and advocates for centering their voices in social discourse.
The movement promotes activism and advocacy, encouraging individuals and communities to engage in social justice causes, support policy changes, and challenge perceived inequalities through organized efforts and grassroots initiatives.
It also promotes the idea of identity fluidity, rejecting fixed categories and embracing complex, intersectional, and evolving understandings of gender, sexual orientation, and other aspects of identity.
Wokeness endorses the idea of “equity,” or equal outcomes across different demographic groups. Additionally, it can involve strong moral commitments, encouraging accountability and, in some cases, calling for social consequences — such as "cancellation" — for those who question or reject its principles.
Nicely done.
The woke culture rolled out the ideology of "equity" because the previous social norm "equality" (ie egalitarian treatment) failed to provide proportionally distributed outcomes. IE some socio-economic groups still had higher crime rates or lower educational attainment.
The base belief of leftists is that in a natural state all outcomes would be equal - therefore any outcomes that are not necessarily prove the existence of malfeasance(discrimination//oppression whatever). That is why they can never provide any true evidence of wrongdoing and resort to making up "institutional x y z-ism" to justify their demands. If women are not 50% of a profession to them it proves women are discriminated against and thence demand "equity" action.
I had to post so much of this on X. So much brilliance, so much truth! God bless you, dear Lorenzo!
Socialists/communists/Marxists seem to have a lifetime exemption from the No True Scotsman fallacy.
There is a prominent statue of Lenin in a trendy Seattle neighborhood (Fremont).
Cute, right? 🤮
The challenge in being a social scientist is being a scientist… so easy to get attached to a particular faction. It took thousands upon thousands of years to figure out what actually powers the sun and photons are (photons started getting clearer after Planck I introduced quantum of energy, and Einstein used it to explain photoelectric effect; explaining the sun took another 20 years of quantum mechanics and atomic & nuclear physics to develop). It’s likely to take us thousands of years to get the same level of insights in social science… also needed, Einstein level scientists in social sciences… not clear to me who those are, or if any are close😎)
I would sum up this brilliant analysis in one sentence. To every action, there is a reaction. The laws of science apply to everything.
So what were all those nasty lefties reacting to?
Yes, do tell what the Bolsheviks were reacting to when they killed, gaoled, worked to death, tyrannised on a scale orders of magnitude worse than Tsarism?
Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together answers this. The full translation to English is due out next year.
The french revolution
Their lack of political power