“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.
This is ultimately the same conceit that all immanentizers of the eschaton have: They think that they will not fall to the same temptation as others because they are better people and their intentions are good.
“An explicitly illiberal project built on the delusion of achieving permanent political and ideological dominance.
“Politicize everything. Deploy lawfare against your political rivals (and anyone standing too close to them). Purge dissent. Expand executive power, even at the expense of constitutional fidelity. And most importantly, assume (against all reason) that once seized, power will remain safely in your hands — and that if it somehow slips away, your enemies will suddenly rediscover restraint.
“It’s an astoundingly shortsighted and tragically common form of self-deception: the belief that you can normalize abuses without eventually being consumed by them.”
When one internalizes Marxist thought, but it Gramscian, Marcusian, Rufo-esque, the enemy necessarily ceases to be the thinking of one’s enemies, but with those who oppose such ideology to begin with. After all, it’s not fair that others get to do it, but you can’t, the petulant child cries. No, to them, the greatest threat to Western Civilization is the Enlightenment, specifically the Scottish Enlightenment, and they will embrace any post-Enlightenment method—including Marxist thought—in order to destroy that.
And they are just as much failed Romantics as Marx himself:
“President Trump intends to usher in the most prosperous decade in American history—but not at the cost of the spiritual degradation of the working class.”
They really believe that having people work sweatshop jobs making toasters makes America great and that people will become spiritually enthralled by being part of that great America and contributing to the glory of the collective. Their ends justify your means.
But let us, for the moment, give the devil the benefit of the doubt and that only Communist tactics are to be embraced. One only has to look at the history of Communism in action to see what tactics they are endorsing.
“For example, he [Rufo] argues that Herbert Marcuse’s ideas about systemic oppression have ‘devoured America’s institutions.’ And he’s not entirely wrong. To dislodge these ideas, Rufo argues conservatives must be unafraid to use political and democratic power to ‘lay siege’ to the captured territory, including America’s colleges and universities.
“But Rufo hardly seems concerned with that power’s limits. Indeed, he’s blunt about it: ‘In a sense,’ he says, ‘we can do whatever we want.’
“…
“Marcuse argued in 1965 that ‘the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions.’
“Marcuse was wrong then — and by emulating Marcuse’s strategy, Rufo is wrong now.”
But now that that even limited mask is off, we can address that some of the “political tactics” people like Rufo want to use, if not using already, is to control the masses by forcing them to believe outrageous lies. After all, if they are to believed that they will use Gramscian or other Communist tactics, then what reason to believe that they will have any limiting principles when they whom are emulated didn’t have any, except being in service to the perpetual immanentization of the eschaton? Or is this just an example of a Cretan saying that all Cretans are liars.
This adoption of the Left’s tactics is a belief that people like Rufo are merely “copying them (the left) because it worked well for them.” Except it didn’t “work for them”. They never achieved their eschaton, and Rufo will not attain his. This is basically the Commie version of “Hitler had some good ideas”.
In other words, “You cannot defeat the dialectic by participating in it.” Further:
“Creating a new, relocated Marxist dialectic doesn’t defeat Marxism; it evolves it. Having different specific goals and visions in mind is a little relevant but not very because the Manichean dualism and conflict (very Christian, Doug!) is still at the heart of the beast.”
However, this Devil’s benefit is a moot point when it is the utility of Gramsci’s analysis and attendant framework that is being exploited, and quite openly too. Implementing a Marxist framework will inevitably lead to a Marxist outcome, even if you paint it as having an “American Characteristic”.
“Antonio Gramsci didn’t fashion Cultural Marxist weapons. He fashioned tactics dependent upon a worldview. How you think you’ll onboard his tactics without at least some of his worldview is a mystery because you won’t.”
What Rufo fails to see is that Gramsci’s analysis, like all Marxist analysis, is fundamentally flawed, and using will always lead to failure. Different desired eschaton, but same immanentization, will nonetheless lead to the same fundamental failure. The problem, according to Rufo, isn’t everything the Communists did or the intellectual framework they put in place, it’s just that they use it to create the correct Utopia! You see, REAL Cultural Marxist Praxis hasn’t actually been tried yet…
The ultimate problem is that Gramscian tactics are essentially parasitic in nature, and corrupting by design. As Tolkien noted, evil can not create, it can only corrupt.
This is all a fatal conceit, where central planning become in vogue again and history starts rhyming to a Maoist tune.
Thankfully, this isn’t a manichean choice. There are alternatives. They may not be as tempting or exciting, but they do exist, and they are very, very workable and achievable.
The idea that “we had to destroy it in order to save it” is a ridiculous one. It is akin to stopping someone from drowning your child throwing the baby out with the bathwater because you can just have another kid.
