I find it very odd when people keep telling me that “the left” is doing something bad with regard to wokeness and applied postmodernism when so many of the people opposing identity politics, cancel culture, collective blame, language policing, deplatforming, and censorship by the Critical Social Justice faction are, in fact, on the left. Not only is there a significant pushback against the excesses of Critical Social Justice on the left, this has been the case throughout the entire history leading up to the emergence of Critical Social Justice today. Let’s have a look at some of this.
In the late 1960s, two things happened at once. One, the radical liberationist “New Left” emerged within the activist left from the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, mostly following Herbert Marcuse’s agitations. It immediately set upon both Marxism and liberalism, especially the latter, whose focus on plurality, universality, and individuality it is diametrically and fundamentally opposed to in favor of radicalism and collectivism. Two, postmodernism emerged on the academic left, denying any possibility of accessing objective truth and seeing all applications of knowledge as misuses of power. It too immediately attacked Marxism and liberalism, both of which it saw as naïve “metanarratives”—cohesive and overarching explanations of history, progress, and society.
In response, Marxists and many socialists more broadly, who are instantly recognizable as a significant part of “the left,” immediately objected to the New Left’s Neo-Marxism (or Cultural Marxism, as they sometimes called their own framework) and its marked departure from a focus on economics into broader cultural issues. They also objected to the postmodernists for their incoherence, denial of objective truth, deep suspicion of Enlightenment reason, and intense focus on language, discourses, and attitudes rather than material reality and ideology. Liberal lefties, the most mainstream faction of “the left,” distanced themselves from the radicals while regarding postmodernism relatively tolerantly as something a bit weird that had a right to exist.
Then, in the late 1980s, radical leftist activism fell out of fashion as more and more people distanced themselves from its bad ideas and propensity to violence. Meanwhile, postmodern ideas took up their charge and thereby evolved into more activism-orientated and applicable branches of Theory, thus co-opting anti-racist, anti-imperialist, feminist, and LGBT scholarship and activism to the cynical, pessimistic, and radically subjectivist cause at their heart.
In response, Marxists and most socialists continued to object to these developments, which they increasingly saw as anti-intellectual and still saw as serving more bourgeois interests than those of the working class. Liberal lefties looked on more sympathetically, thinking this new “applied postmodernism,” as it is coming to be known in retrospect, probably meant well, was relatively harmless, and could have some insights to offer.
By around 2010, Critical Social Justice scholarship and activism began to solidify into a simplistic and authoritarian metanarrative, “the right side of history,” that had fused radical liberationist activism to postmodernist and poststructuralist Theory. The idea of campaigning with socially brutal tactics for the cause of “social justice,” as very narrowly defined by Theory, became central to the mission of the intersectional left.
In response, Marxists and most socialists continued to object to it, on principle and increasingly vigorously. The older-guard radical left, whose movements had been co-opted by the intersectionalists and turned heavily postmodern in orientation also objected vigorously. Liberal lefties began to wonder if this critical approach to “social justice” might not only be misguided but becoming a bit illiberal.
Most recently, in 2015–20, these emerging themes of intersectional activism and left-wing resistance to intersectional activism escalated rapidly, and Critical Social Justice notions of diversity, equity, and inclusion became culturally powerful, institutionalized, and overtly authoritarian in disposition and activity, particularly within administrative architectures, trans activism, and anti-racism.
In response, Marxists and most socialists continued to object to it, increasingly loudly pointing out that almost no attention was being paid to the working class at all now, and it was, as a result, increasingly turning to the right. Many radical activists, particularly radical feminists (radfems) began to reject the intersectional approach more visibly, as intersectional and postmodernist queer Theorists and activists, especially trans rights activists, increasingly bullied and intimidated them and, occasionally, showed up to events to physically assault them, primarily in service of denying the existence of biological sex and the objective reality of being a woman. Finally, the left-liberals’ tolerance of this approach started to become exhausted.
Today, we find ourselves in a situation in which nearly everybody recognizes the problem—everybody, that is, who isn’t a Critical Social Justice scholar or activist, a few dense liberal lefties who are still weakly and confusedly muttering “but social justice is a good thing…,” and a handful of confused people who think the intersectionalists are actually Marxists. This includes not just some of “the left” but most of it.
