Sean Gabb
I’ve just returned from a quick shamble to the Post Office with another bag of books. In Sainsbury, I skimmed all the newspapers. I found this in “The Daily Mail”:
It’s an article by Melanie Phillips and it titled “We were fools to think the fall of the Berlin Wall had killed off the far Left. They’re back – and attacking us from within”. The key paragraphs are:
“Soviet Communism was a belief system whose goal was to overturn the structures of society through the control of economic and political life. This mutated into a post-communist ideology of the Left, whose no-less ambitious aim was to overturn western society through a subversive transformation of its culture….
“But as communism slowly crumbled, those on the far-Left who remained hostile towards western civilisation found another way to realise their goal of bringing it down.
“This was what might be called ‘cultural Marxism’. It was based on the understanding that what holds a society together are the pillars of its culture: the structures and institutions of education, family, law, media and religion. Transform the principles that these embody and you can thus destroy the society they have shaped.
“This key insight was developed in particular by an Italian Marxist philosopher called Antonio Gramsci. His thinking was taken up by Sixties radicals – who are, of course, the generation that holds power in the West today.
“Gramsci understood that the working class would never rise up to seize the levers of ‘production, distribution and exchange’ as communism had prophesied. Economics was not the path to revolution.
“He believed instead that society could be overthrown if the values underpinning it could be turned into their antithesis: if its core principles were replaced by those of groups who were considered to be outsiders or who actively transgressed the moral codes of that society.
“So he advocated a ‘long march through the institutions’ to capture the citadels of the culture and turn them into a collective fifth column, undermining from within and turning all the core values of society upside-down and inside-out.”
It’s a good article and is worth reading in full. I mention it, however, because Mrs Phillips might have been quoting from my book “Cutlural Revolution, Culture War” (http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3). Indeed, I know that someone bought 50 copies of this two years ago and set them out to various opinion formers among whom was Mrs Phillips.
I don’t normally boast about influence. However, I had a long conversation yesterday with a friend who was rather depressed about the Libertarian Alliance’s lack of impact in British politics. This is my answer. I will not claim that I am the only person putting this argument – the phrase “cultural Marxism” shows at least as much influence on Mrs Phillips by Paul Gottfried as by me. And there is no reason to suppose that many other people have not been able to work this out for themselves without writing books about it. However, I do think it reasonable to claim that I have *helped*, since I began writing about “The Enemy Class” back in 2001, to provide the conservative and libertarian movement in this country with a narrative that explains what has happened in England over the past few generations.
I shall be happier when journalists like Mrs Phillips start repeating my solution to the problem – a stern counter-revolution in which the whole of the activist State is shut down. But this will do for the moment.
Therefore, if you have been subscribing to the Libertarian Alliance for the past ffew years, here is some evidence that your contributions have not been in vain.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
I must admit that I am a becoming a little disconcerted by the Cultural Marxism narrative. I’m not entirely sure that it is correct. It is in some respects a useful narrative with some truth in it, and is easy for conservatives to understand and be motivated by, but it does not seem to me to be entirely connected to historical fact. I have been indulging myself in an absence from the blogosphere while trying to put together something that might turn into a pamphlet or book even (as David Davis suggested some time ago), which is something of a conceit I admit. But here is my perspective.
A very useful insight comes from Paul Gottfried (several in fact, he is very underrated). This insight is that modern marxists aren’t actually marxist. Imagine Marx himself falling through time into the present and attending a marxist meeting. He would be entirely mystified- no talk of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, or the tyranny of the proleteriat and so on, instead he’d find himself bemusedly discussing gay rights and saving the rainforests. He’d find a “marxist” movement entirely committed to maintaining elite bourgeois rule. These marxists aren’t marxists.
Now there is no doubt that their technic owes a considerable amount to Signor Gramsci, and the Frankfurt School etc. But all Gramsci did was offer an analysis and a methodology, and this methodology itself- capture of the institutions and hegemonic reconstruction of society, itself is not new. We see the same technic used by for instance the Christians in their takeover of Rome a millennium and a half ago complete with Alinskian “community organising” among the poor. All Gramsci and the Frankfurters have done was to codify it into marxist-speak. We can certainly agree that new-left marxists looked to marxist theory as a means of implementation, but as with all history the hard part is the proof of cause and effect. Are Gordon Brown, Tony Blair et al marxists? They don’t seem to be. Does Blair lie abed at night dreaming of a communist workers’ state? I don’t believe he does.
I believe the key to understanding our situation is to grasp that in the anglosphere, socialism is not marxist. It has had some marxist elements. Many angl0-socialists have adopted marxian elements to their thinking. But their goals are not marxist, and as Gottfried says, there is no marxism left in (their) marxism. Gottfried provides us a further answer, when he calls the state being constructed a “secular theocracy”.
I believe increasingly that the ideological struggle in teh anglosphere is not marxism vs. capitalism; it long predates that. It is roundheads versus cavaliers. It is the struggle between gay liberals and miserable puritans. This is what defines our polity; the English Civil War, and the triumph of the ayatollahs (led by Cromwell) put in place the official role of government as a moral dictatorship. The struggle between liberal cavaliers and authoritarian puritans has continued ever since. There was a swing back towards the cavaliers at the Restoration, then the roundheads took control again in the C19 (“Victorian Values”), then we got to be cavaliers during the C20 (ironically, due to the influence of marxist-nihilist amorality, which did good by accident), and now the roundheads are back. This is why Britain is ground zero for the new authoritarianism, and why the majority of its theoretical base is in the Anglosphere. The puritans infest america too- which being the global superpower is hegemonic- and our religious/moral revivalism swept across the Atlantic to that daughter nation (and was in many wasys more successful there, in fact, in some respects, hence “The Land Of The Free” banning beer!).
Conservatives like Melanie Phillips will never grasp any of this, because they are themselves puritans. Anglosphere socialism, and anglosphere conservatism, are simply two facets of the puritan movement- the conservatives being defined simply by being “phase lagged”. Both sides believe that society must be ruled by a strong, moral government which will impose Decent Values on the unruly populace; it is just that the “Left” have adopted a newer set of sins (racism, sexism etc) while the “Right” haven’t. Both agree on the sins of, e.g., sex, drugs, beer and so on. The Left has an undeserved reputation for social liberalism- partly due to that brief infusion of continental lberalism in the C20, but mainly due to just clinging onto a couple of “liberal” issues like gay rights. But anyone who believes anglo-socialists are liberals just needs to look at Harriet Harman (or any other feminist) or Gordon Brown etc. Liberal? Like fuck they are.
The puritan hegemony- the battle over detail between “socialists” and “conservatives” has pushed liberalism- the cavaliers- to the fringes of politics. We live under a moral hegemony. THis is what powers the state. Anglo-socialism is not the least interested in the emancipation of the proleteriat, but is very interested in the moral reform of the proleteriat, just as conservatives like Phillips are. They both seek a society of Port Sunlights and moral indoctrination.
So, Gramsci et al wrote some books detailing a useful technic for reformers. But Gramsci’s intention that it be used for the triumph of marxism is not the intention. Anyone can use a Gramscian strategy. Religious movements have used it. Radicals 200 years ago were using it, if not in such an organised manner, and the Christains used it in Rome, and Muslims have used it, and so on. It’s just a standard “how to win” strategy- you get your people into positions of power. Hey nonny no.
There was no long march through the institutions. It’s an enjoyable narrative, but it’s fake. Radical reformers- both secular and overtly religious- have been in power to some degree for centuries, and if there was a “long march” it would be better to place it in the nineteenth century, than the past few decades. There was no need for anybody to take control of the institutions. They were already in place.
The enemy is, and always has been, a ruling elite with roundhead values. We liberals are the cavaliers. It’s a goddamned shame that Charles lost the civil war.
Correction-
it is just that the “Left” have adopted a newer set of sins (racism, sexism etc) while the “Right” haven’t.
In fact, most of the “right” have adopted these values too, as evinced by the modern conservative party and general conservative movement. Only a very few badly lagged hold-outs on the “Extreme Right” like Ms. Philips haven’t.