It is not infrequently noted that much of the modern Left's focus on identity politics seems inconsistent, even at odds, with Marx's detailed and deterministic class analysis. I have noted as much, myself.
But there are connections, some subtle, and some can only be illustrated by obscure references.
In the one and only edition of the Franco-German Annals -- written and published in the early 1840s, thus before any of Marx's major work (and thus his vision of the future) -- Marx wrote:
"Every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what ought to happen.
However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new movement, for it means we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old...We shall simply show the world why it is struggling...Our program must be: the reform of consciousness...the self-clarification of the wishes of the age...What is needed above all is a confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins, mankind needs only to declare them for what they are."
So something in the water of the revolutionist who wishes for justice for the downtrodden is consistent with this need to first wring a confession out of the defenders of the status quo before moving on to build a fairer society. Whether it a confession about class injustice, or about gender, race or sexual orientation. We saw evidence of that in the re-education camps.
To the ears of a modern liberal (as opposed to a modern leftist) this step is discomfiting -- why not just move on to build a better future? To the ears of a modern centrist, my sense is that this focus on consciousness raising is almost mystifying. To the ears of a modern conservative, it seems to raise hackles. And to the ears of a modern evangelical, it challenges their view that long before Marx all this was already sorted out and they have all the answers.
But to the ears of a modern leftist -- this consciousness-raising process, resolving itself in a mass confessional, seems as essential for moving forward as is the need for theory before practice for scholars, blueprints before construction for architects, and diagnosis before prognosis for medical doctors. And this is somehow rooted in the revolutionists' view that we cannot move from here to there without a deeply felt shame in the injustices we have advanced, perhaps because the difficulties are too great unless we understand, and deeply, that we must. Or perhaps the view is that to succeed at stripping the 1% of their privileges, only a near-universal acceptance of the moral depravity of the status quo can get the job done.
What seems unnecessarily provocative for those right of far left seems essential to the far left. Is that conflict actually also part of the necessary solution, or does it stand in the way of progress? As we have so little time to design and implement a climate change survival program, I also wonder if any resolution will likely be much too late.
But there are connections, some subtle, and some can only be illustrated by obscure references.
In the one and only edition of the Franco-German Annals -- written and published in the early 1840s, thus before any of Marx's major work (and thus his vision of the future) -- Marx wrote:
"Every individual must admit to himself that he has no precise idea about what ought to happen.
However, this very defect turns to the advantage of the new movement, for it means we do not anticipate the world with our dogmas but instead attempt to discover the new world through the critique of the old...We shall simply show the world why it is struggling...Our program must be: the reform of consciousness...the self-clarification of the wishes of the age...What is needed above all is a confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins, mankind needs only to declare them for what they are."
So something in the water of the revolutionist who wishes for justice for the downtrodden is consistent with this need to first wring a confession out of the defenders of the status quo before moving on to build a fairer society. Whether it a confession about class injustice, or about gender, race or sexual orientation. We saw evidence of that in the re-education camps.
To the ears of a modern liberal (as opposed to a modern leftist) this step is discomfiting -- why not just move on to build a better future? To the ears of a modern centrist, my sense is that this focus on consciousness raising is almost mystifying. To the ears of a modern conservative, it seems to raise hackles. And to the ears of a modern evangelical, it challenges their view that long before Marx all this was already sorted out and they have all the answers.
But to the ears of a modern leftist -- this consciousness-raising process, resolving itself in a mass confessional, seems as essential for moving forward as is the need for theory before practice for scholars, blueprints before construction for architects, and diagnosis before prognosis for medical doctors. And this is somehow rooted in the revolutionists' view that we cannot move from here to there without a deeply felt shame in the injustices we have advanced, perhaps because the difficulties are too great unless we understand, and deeply, that we must. Or perhaps the view is that to succeed at stripping the 1% of their privileges, only a near-universal acceptance of the moral depravity of the status quo can get the job done.
What seems unnecessarily provocative for those right of far left seems essential to the far left. Is that conflict actually also part of the necessary solution, or does it stand in the way of progress? As we have so little time to design and implement a climate change survival program, I also wonder if any resolution will likely be much too late.