As they have done for decades, Marxists and most socialists continue to object to the problems created by Critical Social Justice lefties focusing nearly exclusively on identity rather than the working class and thus dividing and weakening that class. In fact, they recognize that the intersectionalists are doing much of the “divide and conquer” work in the working class that they believe bourgeois interests always do to maintain their power. They also reject their eagerness to try to silence people rather than encouraging dialectic. Similar behavior arises from the radical left, who are dismayed with the intersectionalists’ willingness to reject the existence of objective reality, particularly on the interrelated issues of biological sex and sexuality. As a result, both groups are ignored by almost everyone.
Meanwhile, liberal lefties are gaining some strength in opposing Critical Social Justice lefties but are largely dismissed as right-wing conservatives, if not fascists, in response. Sometimes, unfortunately, these accusations are echoed by the Marxists and socialists too, who have always had profound disagreements with the liberal left for its support of capitalism. There is hope here, however, particularly in the UK where an “old left” focusing on economics is stronger and more distinct and draws on both liberal and socialist ideas. More hopeful still, the liberals, Marxists, socialists, (to some degree) radicals, and even centrists and some conservatives are beginning to realize that we all share something in common against the Critical Social Justice left: we believe we can debate, discuss, and ultimately know something about objective reality and that everything isn’t merely a combination of subjective experience and political strife over power and who controls it.
Nevertheless, while most conservatives are more keenly aware of the problems with Critical Social Justice, they are slow to understand that, like on their own side of the aisle, “the left” is a coalition made up of several factions that do not agree with one another. Just as free-market libertarians cannot reasonably be blamed for the beliefs of anti-capitalist Christian conservatives, who in turn disagree strongly with anti-capitalist conservative Muslims, and center-right classical liberals and center-right social conservatives both also exist and disagree with each other and all the rest of these groups, so too is the left comprised of people with very different ideas who fully understand and consistently oppose each other. We frequently hear much confusion from some conservatives who seem to think Marxism and postmodernism are variations on the same thing and that (in the US) all of them fall into the broader category of “liberal” despite the gallons of ink spilled over the disagreement between all of these factions for decades if not centuries. Very often, we will hear: “The left is all [Critical] Social Justice (Warriors), and if it’s not, why aren’t any of the other lefties opposing them?”
In response, the Marxists, radicals, and most socialists respond with exasperation: with something like, “Are you serious? We were the first to address the issue of postmodernism. We’ve been telling you that postmodernism is a problem for half a century now. Read our critiques of it. Begin with Chomsky vs Foucault in 1971, move on to Fredric Jameson in 1991, and then have a look what the World Socialist Web Site has to say about it right now. Liberal lefties (like me) wonder what more we have to do for you to notice both our existence and our opposition to the irrationalism and illiberalism of postmodernism and Critical Social Justice. I’ve just spent five years criticizing them full-time while advocating liberalism, and yet conservatives who found me precisely because of the criticism (and who often then leave again because of the liberalism) will still ask me why the reasonable left isn’t doing anything, if it even exists. Most of “the left” rejects Critical Social Justice every bit as much as you conservatives do, and it would be both nice and wise if you would start recognizing it and get away from the factionalist power-games mindset yourselves.
So, let’s have a deal. If conservatives can agree not to blame liberals or socialists (or even the radicals, kind of!) for Critical Social Justice, which has co-opted all of our movements and efforts against our will, we on the left can agree not to blame right-leaning libertarians and classical liberals for conspiracy theorists and religiously social conservatives who try to ban teaching of evolution and who want to render homosexuals as second-class citizens again. Your side is a coalition of factions, some of which need cleaning up, and so is ours. Most of us on “the left” are realizing we need to fight those on our Critical Social Justice fringe, and we hope you’ll start to notice.
32 comments
A problem of definitions and the result of a manipulated language.
For those of us in the U.S. the “left/right” divide seems a bit incongruent. We have no king to sit to the right of and yet the European view is inflicted on us so regularly we tend to adopt it even when confusing. Even the word “liberal” confuses as it was adopted by the progressive movement here after WW2 because their original name was associated with Eugenics and Fabianism.
