“Critical theory,” especially the kind that involves identity, is an enemy of the workers movement and the pro-Palestine cause. To properly explain why it’s such a destructive force, and why the present moment is a critical time to combat these ideas, I’ll need to describe exactly which kinds of anti-Marxist and colonial chauvinist ideas “critical theory” is based within.
Critical theory’s core purpose: to defend the colonial framework
As Losurdo discusses in his book Western Marxism, the arguments that were put forth by the original critical theorists almost entirely went against real revolutionary struggles, and most of all against national liberation efforts. It’s within these arguments that we find a crucial part of the origins behind left-wing anti-communism, and behind the nominally Marxist tendencies that oppose existing workers states.
Jennifer Ponce de León and Gabriel Rockhill say in their introduction to Losurdo’s book that “the Frankfurt School and French theory, as well as some of the work that is in dialogue with them” form “the historical foundation and referential basis for so many of the commodities produced by the business of contemporary theory in the imperial core. Much of what Losurdo diagnoses in this book therefore applies mutatis mutandis to many other trends promoted by the theory industry, some of which are openly anti-Marxist, including postcolonial theory, decolonial theory, liberal feminist and queer theory, Afro-pessimism, and so forth.” These theories describe themselves as being against colonialism, but they wouldn’t be able to exist in the first place if not for a concerted effort by the “critical theorists” to defend colonialism, and to discredit those who’ve constructed actual liberation theory through real revolutionary experiences.
This is where we find a deeper explanation for left anti-communism than that its propagators fetishize purity; it’s true that they’re fixated on purity, and that they fail to make the distinction between primary vs. secondary contradictions. But the underlying reason why the “critical theorists” disregard pragmatic and dialectical thinking is because they’re fundamentally coming from a position that’s colonial chauvinist; that’s not informed by the experience of the struggle against imperial domination. This is a struggle in which the revolutionary project must by necessity build up its industrial strength to overcome colonialism’s devastation, and must maintain a strong state in order to defend against the imperial militaries.
As Lenin’s State and Revolution illustrates, any socialist revolution in any part of the world won’t be able to afford abolishing the state in the first phase; Lenin and the Bolsheviks also proved the need for utilizing markets through their New Economic Policy. It’s these aspects of history’s real revolutionary efforts that the “critical theorists” despise, and they despise it for the same reason that their thinking is anti-Palestinian: it’s because they view the colonized peoples, and their liberation struggles, as being tangential or opposed towards their vision of Marxism.
This arrogance comes out in ways that would be easy for most Marxists to spot. There’s Mario Tronti’s exclusive focus on the interests of English workers, which is explicitly done for the purpose of directing discourse away from colonialism; there’s Max Horkheimer’s justifying the Cold War as a defense against “totalitarian states”; there’s Theodor Adorno’s effort to discredit anti-colonial struggles by arguing that the national question is inherently reactionary. The consistent trend among these thinkers is to belittle and stigmatize the liberation movements of colonial peoples, and when you read Western Marxism, it becomes apparent how central this hostility against anti-colonialism is. “Western” Marxism, which greatly overlaps with broader academic leftism, is at its core about tearing down those who fight imperialism so that imperial academia can maintain its sense of authority.
These are realities about “critical theory” that many Marxists and pro-Palestine supporters could easily come to accept; yet many among them are still susceptible to being manipulated by the particular kind of chauvinism which modern identity politics represents. To rescue our movements from the harm that academic leftism causes, we’ll need to also combat the newer manifestations of this theory. The ones that place identity struggles, specifically as they relate to modern western concepts like “queer theory,” on the same level as the actual workers struggle; or that put them on the level of the Palestinian struggle, which is even easier to recognize as being inappropriate.
An operation to divert from Palestine & the working-class cause
To illustrate why “queer theory” is especially harmful in the present moment, I will point to the connection between it and Herbert Marcuse, the Frankfurt School “critical” theorist whose ideas have likely been able to gain the most influence over the modern left. Marcuse is relevant to this extent because of his mentorship of Angela Davis, who’s been embraced as a guide among many radical circles but is undeniably an advocate for left anti-communist reformism. Davis was part of the Committees of Correspondence, the “democratic socialist” faction that was formed after the USSR’s fall to rebuke the Leninist model. In accordance with this opportunistic tendency, Davis is also an advocate for voting blue within presidential elections.
