“If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” seems to increasingly be the motto of much of the modern post-conservative Right. The argument has ceased to be about supporting or opposing Marxist inspired ideology, but about which flavor of Marxist thought to adopt. It is the false dilemma fallacy that the choice is a binary one of Bolshevik vs. Menshivik, or if you will, Stalinist vs. Trostkyite. The purported Right has embraced Marxist thinkers with the fools’ conceit that they can substitute their eschaton for that of the Left even when engaging in the same immanentization. Christopher Rufo is one such fool.
In essence, it is a declaration that “Cultural Marxism is good, actually”. Or to put it another way, REAL Gramscian Marches just haven’t been tried, so as to speak. This is not a new idea, some have been pushing “fighting like the Left” for a while now. The enemy ceases to be the enemy’s intellectual framework and analysis, but the “classical liberalism” that stands in the way of using that framework and analysis to achieve one’s own desired end goals. Ah yes, “classical liberalism” is so broken, we have no other choice except to… adopt an alternative that has demonstrably proven to be even worse.

Gramscian schemes and Critical Theories are not value neutral tactics that are tantamount to merely not pre-emptively surrendering. They are tactics and pseudo-intellectual frameworks designed to achieve particular goals. To believe otherwise is like using a cake recipe and expecting to come out with a prime rib because that’s what you wanted.
Rufo, as many others do, try to justify their untenable position by invoking false parallels with American historical figures or figures from the broader Western Civilization. This is a Motte & Bailey fallacy. This is the equivalent of trying to justify the modern “Social Justice” movement by invoking St. Francis of Assisi. If they simply mean fighting like the Founding Fathers, then why not say we should fight like the Founding Fathers? If this is but an application of Machiavellian machinations, then why not just say we should fight in a Machiavellian manner? The reason is that they don’t want to do what the Founding Fathers did or for what Machiavelli believed in and supported—what they want is a Gramscian world where the oppressor/oppressed labels are switched.
Fighting Communist ideology with Communist ideology will inevitably lead to Communist ideology. Use Communist means; get Communist ends.
Continue reading →