The Left abandoned the working man. When Alexander Solzhenitsyn detailed how fundamental socialist doctrines were translated into legislation and then transformed into ongoing genocide, apologists in the West for socialism changed horses to Marcuse from Marx. Instead of agitating on the part of the working class, they switched and started talking about group identity. It was a sleight of hand, and the surface nomenclature was changed to make it attractive. Still, the underlying philosophy was the same: give up one’s identity to assume a universal identity that judges the diversity of identities only you transcend. These secular high priests are pure figures with universal morality. They speak for victims; their enemies, enemies of victims, have no right to defend themselves. They thus become the same sort of pure figures of brutal power Solzhenitsyn described. If the working man was off-limits, new victims were provided by Herbert Marcuse, who claimed that liberating tolerance could be achieved by a subversive majority formed from gender and racial minorities whose organized repression opened the way for undemocratic mean: “They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, promotions of the white race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.,” he famously wrote in 1965. The academic elite, fueled by Foucault, declared all we need is willpower to make it so. Maybe, on the one hand, Thatcherism reflects decadent modernism, just as Hegel, Marcuse, Marx, Foucault, etc., reflect decadent modernism on the other hand. But they are all on smooth ice; victims of their tautologies they are unable to see the realities in plain sight, e.g., the sufferings of the working man and the communities they support. Giles Fraser sees the suffering, and it seems like we need to start describing our communities. We cannot go backward against the stream of time to an age when Marxism elevated the working man, nor is it desirable. An inability to bid farewell seems as feeble as an inability to embrace current reality. Doing the hard work of understanding the needs of our communities looks like the place to start. Return to the Parish and listen. Yogi Berra says you can observe a lot just by watching.
The Left abandoned the working man.
When Alexander Solzhenitsyn detailed how fundamental socialist doctrines were translated into legislation and then transformed into ongoing genocide, apologists in the West for socialism changed horses to Marcuse from Marx.
Instead of agitating on the part of the working class, they switched and started talking about group identity. It was a sleight of hand, and the surface nomenclature was changed to make it attractive. Still, the underlying philosophy was the same: give up one’s identity to assume a universal identity that judges the diversity of identities only you transcend. These secular high priests are pure figures with universal morality. They speak for victims; their enemies, enemies of victims, have no right to defend themselves. They thus become the same sort of pure figures of brutal power Solzhenitsyn described.
If the working man was off-limits, new victims were provided by Herbert Marcuse, who claimed that liberating tolerance could be achieved by a subversive majority formed from gender and racial minorities whose organized repression opened the way for undemocratic mean: “They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements that promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, promotions of the white race and religion, or that oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc.,” he famously wrote in 1965. The academic elite, fueled by Foucault, declared all we need is willpower to make it so.
Maybe, on the one hand, Thatcherism reflects decadent modernism, just as Hegel, Marcuse, Marx, Foucault, etc., reflect decadent modernism on the other hand. But they are all on smooth ice; victims of their tautologies they are unable to see the realities in plain sight, e.g., the sufferings of the working man and the communities they support.
Giles Fraser sees the suffering, and it seems like we need to start describing our communities. We cannot go backward against the stream of time to an age when Marxism elevated the working man, nor is it desirable. An inability to bid farewell seems as feeble as an inability to embrace current reality. Doing the hard work of understanding the needs of our communities looks like the place to start. Return to the Parish and listen. Yogi Berra says you can observe a lot just by watching.