Why the so-called left-wing liberals and other "progressive" thinkers are actually Marxists

Last week I published an article "The specter of Marxism, risen from the grave, roams the world again and has made it to Latvia", in which I outlined some of the main ideological guidelines of modern Marxism, including transgenderism. Andrejs Panteļejevs, an ideologue and leader of the Saeima faction of the former right-liberal party Latvian Way (Latvijas Ceļš), rebuked me on Facebook: “I just don't understand why Marxism is mentioned here at all. Marx does not talk about transgenderism anywhere. Postmodernist ideologues talk about it, but I don't see a connection with Marx here."

Since I already foresaw similar objections, I promised Panteļejevs that I would write a detailed explanation of why today's left-wing liberals, radicals, Sorosites, and others, whatever people call them, are in fact the pure Marxists. Here, I offer this explanation to a wider circle of readers.

Many will have heard the first sentence of the introduction of the 1848 "Communist Manifesto" written by Karl Marx: "A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism." Much less well known is the first sentence of the first chapter of this manifesto: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Here is Marx's main contribution to the development of philosophical thought - everything that has happened so far and everything that will happen in the future must be assessed through the prism of class struggle. Here, of course, it can be said that the class as such no longer exists today, and in general, a lot has passed since the time of Marx, so there is no need to disturb the ghosts of the past. But Marx would not be Marx if he did not take care of the immortality of his teachings ahead of time. Here is what he writes in the next (second) sentence:

"Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian,[..] in a word, oppressor and oppressed, (emphasis mine, B.L.) stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight...". Marx here defines the universal nature of the class struggle: the class struggle is an eternal struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, taking place both openly and, most importantly, covertly. Thus, in all cases, the primary task is to determine who is the oppressor (including the covert one), who is the oppressed, and to take the oppressed side accordingly.

When I wrote about this aspect of Marx's teachings on Facebook, Panteļejevs continued to object: “The liberation of the oppressed began long before Marxism. It is very careless to casually reduce all postmodernism to Marxism.”

This post by Panteļejevs contains two important but unrelated theses. The first is, "The liberation of the oppressed began long before Marxism."

Yes, it may have started before Marxism, but it was in the document already mentioned that Marx formulated this task in the most concise and precise way. Even if a thinker had defined it just as precisely and aptly before Marx, he would not have been able to deprive Marx of priority. If only because before him no Voltaire or Danton had been able to start a movement named after him.

The second - "It is very careless to casually reduce all postmodernism to Marxism."

Here I must admit that in my article I made a structural error, pointing to the deconstruction of concepts as one of the main features of Marxism. Namely, that nothing is what it looks like anymore. This maxim is indeed more in line with postmodernism, and Marxism only successfully uses it to create a confusion of concepts, but in Marxism, it is a means rather than the main task. We do not "reduce all postmodernism to Marxism", but implement certain elements of postmodernism (deconstruction of concepts) in Marxism as a much broader movement.

When I talk about Marxism, I want to emphasize that I use this term based on Marx's programmatic "Communist Manifesto" and not on "Capital", which is somewhat correct in details, but generally wrong and completely overturned in real life (although many leftists often use concepts borrowed directly from "Capital" in their rhetoric). I am absolutely convinced that if Marx's "Communist Manifesto" was read in its entirety, with minor stylistic but not substantive corrections, to the US Democratic Party Convention and the delegates were not warned in advance that it was Marx's work, this speech would be well-received and interrupted in many places by applause. In addition, not only if it was performed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Bernie Sanders. If it were supplemented with modern issues, it would sound like a quite normal speech from most delegates.

When it comes to Marxism, one cannot fail to mention its apparent attractiveness, as it is otherwise difficult to explain its enormous popularity in the Western world, especially among young people. The fact is that the world is full of injustice, and when a young person enters this world and gets to know it, it seems that only a couple of things should be changed, individuals and groups of people should be taught to “open their eyes”, they should be explained how it is “actually”, ”old prejudices” that hinder a new, beautiful life should be deconstructed, and the world will finally flourish with beautiful flowers of eternal righteousness. All you have to do is find the root of all the misfortunes, remove it carefully, and there will be overarching happiness.

