What happens when contradictory leftist narratives collide? We get a battle between a woman with a penis and a woman pretending to have a penis. The reason these two groups get into conflicts is because their premises are fundamentally opposed. Transgendered people acknowledge that gender identity is tied to physical identity, while feminists deny this outright. Feminists claim that women do not behave inherently different from men and can have all the traits and responsibilities a man has without the physical traits. This has resulted in actual violent conflicts between the two groups.
Transwomen getting into conflict with feminists is not the only instance of colliding leftist narratives; many feminists spend time attacking pornography while other feminists participate in it. As a result, the public continues to get contradictory messages about what feminists stand for. Not to say that any movement has complete solidarity, but the types of conflicts that arise have no solution. There is no Final Authority to make the final call on feminist theory because it is an individualist philosophy. The proponents of this individualist philosophy correctly recognize that society exists in a hierarchy and they are in opposition based on their belief in egalitarianism. The hierarchy that feminists chose to focus on is the gender hierarchy which is typically referred to as the patriarchy. Cultural Marxists have three heads: the socialists who focus on economic inequality, the feminists who focus on patriarchy and the anti-racists who focus on racial hierarchy.
Occasionally I wander over to Center For a Stateless Society, which operates under the tag line “Left Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center.” Aside from the mostly harmless pontifications of the relatively boring and uninspiring writer Kevin Carson, C4SS has proven to be more notable for attracting the most inane critical theory drivel imaginable from various misfits and miscellaneous social pariahs.
Some of the choicer morsels include the following:
Women experience misogyny in their day to day lives. Many individual women know things about sexual harassment, casual sexism, and a wide range of other gender issues that I will never know, because I am not a woman, and I do not experience them. Recognizing that this distributed knowledge exists has consequences. It means that I should not dismiss women’s experiences of sexism or presume I know more about sexism than they. It means that within the realm of feminist activism, I should not always have as important a decision making role as the women who actually experience the oppression caused by patriarchy. In other words, acknowledging distributed knowledge leads me to “check my privilege.”
It is a good idea when analyzing any social phenomenon or institution to look at how it is viewed in the present context by various groups in society and ask why they hold the view that they do. This can be a revealing exercise. If we know about the ideology of a certain group, and we know their general opinion of a certain institution, we can put them together and perhaps see something in that institution that we may have missed if we were to rely entirely on our own reactions, perspectives and prejudices. (MFW Standpoint theory.)
When it comes to capitalism today in the West, we can safely say that it is viewed in a poor light by the liberal intellectual establishment, commonly referred to as the Brahmins. If you are a former libertarian turned reactionary, I urge you to put aside whatever perspective bias you may be suffering from after years of imbibing Rothbard and living inside the libertarian echo-chamber. Pick up the NY Times and see what people with actual power in society today think of capitalism. It’s an interesting contrast from the endless praise and even outright worship it gets from the bow-tie/fedora sect.
Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.
I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.
Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.
Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.
Anarchy for you is a means to avoid (actual) criticism, which is to say, reflection. Anarchy is therefore a form of #postmodern #ironic living. A means to ignore that horrible stranger you see in the mirror every morning. A means to ignore your existence as a battery for the system you are supposed to hate, and yet are quietly and secretly terrified of losing. Yours is an ideological battered spouse syndrome. Get back in the kitchen.
Anarchism is a nonsensical and immature political philosophy. To even call it a philosophy is probably being far too generous. In order to mitigate the inevitable bleating of “No True Scotsman” from various unwashed packs of self-styled “anarchist” rabble across the internets, allow me to define my term. When I say “anarchism” here I am talking about the utopian and fantastical ideology promoted by leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and described in the Anarchist FAQ. So yes, I am talking about your kind of anarchist Mr. Scotsman.
The theory (if you can call it that) behind anarchism is based on two interlocking principles. The first and most important is that hierarchy is a form of oppression (hint: oppression is bad, mmmkay). The second is that private property is a form of hierarchy. Private property in the anarchist view is the absolute worst form of oppression. It is the social institution that the envious soul of the anarchist rages against most fiercely. Private property is bad because it creates hierarchy in terms of relationships to specific resources. If one person owns something, then another person is necessarily deprived of it. Exclusion of anyone from anything is intolerable.
Who would not be down with NAP? After all the NAP (Non Aggression Principle for noobs) is the final word. It is the answer to philosophy. It is the biggest thing in metaphysics since the number 42. It is the absolute, axiomatic ethical truth that unlocks the secret of all human behavior! Though an abstract concept, the NAP naturally inherits the properties of a universal physical law. The NAP is a law of nature unto itself. Isn’t it? To break this fundamental universal moral axiom (as I have strictly defined it within a limited context) is to betray your nature as a rational being and sin against… against… something. Right?
Right. So if you want to intellectually hamstring yourself, become a boring drone, publicly display symptoms of mild-to-severe Asperger’s syndrome, or just be a supercilious prick while intentionally alienating friends, family and colleagues, then by all means keep going down this route. And enjoy spending your weekends raging at the statist douchebags on r/Politics.