Gramscian memes, a caustic chemical on public discourse

A few days ago I posted (The Cold War As Progenitor of Cognitive Pollution) about an article by Eric Raymond (Gramscian damage ). Raymond is arguing that there are many items of cognitive pollution (hypotheses ardently believed without material proof) that were deliberately launched by the Soviets during the Cold War as part of a Gramscian strategy to undermine the West. Gramsci was an Italian Marxist theorist who articulated the strategy of cultural subversion as a means to address the inexplicable (to Marxists) productivity and durability of Western culture, economies, and institutions.

The list of common beliefs that Raymond identified as Marxist propositions widely believed without supporting evidence was:

There is no truth, only competing agendas.

All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.

There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.

The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.

Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.

The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)

For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.

When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

I have been thinking about his argument since then and want to drill down on that list. While I think Raymond is on to something, there is a lot of looseness to the argument and I can't help but feel that his conviction has caused him to frame some of the Gramscian memes in poor light. I want to both tighten up the argument and perhaps reframe it a bit.

There are a whole range of predicates, the most important of which are:

First is to define what constitutes a Gramscian meme.

Just because someone articulates a Gramscian meme, doesn't mean they are a Marxist. Gramscian memes are highly adaptable to multiple hosts without the host being aware of the infection.

A Gramscian meme is not necessarily wrong, but it is not right (true, meaningful). Most Gramscian memes have a grain of truth to them. It is the extrapolation to the extreme that makes them wrong. It is a variant of the classical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum.

The strength of Gramscian memes are not in their explanatory power (it is poor) or in their truth or accuracy, but in the ease with which they are presented as true without having to justify that they are true.

So what might be a working definition of what constitutes a Gramscian meme? Perhaps:

A Gramscian meme is an assumption which has an element of truth to it but is either meaningless without tighter definition or is broadly untrue in most circumstances AND which undermines important traditional Western beliefs without furthering any specific agenda for improvement. Gramscian memes can provide important insights and critiques of the status quo but are not usefully true when expressed in their strong form or when meaning is clearly defined.

Gramscian memes, when examined collectively, seem to focus on undermining at least four critical concepts and beliefs of Western Civilization: 1) Individual Agency, 2) Free Will, 3) Rule of Law, 4) Consent of the Governed, and 4) Scientific Method. Those are the ones I have noticed so far.

Gramscian memes also seem to create many variant propositions from a small number of key concepts. The critical sleights of hand that seem very common underpinnings of Gramscian memes appear to be 1) Equating correlation with causation, 2) Near universal commission of the Fundamental Attribution Error, 3) Disavowal of emergent order, 4) A belief that all disparate results are both negative and intentional, 5) a belief that emotional conviction trumps logic and data, 6) stripping away context from claims, and 7) relying on anecdote over data.

The following is a working list of Gramscian memes which are of limited truth but which are uncritically and widely accepted as being broadly true. This list seeks to omit beliefs that are arrived at through an inadequate knowledge base, simple logical fallacy, or through cognitive biases. It also seeks to avoid such concepts as War on Women, Gender Pay Gap, etc., in other words, specific strategies which might be grounded in a Gramscian worldview but which are deployed for specific tactical political benefit.

There is no objective truth, only conflicting interpretations of evidence.

What we accept as true is really just the preferences of interpretation imposed by others.

All cultures are equal to one another; there is no hierarchy of better or worse cultures.

The West is rich because of its exploitation of non-western countries.

The heritage of Western colonialism, slavery and racism is the source of most of the problems experienced by the developing world today.

Crime is caused by poverty.

Income inequality has demonstrable negative consequences on the well-being of all citizens.

There are no circumstances where violence or coercion on the part of an individual is a justifiable response.

Aggression can be curbed by understanding the source of aggression.

Everyone is the product of their place, time, and circumstances and therefore cannot be meaningfully deemed responsible for their actions.

Any individual person's achievements are the consequence of circumstance and luck and not of individual effort and merit.

Disagreements can always be resolved through better communication.

All individuals are inherently flawed and therefore are incapable of making optimal decisions.

Collective action has greater moral value than individual action.

Disparate impacts or consequences are the result of intentional bias or discrimination.

When some person gains something, someone else must lose.

Actions can reliably be taken without unintended consequences.

Intentions matter more than outcomes.

When faced with an unacceptable situation, it is better to do something poorly than to do nothing at all.

Correlation implies causation

The average is the individual.

Past is prolog.

There is no such things as free will.

History determines the future.

Women suffer negative life outcomes owing to patriarchal biases.

Marginalized groups suffer detrimental consequences of overt discrimination.

Minority must also mean marginalized.

There are many situations where free speech has to be controlled to avoid negative outcomes. (Politically correct locutions, trigger warnings, outright bans, etc.)

Everyone owes everyone else an equal opportunity.

Stereotyping is evidence of malicious bias.

No one should have to experience speech they find offensive.

There is no such thing as private property.

Money is the root of all evil.

Rules exist to support the status quo.

If you don’t write the rules you don’t have to live by them.

A motive is sufficient explanation.

To make an omelet you have to break some eggs.

The ends (always) justifies the means.

It’s important that it work in theory as well as it works in practice.

Conflating the absolute with the relative.

All men should be equal in terms of outcomes as well as opportunities.

Race is a social construct.

Any one person’s gain is another person’s loss.

Sex is rape.

All exchange is theft.

Everyone’s a winner.

The important this is you tried.

The precautionary principle.

Economic determinism.

Labor theory of value.

Historical materialism.

Race or class privilege.

If you are a woman, a minority or a criminal, you are oppressed.

Group identity is more important than individual identity.

Positive outcomes achieved by individuals must necessarily have been achieved through force and coercion.

The personal is political.

False consciousness is a real problem, people pursue actions against their own best interests.

Morality is socially constructed and has no universal application.

The law exists solely to protect the interests of the most powerful and privileged.

Racial diversity is inherently beneficial and right.

Group rights trump individual rights.

Religion is the opiate of the people.

Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand.

Existing institutions are oppressive of everyone other than the elite sponsoring those institutions.

You can't have free speech because the opinions of some will become marginalized.

Protected classes who disagree must be victims of false consciousness.

If you are not with ut, you are against us.

That's more than enough to be pondering on. Knowing that all these are broadly wrong (i.e. setting aside the narrowly defined element that provides the fig leaf of truth), look at how many tempests are underpinned by the above assumptions - 10 Hours walking in NYC, #shirtstorm, #gamergate, etc. Strip away those faulty assumptions and you get back to a much smaller set of much more real issues. The gramscian memes continue to do their job by obfuscation and by distracting people from the important issues in order to focus on the inconsequential.