The root of the problem has already been found. Now it has to be uprooted. And it is being done. Capitalism is just one branch of this evil tree. The deepest cause of oppression, the root of evil, turns out to be patriarchy, and anyone who does not see or denies this obvious and indisputable axiom is an incorrigible, prejudiced chauvinist, and an obstacle to a bright, sunny future. In other words, a miserable boomer who does not understand anything about life; who thinks only of himself, whose time has passed and who should leave the stage - the sooner the better.

A good question may arise - but what is wrong or incorrect there? Maybe we really need to push those old dodders aside faster so that the long-awaited happiness will arrive sooner? The problem is that, in many cases, "injustice" is objective in nature and cannot be eliminated as easily, simply, quickly as young people imagine, without greater life experience. Unfortunately, a person without experience has no, I emphasize no way to understand that his assumptions are wrong. No one and nothing will convince him that his convictions are wrong, and when he comes to the transformation of society, he can create a big mess. Historically, the danger of creating a big mess has been guarded by society's respect for more experienced people, but as soon as that respect is lost, revolutionary nests are born that, according to history, bring no happiness. At least for the majority of society. Imagine the same A. O. Cortez as President of the United States. Even the prudent Joe Biden is incomparably better.

The Russian socialist revolution was mostly carried out by people in their thirties, who chose the revolutionary path when they were teens. Lenin, who everyone called Дед (Grandfather), was 47 years old in 1917, and he was the eldest in that company by far. The main organizer of the revolution, Lev Trotsky, turned 38 on the day of the revolution on November 7 (October 26 in the old style). Hitler was 35 years old in 1924 when he organized the so-called Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, but in 1933, when he became chancellor - 44. His closest partner, Rudolf Hess, was 30 and 39 respectively.

By that I do not mean that young people should be restricted in some way, but it must be understood that they have a tendency to solve complex issues with simple, revolutionary methods. Both the Lenin/Trotsky revolution and, in part, the German National Socialist Revolution (the democratic process of gaining power here should not deceive anyone) were based on the Marxist class struggle. Let's not forget that until 1938-1939, the world considered Hitler a progressive fighter against all the old conservatives (all kinds of Churchills, Chamberlains and similar old coots stuck in the last century, in cylinders and tailcoats), and his main enemy was the bourgeois (Jewish, in Nazi's case) plutocracy. Hitler's flag, like Lenin's/Stalin's, was red, and May 1 was widely celebrated in both countries as a celebration of workers' solidarity when the National Socialist parties ate soup with "ordinary people" at long tables in city centers.

Today's Marxists get terribly offended when parallels are drawn with the actions of communist revolutionaries, Maoists or, even worse, Hitlerites. However, they are much less offended if they are equated with left-wing terrorists such as Fidel Castro or Che Guevara. Comparing them to these cult characters is a compliment. The true nature of today's left in the United States is demonstrated by their attitude towards recent events in Cuba. There, people are tired of real Marxism, take to the streets and wish to throw out the communists standing on the people's necks, but the Marxists in the USA feel organic dissonance in this situation.

On the one hand, the US Marxists (left wing of the Democratic Party) seem to be for human freedom, against tyranny, but in Cuba, power is anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist, it fights against US hegemony, capital domination and all other leftist chimeras. Consequently, they somehow do not support the rebellious nation. It is better to explain to the Cuban people that the real enemies are not the autocrats who seized power in Havana, but the predators of Wall Street and Washington, who will fight to the last to preserve sexism and institutional racism. Note that homophobia has already been defeated in the West, and it is far from the front line. The main struggles in this sector today have moved to the front of transgenderism, about which I wrote in the article "The specter of Marxism, risen from the grave, roams the world again and has made it to Latvia".

Taking a central position, it becomes clear that not everything in nature is antagonistic, and not everything can and, above all, should be divided according to the Marxist model - the oppressor and the oppressed. Why should both men and women be placed in these categories? Likewise, the whole critical race theory is largely created without sufficient justification precisely because of the Marxist categories.

In Marxism, it is imperative to find the oppressed, the victims, and they find them - women, black people, transgender people. There are currently three main fighting fronts - men/women; race or black/white because other races do not participate in this game; and transgenderism. We will talk about the fights in these sections of the front separately in the following articles.