Naming, name calling, and categories

It is easy to get caught up in misnaming and obfuscation and ad hominem arguments hinging attacking an opponent by categorizing them rather than addressing their specific argument. We all do it. There is a logic and rational. It can be effective. But it is not right.

Categories matter. Words matter. Logic and reason matter.

Take Black Lives Matter. I hear with some frequency that it is a Marxist organization. I have alluded to them as such myself. But is that true? Even as I alluded to them as Marxist, I knew I was just using a shorthand.

They are a highly dispersed, non-centralized movement. American in origin, they exist overseas as well. Their rhetoric is indeed rooted in Critical Race Theory which is a specific application of Critical Theory which in turn is anchored in both the reform Marxism of the Frankfurt School as well as the more general Marxist inspired Postmodernist movement.

To call them Marxist in origin is in general correct but that is not quite the same thing as to call them Marxist. It sounds like splitting a hair, but I think there is a meaningful distinction in there.

I suspect that virtually all people who self-identify as strong BLM supporters would balk at self-identifying as Marxist. I suspect that were you to poll 1,000 enthusiastic BLM supporters and asked them what are the top five foundational principles, relatively few would identify Marxism as among those principles.

And yet . . . Their underlying philosophical positions are Marxist. Their policy demands are not only racist but also Marxist. So are the Marx influenced? Sure! Are they a Marxist organization? It practical terms I would focus on anarchism and racism as their more predominant features, but certainly Marxism is in the mix.

You could go on down the line. Is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a Marxist? Almost certainly not in any informed way. She does, however, identify as a Democratic Socialist which is certainly in that line. The Green New Deal, which she sponsored was also explicitly a rejection of free market capitalism. In self-identification she is clearly not a Marxist. In actions and policies she pretty clearly is substantially out of that school of philosophy.

On and on. Who is really what. They are legitimate questions but it easily becomes esoteric to the point of rhetorical. And from rhetorical we default into simplified categorizations which in turn evolve into name calling. She's a Marxist. He's a racist! Charges almost devoid of meaning except for the desire to damage one's opponent.

Stepping back from the philosophical niceties, and focusing on actions and explicit policies, I think there is a somewhat different picture than is often presented. I don't think our real threats are BLM or Antifa or Occupy Wall Street or any other such movements. They are noisy, kinetic and frequently dangerous to the point of mortally dangerous. But we get hung up on the names.

I think what we are seeing and in danger from is something different. We have a resurgence of dispersed advocacy for Fascism, for Marxism, and for Anarchism.

Fascism - Dropping the left-right bickering, what are the key elements of fascism? Authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society. Common in Academia (de-platforming and speech restrictions) and in online communities such as Twitter mobs (cancel culture).

Marxism - There are as many definitions of Marxism as there are Marxists. Common elements include a belief in the scientific determinism of socioeconomic analysis. The common belief that human well-being can be centrally engineered and can be achieved though social transformation. Prevalent among academics, some think tanks, and fringe politicians on the left (Bernie Sanders and AOC being examples) and some movements such as BLM. Widely subscribed to in Mainstream Media through its Critical Theory and Social Justice forms.

Anarchism - By its nature, these are the hardest to pigeon-hole. They tautologically escape definition but recent exemplars are Antifa and Occupy Wall Street as well as innumerable local movements or events such as CHOP in Seattle. Sometimes they are not even movements, they are spontaneous riots over deeply specific contextual issues.

Whenever there is a civil disturbance, almost always all three threat strands are present.

BLM being an incoherent fusion of both racism and Marxism is an example of what frequently happens. There is a triggering event. The philosophical racist-Marxist core organizes a protest intended to whip up sentiment but also to be peaceful. The protest gets out of hand. Antifa joins in to provide a catalyst and fuel to events. A riot ensues where property destruction, looting, and physical assaults are the main attributes. Subsequently the Fascists seek to provide cover by shaping the narrative by shunning, de-platforming, and suppressing anyone reporting the facts or an unacceptable interpretation of the facts.

Is it BLM which needs to be tackled? Not really.

We need to tackle the select pockets in society where cultural Fascism, Marxism and Anarchism flourish. Academia, mainstream media, deep staters, social media, etc.

Our Achilles Heel is that we have to do so in a fashion consistent with our own philosophical Enlightenment principles. Fascists, Marxists, Anarchists are comfortable with breaking individual eggs to achieve their omelette. Classic Liberals of the Age of Enlightenment are not.

That is the crux of the issue.