Saturday, June 13, 2020

Here We Go Again: The Co-Opting of BLM 2020 | Trad Lib News

NOTE: I have used 'neo-Marxist' in this article, because it's the more common term, but it's probably more accurate to say that it's 'pseudo-Marxist', given that it's really not Marxism they are practising at all.



Welcome back to Trad Lib News. Today, I'm going to talk about an uncomfortable topic: the radical Neo-Marxist takeover of progressive social movements. I need to talk about this now, because the Neo-Marxist attempt to co-opt the current wave of the Black Lives Matter movement is gaining steam, to the extent that they are actively trying to push liberals out. I am also worried that their actions are potentially turning the general public against the movement.

By Neo-Marxist, I mean activists in the contemporary West who are openly anti-capitalist to the extent that they want to end capitalism, and they aim to do so by combining pseudo-Marxist critical theory, and postmodernist and anarchist theories. The common thing among these theories is that they emphasize division and struggle over understanding and consensus. In recent days, many Neo-Marxists have decried liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Justin Trudeau for co-opting their movement, saying it belongs to the people in the streets, as if they think the people in the streets are all far-left too. However, the fact is, the current movement against police brutality has support across the political spectrum, with liberals, moderates, conservatives and socialists all represented, and this is what makes it strong. But no, the Neo-Marxists want the movement all to themselves. Even if it means making it ineffective as a result.

Meanwhile, the radical far-left have also inserted clearly irrelevant and potentially harmful distractions, like tearing down statues of Christopher Columbus, who clearly has no relationship with police brutality, the topic we are talking about here, let alone the wider topic of racism against black people in contemporary America and the West.

One major problem with all this is that it is very good for President Trump, and other people who want to avoid the conversation about police brutality in general. They can just point to the involvement of those with a radical Neo-Marxist agenda, and paint the whole movement with a broad brush. In fact, I can see Trump moving in that direction already, and if the Neo-Marxists keep it up and the liberals don't at least try to stop them one way or another, Trump may just be able to, which could of course make reform more difficult in the short to medium term. In fact, the tactics of the radical far-left have often caused pain for people in need of justice in recent decades, including slowing down the acceptance of LGBT rights, as well as indirectly causing the gutting of the New Deal welfare state back in the 1970s and 80s. But then, from the neo-Marxist point of view, who needs these things when they have a life after the revolution to look forward to?

The fact is, liberals who care about social justice have every reason to fear Neo-Marxist activists being the biggest spoilers. Moreover, if liberals won't take a stance against the more extreme actions of Neo-Marxists, the Right is going to paint all of us as sympathizers, and not without ground either. Therefore, I believe it's time for liberals with a social justice conscience to start taking the threat from the far-left seriously.

Thursday, February 20, 2020

Taylor Swift Ruins Feminism & Politics? | Free Speech Club



TaraElla: Welcome to the College Free Speech Club, where everyone can voice their opinions, no matter how unpopular.

Ashley: I'm sorry Swifties, but I really don't like the new, politicized Taylor Swift. She is contributing to political stupidity and political polarization.

TaraElla: What do you mean?

Ashley:
She is contributing to the oversimplification of everything. She says a lot of political things, but none have any depth to them. Dumbing down complex issues is dangerous, because it hampers in-depth discussion and leads to misunderstanding and polarization. I mean, if she's not smart or brave enough to say more, maybe she should stop commenting on politics. At least that wouldn't be so harmful.

Allison: I don't see what the problem is. Taylor is a musician, so who cares about her political opinions?

TaraElla: Well, truth to be told, lots of people probably care. It's called celebrity culture.

Ashley: And some copy her too. That's the problem. She's promoting shallow politics, where she says she identifies with certain causes, while neither detailing her stance, nor dealing with those who take a different stance. Everything is just superficial identification, there's no discussion or debate. For example, Taylor says she's a feminist, but what kind of feminist is she? And how would she respond to critics of feminism?

TaraElla: Well, we at least know that she is not the 'gender critical' kind, because she likes trans people. But I guess someone should at least ask Taylor about her opinion on The Red Pill.

Allison: But what's so important about knowing her stance on these matters?

Ashley: I guess it's not her stance that's important, but rather, to encourage a healthy, in-depth discussion on complex matters like these. Feminism isn't a brand; there are different varieties of feminism out there, besides criticism of feminism isn't necessarily wrong either. Trotting out the feminist identity without dealing with these questions is superficial at best and evasive at worst. I think if we want a healthier marketplace of ideas, we should demand more of celebrities who participate in political discussions.

TaraElla: I guess this could be because she's relatively inexperienced about politics. I think it applies to her advocacy on the Equality Act too. Like she encourages people to sign her petition. But she has never really effectively answered to the opposition to LGBT rights. She's never taken time to debate the opposition, or discuss their concerns. You know, to achieve consensus and change requires hard work, and just shouting you support something wouldn't in itself change anything.

Perhaps given time she will mature. I think we just need to give her more time. And perhaps some gentle reminders of her current shortcomings. And lots of encouragement too.