Of late, I’ve tended to call both the New Left and the Old Left Marxists, “left” simply because I have need to be clear on the older meaning of “liberal.”
Perhaps it would be more useful to oppose those who still believe in evidence and a discernable material world with those who see truth only in changing social power structures (whether revealed in language, economics, psychology, or society)? In that we may possibly agree (though my read of Marxism and Hegel tends to negate even that connection) ?
I’m not sure what label to use other than “a believer in Western Civilization.” However, I’m not sure a through and through Marxist wants a continuation of a civilization it sees as brutal. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As others here have suggested, I do have a hard time aligning with the old-school, hard line Marxist for many reasons. I am unsure whether joining together through a negative definition of “not them” is terribly useful. However, I have been welcoming of ALL who offer opposition to the identity politics and social engineering demanded of the theory crowd.
What I have noticed is that many of them seem to evolve as they begin to define their views against the current spirit of the age. I wonder how honest that evolution is (it seems so) or if we have just entered the realm of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and we will need to do battle again on the other side.
PS: I entered the academy in 1989 in a proudly Marxist Lit department caught in a pitched battle between the old Marxist, New Critical, Structuralists, Feminists and the Post Modern, newly rising gender studies groups. And yet, they were all proudly “Marxist.”
Nothing has damaged political discourse more than the concepts of left and right, which are too big containers.
Ohh look it’s Helen making sure we all know how much she hates conservatives and thinks she’s so much better by being “liberal”. Lady, you really need a reality check. The problem started in your house and it’s your house that’s on fire. How about laying off the conservative haterade for a little while and STFU and fight against your sides nonsense
I thought Helen laid out the problem for the left very clearly and concisely; no mean feat!
As a former radical socialist though, I must say that I didn’t hear much opposition to CSJ in the circles I moved in and certainly not in the Trade Union movement either. In fact I was harangued at a socialist meeting, after challenging the aggressive tactics of trans rights activists.
That said, I do think the penny is starting to drop with the left in the UK, and it does feel like a broad coalition of resistance to CSJ is growing. Helens article points to this and instead of lambasting her olive branch, those on the sensible right would be wise to grasp it.
What is this nonsense? Are you for real? I would expect better, more consistent and realistic analysis from both Helen Pluckrose AND New Discourses. If this article were about the presence of white supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-nazis on the “far right”, for example (ACTUAL fringe elements), most of these sentiments would make sense. White supremacists, white nationalists, and neo-nazis have been roundly and vocally resisted and dismissed by the overwhelming majority of conservative voices. The evidence of this is:
+ They have no power in the Republican Party
+ The Republican Party is in no danger of being overrun by them
+ As far as I can tell, they have not been widely elected to public office.
+ They do not walk through the streets of our largest cities, screaming their demands at the world, and then burning down buildings, destroying property, looting, and sparking violence when their demands are not met.
+ They do not dress up in weird black outfits and attack federal buildings
+ They also, as far as I can tell, are not funded by eccentric leftist billionaires.
On the contrary, leftist SJW neo/cultural marxists (whatever you want to call them) are practically in control of the left. The evidence of this is:
+ They routinely threaten, intimidate, burn, loot, and terrorize whenever one of their precious “justice” issues becomes newsworthy.
+ They have massive sway in the Democratic Party
+ Occupy public offices AT ALL LEVELS
+ They run our schools from grade school to university
+ They have very, VERY, deep pockets that are not running out any time soon.
No, Helen, the battles that the Right are facing and the battles that the left are facing are VERY different sorts of battles. To try and equate “conspiracy theorists and religiously social conservatives who try to ban teaching of evolution and who want to render homosexuals as second-class citizens again” to the SJW horde and the clear power and influence they wield on the left is just lazy. They are nothing alike. And this attempt at making excuses for the left for having permitted and at times encouraged ideological cancer to fester within its ranks and eat it alive from the inside out won’t hide that.
Right on!
Well said. Ms. Pluckrose seems to have overlooked this part of the equation.
The right, broadly speaking is the political wing of laissez faire capitalism which has overseen the ever increasing economic ( and thus cultural, educational, nutritional, aspirational ) chasm between the haves and have nots, and which is the dominant political paradigm of western societies, particularly the USA. This more than anything else is the cause the breakdown in social cohesion that we are witnessing and the main driver of socialism. This imbalance never seems to occur to rightists and their devil take the hindmost attitude. Sure the left is in horrific mess which we are fighting to fix but the economic power and corruption of the right has had a hand in the creation of that mess.
I really enjoyed your clarity here Helen. I hope my far right and center left friends will read your piece. I will mash a fish in your honor with some summer beans tonight. Cheers, Brandon
Most on the left? ALL of the right is opposed to this nonsense. And who brought you this shit show and insanity? The left, not the right. Your on the wrong side of this, Helen. So stop acting like your half measures and capitulation didn’t fuel the radical fringe and lead to this.
“The racists on the right.” You mean the fringe on the right? Those not accepted by anyone. Those denounced by the right before the left even starts pointing to them as a sign of the rights politics and positions?
The “fringe on the left” on the other hand is not just acceptable by most of your party it’s running “your party” now. Get your house in order. This is your doing.
I must also add to those with their heads in the dirt, how do you feel when you hear “the nationalist socialist German workers party”? You feel that more accurately depicts the right these days? Sounds like Trump? A Socialists? Really?Or is that more accurate a depiction of the left? Say Burnie Sanders the self proclaimed socialist?
Mao would sure be proud of you and what your party has been doing. People just can’t admit they were wrong these days. I chalk it up to ego. It’s easier to bend reality to make it seem someone else’s fault.
I’m not talking about James of course, he’s possibly one of the smartest people I’ve ever met. I’m actually stunned at his awakening. I probably wouldn’t have been able to make such an actualization myself. But then again it’s hard to not see The propaganda for what it is with regard to the riots in the United States. I feel truly smart people are destined to come around to truth. What is is undeniable. 2+2≠5 after all
Not trying to fan the flames of ‘Left vs Right’ but…
Biden has withdrawn all support for measures that would have blocked transgender MtF from competing in women’s sports. Actually he didn’t stop there; he signed an executive order on his *first day* in office that prohibits discrimination based on gender identity in school sports and elsewhere. You don’t technically need to be transgender, you simply identify as a girl and he wouldn’t keep you from competing.
As I commented earlier, the Left and Critical Theory are coalescing very rapidly.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-withdraws-support-for-federal-lawsuit-to-ban-transgender-athletes-from-girls-sports/ar-BB1dYFzo?ocid=msedgdhp
Fanning the flames is undeniable at this point. You can be on the side of freedom and what is truly right and riotous or you can be on the sides of the reality deniers. Men don’t have cocks, women aren’t the only ones who menstruate.
I can become a cat person with a simple face lift and whisker implants. Fucking nut jobs.
I really appreciate your work Helen but I’m not so sure that most of the Left is aware of the problem and if they are, the majority are terrified of speaking out.
I’ve been in a FB comment discussion with a “friend”. They posted something about rampant racism and microaggressions in a local Museum. One guy resigned after saying the institution was so racist and full of white supremacists and microaggressions that he couldn’t take it anymore. There was no evidence in the article by the “journalist”, no corroborating witnesses. Nothing.
I said “I guess we’ll have to take his word for it.” Before you know it I was dogpiled by her and three of her friends. I was being told to read “white fragility, to check my privilege, that I’m upholding the Jazz patriarchy and to see a shrink. Ad hominem attacks and straw men abound. It got really nasty. I kept it civil just trying to discuss ideas. They wanted to know what YT channels I watched and mostly deflected from any direct questions and called me names. One also directly rejected MLK’s idea that we should judge people based on their character.
This cancer is full-blown within my own community. What’s really disheartening though is that no one on the other side stood along with me. So, where is this swath of Liberals standing against this?
There are none, those who claim “liberals” aren’t really liberal. The late Rush Limbah put it plainly that the left is the party of the low information voters. At least in America he’s right. Literally. My wife, I love her to death, has no clue about any current event, happening, nor reality that surrounds us. She is an avid listener to NPR, yet she knows not what’s going on in our country nor others. She is fed a steady stream of bs. I’ve tried, but the emotional mind will not allow those who “care too much” to listen to reason. There was another who called liberalism a mental illness. It’s not quite so, but he’s also not completely off based.
Most of those who claims the mantle of liberal aren’t actually liberal. It seems the conservatives claiming the “classical liberal” title these days are factually correct.
She states that SJWs have “co-opted” all of the left’s movements (against their will), and then lumps “social conservatives” with “conspiracy theorists”, and offers to not blame “right-leaning libertarians“ and for them. A bonkers and a weak offer!
= Don’t blame me for the entirety of higher education, peer review, and woke capitalism, and I won’t blame you for creationism and Alex Jones.
How about trying a better negotiation strategy?
This is utterly incoherent. You don’t understand the first thing about either Marxism or postmodernism and consistently misrepresent and confuse both of them throughout this essay.
How exactly? Given that she’s co-written a book about applied postmodernism and its contemporary applications, and explicitly demonstrates above how Marxism and postmodernism are mutually antipathetic (as they surely are – Marxism being part of the modernist tradition and postmodernism being an attack on modernism), you need to spell out in more detail what your objections are. Otherwise you’re just trolling.
I’m not speaking for the other comment, she clearly knows something about what she’s talking about, but she also has a massive blind-spot to the foundational problem: This is an issue of Assertive principles and political aggregation into arbitrary communities.
As an example: What precisely, on the level of principle, is the difference in separating humans into classification based on “economic class” as opposed to any other arbitrary criteria?
The same issues run through any theory rooted in any principle of projected outcome, such as Equality.
What does Equality actually mean?
Define it without using the word Equal.
All definitions require a pre-defined metric in order to have some operation along which some logical action can take place.
By definition any and all outcome metrics must be biased towards the pre-defined principle metric.
This is an issue of mathematics, not humanist theories.
It’s literally impossible to construct a completely logically coherent set of principles using this approach.
Any Ontology that does so will progress towards a critical point and then diverge into a phase transition that stratifies the population into rigid categories instead of the entropically favourable semi-porous heterogeneous categories that Capitalism better facilitates. Caveat there for the circumstance where corporations and centralised bodies attempt to mandate their own success which operates equivalently to the Socialist progression of stratification.
My objection is that she insists on a fundamental differentiation between the ideologies of the left whereas, on a level of fundamental principle, I don’t see one. If we assume that left wing liberalism suggests equality is a metric, whether it can define it or otherwise, or even that it has some ideal outcome as a metric for success then they are all mathematically isomorphic in terms of outcome, and all the difference are simply sophistry and domain specific syntactic sugar.
At the very least Conservatism has the benefit of being able to literally point to past values where something was actually possible and beneficial, even if it makes the fallacy of suggesting all operations are reversible and we can actually get back there.
All I ever see from the left is speculation and theory with no significant basis in mathematical reality.
Yes, mathematical, not physical. Since there is no concept of physical reality without the underlying assumption that mathematics is True.
The scientific method is, after all, nothing more than a linearly separable first order differential equation.
Thanks for the article, whose main purpose I think to be to clarify the complex matrix of relationships between the intellectual factions you mentioned. Good job! Broadly speaking, not enough people really understand this. And most only see this manifesting at the lowest common denominator level of twitter mobs and don’t really see what lies under when that scab is lifted.
I’d suggest that to anyone ‘not of the Left’ the tensions between “liberals or socialists (or even the radicals, kind of!)” and those promoting “Critical Social Justice” appear to be the narcissism of small differences. That is of vanishingly small importance compared to the broad perception of left wing views.
Thanks for this clarification, Helen. I still feel frustration whenever people refer to CSJ as the position of “THE Left .” Of course, I also see the CSJ do the same by grouping any Leftist who disagrees with them as THE Right or even as Alt-Right. And many on the Left refer to “The Right” as a monolith as well, which you point out as inaccurate. For those who believe the Left is a CSJ monolith without reservation, simply look at how the Democratic primary in the US progressed- the moderate wing of the party trounced the other “progressive “-faction candidates who pushed mono-identity politics and attacks. The thing is, activists get the most airplay, so from a media and social media standpoint they appear to stand for the whole, playing into anecdotal bias.
I don’t agree with your portrayal of those Liberal Leftists as “dense” who have difficulty having a clear position on CSJ. Most of them I would gather don’t study this highly and deliberately confusing cultural phenomenon all that closely. Most of them don’t want the groups involved treated unfairly, which is ostensibly what CSJ is meant to address; so it makes sense they might think they are supporting the same cause and similar attitudes and principles. Some (probably not most!) of the CSJ ideas could have a positive potential to add in some way to the conversation, were those ideas inclusive of other perspectives and not demanding an absolute obeisance with moralizing furor.
If, in the Dem primaries, the moderate wing of the party trounced the other “progressive “-faction, that matters little now, seeing as we see no “moderate” politicians (or other powerful folk) doing beans to *resist* CSJ onslaughts.
When Greenwald, at https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship, refers to how The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows, he gives no evidence of these “blows” having any *practical* impact.
I see no sign, that this absolute obeisance with moralizing furor will abate in any real way.
Small differences such as whether there is such a thing as objective truth?
Any differences in the ‘general perception’ of what constitutes Leftist ideology and CRT ideology are quickly diminishing. They are very rapidly converging into one and the same. Helen’s post from only a year ago is already incredibly outdated.
Perhaps in reality they are different to a degree, but the party leaders have fully embraced the movement without any public vocal opposition among them. It’s no wonder – the speed at which such a voice would be stamped out and banished or made to return as a body-snatched CRT Ally is a matter of hours, not days.
Dear Helen!
Let me give you a short answer to your short letter.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you consider yourself a Marxist.
I will not hide the fact that as a person who has lived half his life in a country that has introduced Marxism in practice, I have a specific attitude to Marxism. It’s not better than my attitude to SJW and I am ready to agree with the fact that from your point of view I am a vile conservative.
But this is not about that.
As I understand from your letter, you are losing your battle with SJW and you are turning to people like me to conclude a deal. That seems reasonable.
But if so, why are you offering us (them) a deal on your terms? Agree, it looks, at least, rather strange.
Yours sincerely
She clearly stated in her letter, that she is a liberal, not a Marxist. She did not make a clear statement on what she thinks about Marxism itself. The only positive she gave was that the Marxists opposed CSJ and that they atleast agree on discussing things and establishing dialog instead of censorship.
The deal is just not to throw everyone in the same box. If you still dislike the thing itself that is fine, but dislike the Marxists for their Authoritarian ideas and the CSJ Warriors for their denial of objective truth and don’t forget that one is at least willing to talk to you as long as his system is not set up yet. And most importantly don’t throw the liberals in there. While most of them did not manage to take the threat of CSJ seriously their values are fundamentally different from both CSJ and Marxism.
Since most of them did not manage to take the threat of CSJ seriously, they deserve much of the blame for current trends.
Allan Bloom famously gave fair warning about this sort of thing, *over 40* years ago.
Hi Helen,
Yes, but Sandra Harding made it easy – handed the world a race and class based attack on science and objectivity, privileging feels above knows. This has condensed into the racist, ageist, and gendered trope of Stale Male Pale. This stuff is real – I have people from state cultural funding agencies telling me that anything white, male, and middle-aged will not be supported. This is an astonishing achievement by Harding given she is white and elite. Somehow, she alone can share the perspective of the immiserated to formulate her attack on science. I support your position Helen but clearly it will not win until you formulate something with a very simplistic appeal to emotion. The left is seen as supporting Islam – women’s rights are being rapidly eroded in favour of privileging “minority rights”, superordinating normative reactionary values above liberal democracy host-country values. As your article shows, there are endless isms that confuse your message. Harding’s absurd “science is bad, how you feel is right (multiples truer if you are a POC)” has won for now.
Thanks for this interesting piece. But my first reaction is “A pox on BOTH their houses!” Draw distinctions between Marxists and Postmodernists by all means, but never forget it was Marxists, not Postmodernists, who murdered 100 million people in the last century. In that light, wanting Marxists and Postmodernists to simply destroy each other is an understandable desire.
If there are any Social Democrats (in the old sense) still left, they need to distinguish themselves from both the Marxists (Social Autocrats!) and Postmodernists. Meanwhile in the UK BoJo and his Tories are busy stealing social democracy’s clothes and policies!
Hmm. Not saying you’re wrong, in a technical sense, but I’m afraid I don’t really recognise this reality. Just about all my friends are some soft of leftie, mostly socialists of the gen-x vintage, and social justice is really important to them. Distinctions between liberal and critical manifestations are difficult to make. They just see it as being compassionate, where I see ‘Theoretical’ concepts being smuggled in. Attitudes towards relativism, TERFs, no-platforming, social-constructivism, and so on, are all in alignment with – or at least not against – the critical variety. It seems like they are are in a moral choke hold where to go against any of it is to go to the other side (fascist etc.). This seems to be the default position of the University educated “Anywhere” class and I find any pushback vanishingly rare and contentious. The people I follow online on this are mostly disillusioned liberals but I don’t know a single one in real life.
I’m mostly seeing the opposite of you, that most people in my real life are more ‘classical liberal’ (they believe in free speech and the like) but most people I encounter online, in the circles I move in, have gradually gone full SJW. I also know certain places in the real-world I can go to and find people are mostly SJW. I think a decisive factor in this is class. The places I can go in go to and encounter almost wall-to-wall SJW-ism are cultural events that draw a mostly middle-class crowd (we’re not talking football matches here). I think these are your university-educated ‘anywhere’ class.
One factor in the speed of the SJW take-over, in my opinion, is that people in the university-educated middle-class want to ‘get on’ in life. People in the working class tend to have less lofty ambitions, knowing that the game is rigged against them (I’m someone who didn’t know that. Let’s just say I learned my lesson). Hence, people from more middle-class backgrounds are, in my opinion, more likely to collude with whatever the rising or dominant ideology is, because it will help them advance their career.
I agree with you that the pushback on the left has been very weak. A few people like Helen have tried very hard, but most people I’ve seen have only tried a little to resist, if at all, and then folded. In large part I think this is because most people’s politics, whatever their class, is fake. They don’t really believe anything, they just do what they can to fit in with their existing social circle. If the social circle moves in terms of its beliefs, they will eventually follow. Further as most people’s beliefs do not have deep roots, so they are easily bamboozled by dishonest argument, which SJWs tend to be masters of.
Like Helen I too find it annoying when people argue that everyone on the left is an SJW, because I’ve met a good few who aren’t, but I do understand how people find it bemusing that a small group of crazies could gradually take over everything. But the radicals, however few they are, are prepared to give up everything to advance their agenda, and are prepared to do things to terrorize others that most decent people will balk at. The radical will commit themselves entirely to the cause, whereas most moderate people have to dash off for the school run or whatever. Thus the radical tends to win out. SJWs also invade groups by appropriating and redefining the language of that group (seemingly they’ve read 1984 and use it as an instruction manual). This makes it difficult for people to argue against them, as it makes people sound like they’re arguing against the beliefs of the group. For instance, SJWs have redefined racism and anti-racism so that you can’t argue against their racist ideology without sounding racist yourself. This creates an environment where what people think is being said and what’s actually being said are disconnected. Time and again I’ve seen the trick used where someone says ‘lets define X as being Y’ where ‘Y’ sounds reasonable at first, but is going to have hidden consequences down the line when it’s too late to raise objections.
The SJW use of terror has also been very effective among people on the left. Much as once-upon-a-time people were prepared to go along with the witch trials for fear of being accused of witchery themselves. The accusations of everything-under-the-sun that gets thrown at any dissenter tends to make people shut up for fear of losing their entire social circle, maybe their job, and who knows what else potentially.
Yes, we need a strategic alliance, bringing together all the democratic forces who will lead the struggle against race theory identity politics, totalitarianism and woke postmodern nonsense that is corrupting our schools:
https://norbertfrancis.medium.com/how-the-progressive-movement-will-be-rebuilt-5354db3261eb