These are the ideas that have proliferated due to Marcuse’s legacy. And they come from a view of the anti-imperialist freedom fighters that devalues their efforts, in a way which is more insidious than how most of the other critical theorists do. As Losurdo says, Marcuse
…warmly welcomed the struggle for national liberation of the Vietnamese people, who "with the poorest weapons can keep in check the most efficient system of destruction of all times, representing "a world-historical novelty." More generally, "the national liberation fronts" can make a precious contribution to the "crisis of the system" of capitalism. And yet, causes for doubt were not far behind. Yes, the victory of the Vietnamese resistance "is an immensely positive and constructive step," but "this has nothing to do with the construction of a socialist society." For the newly independent countries, rapid economic and technological development was a question of life and death. However, "is there any evidence that the former colonial or semi-colonial areas might adopt a way of industrialization essentially different" from the model of "capitalism" and substantially copied by the Soviet Union?
The reason why I particularly associate all of these anti-Marxist and chauvinistic ideas with “queer theory” is because right now, the LGBT movement is the primary tool that reformists are using to co-opt Palestine, and to dilute the class struggle. It’s important to clarify that I don’t say this to single out LGBT people; but it’s also important not to spend too much time defending oneself from bad-faith accusations of bigotry, because stigmatizing their opponents as bigots is a tactic which these chauvinistic political actors will not give up. And a good way to frame our counter-messaging against their arguments is that we’re defending the Palestinian cause, and the working-class cause, from an effort at taking away their revolutionary character. An effort that’s itself being carried out under the guise of “liberation.”
What we need to understand about the “LGBT movement,” at least as it exists within the overwhelming majority of its global iterations, is that it’s not an extension of the class struggle. This is how its politics get marketed towards those who are interested in socialism, but the objective character these politics have is almost exclusively one that’s aligned with imperialism. The most obvious way they serve imperialism is through being used as agitation propaganda within U.S. color revolutions, which often justify their attacks on anti-imperialist states by claiming (correctly or not) that these states are violating LGBT people’s rights. Another trend that we’ve been seeing emerge, though, especially since Palestine was thrust into the center of western discourse two years ago, is for the “LGBT movement” to pressure leftists and communists into placing “queer theory” on the same level of importance as Palestine.
This is what Your Party, a recently formed and suddenly prominent UK organization that presents itself as working-class, has done by putting “trans liberation” into its founding documents. It’s done so in the context of a UK Supreme Court decision this year which affirmed that biological sex is to still be defined as biological sex, with gender not being able to effect legal judgements regarding this.
That Your Party and those within its ideological camp object to this is an important point to stress, because it reveals something very strange about this faction of LGBT politics: it rejects the idea that sex and gender are distinct categories. Clarifying that someone’s gender identity can be separate from their biological sex is an effective way of advocating for transgender people, and the LGBT movement has often used this argument; but this camp throws out that argument, because within the worldview of “critical theory” the material is not what’s important. What’s important is the metaphysical, in which language and abstract concepts define reality.
The effect of taking this position is that it obscures the material nature of the struggles which working-class and colonized peoples are waging, and also de-centers Palestine in a very sneaky way. This is the tangible harm that “critical theory” is doing to today’s revolutionary movements, and we need to figure out ways to counter it which don’t end up giving its proponents ammunition; because the politics they employ are fundamentally manipulative, and they will always try to paint their opponents as simply being bigots.
The approach this essay employs is to explain the deeper historical context behind what produced these harmful pseudo-Marxist theories, and why combating these theories is so important to today’s revolutionary struggles. I recommend this approach, and I also recommend applying it within situations where we’re speaking to the broad masses rather than to other Marxists. Lenin clarified that the “average worker” tends to seek out more in-depth and challenging materials, and we therefore shouldn’t limit our intellectual discussions to Marxist circles themselves.
It might be such a mass-oriented strategy that lets us overcome the influence of academic leftism and critical theory, because these forces are about keeping Marxism insular. Our opponents in this debate are talking to themselves, and we can take advantage of this by going into the people. This is how we can connect the masses of our own countries with the struggle the Palestinians are waging, and thereby build a workers movement that stands apart from those who seek to rob it of its essence.
————————————————————————
If you appreciate my work, I hope you become a one-time or regular donor to my Patreon account. Like most of us, I’m feeling the economic pressures amid late-stage capitalism, and I need money to keep fighting for a new system that works for all of us. Go to my Patreon here.
To keep this platform effective amid the censorship against dissenting voices, join my Telegram channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment