People who've read The Meaning Wars series might recall that in book 2, The Stolen: Two Short Stories, the novella "Wordthieves" depicts a society that has some of the trappings of leftist and liberal groups - meditation, organic food, yoga, vegetarianism, basic housing and healthcare - yet behaves like Christian extremists. To wit, they exert behavioural control over members, demand obedience and a lack of questioning,
Part of my goal with this was to vent frustration at the controlling behaviour and culture present in the Health Sciences faculty I was studying in, under a now (thankfully) deposed Department Head. The other purpose of the depiction was to criticize an unsettling behaviour I noticed - the way the trappings of the left and liberals (yoga, vegetarianism, Buddhist iconography, incense, crystals, etcetera) sometimes came with behaviour that matched oppressive philosophical standards from the right - name, Christian Evangelical-style refusal to countenance criticism. In other words, people could get real defensive about their spirituality and lifestyles, and be strangely hostile to science in ways that I normally encountered at the hands of casual Christian extremists (aka members of the Canadian Bible belt). I figured it was because changing one's external beliefs doesn't unteach the behavioural standards of the restrictive religious culture.
What's the difference between a leftist and a liberal, anyway?
It would be easier to define this answer if it wasn't for the vicious and contemptuous purity-testing present among segments of the left. The broad left is fractious, rowdy, and often disagrees with itself to the point of self-parody. Never mind extreme standards of orthodoxy; merely forging an orthodoxy from the heterodoxy can be difficult at best. Certain stances, like the idea of universal healthcare, education, childcare, and reproductive rights access are popular; however, the manner in which these things can be accomplished is often an issue of great debate. The uplifting of voices of marginalized groups is held as important; exactly who gets to speak when, and who is most correct or most important in a given circumstance, is often the kind of debate topic that ruins friendships. (This is not a joke; I've seen it happen, and it's a lot less funny when it happens to you.)
Some seek to reference historical applications of the term. During the Cold War, being "liberal" and "conservative" meant supporting capitalism over communism. The links between "economic freedom" and personal control/totalitarianism were forged in iron - even though the totalitarian governments self-proclaimed as communist were no more "communist" than buffalo wings are derived from bison. It's impossible to ignore history, the way neo-liberalism in the 80s meant doing your own thing and making money as a goal, trying to accrue power despite the cost - yet also being a global citizen, open to new experiences, and boldly expressing self-determination.
Trying to map the old standards onto the modern ones badly ignores how much things have changed in the last forty-odd years. A common insult in certain parts of Twitter (and now Discord instead of Facebook, I assume) is to call someone a "liberal," which basically implies that said person is capitulating to the State, to false prophets,
Trying to map the old standards onto the modern ones badly ignores how much things have changed in the last forty-odd years. A common insult in certain parts of Twitter (and now Discord instead of Facebook, I assume) is to call someone a "liberal," which basically implies that said person is capitulating to the State, to false prophets,
or isn't radical enough. It's supposed to be a reference to neo-liberalism of the 80s - but in context, it often makes little sense when held up against that criteria.
Use a better word, please
I'd also like to talk about something related - the infamous, often contested Centre. Here's the thing - when I pop my head out of the leftist stronghold spaces I tend to prefer online, and talk to people who are less inclined to, say, anarchism, or at least radical restructuring, I've noticed that I keep not meeting any centrists. People who hold some sort of bland, mythical centrist stance don't actually exist. "But Nancy Pelosi and Justin Trudeau!" some might cry. Improper commitment to progressive ideas does not equate to actually believing in some kind of weird lukewarm centre. Outside of politics, "centrists" or divided voters tend to have a mixture of viewpoints that pull them in different directions. Some leftists consider reaching out to the centre useless, but experts on cults and conversion suggest that outreach - as much as it can be exhausting - is better than waiting for the far right to do the reaching out, as we saw with QAnon, which successfully radicalized former Obama voters.
We're not so different, you and I...
However, it's worth considering who the left would prefer to ally with - the "centrists" or the most extreme radicals.
Leftist Twitter, Facebook, and other circles have some morally questionable corners; that's not surprising in any group, but can still be upsetting. The embrace of Stalinism and Maoism by young Americans, even queer ones, is baffling in some ways. The calls for violence crop up repeatedly - as do praise for gun culture and self-defense. I've voiced discomfort with leftist retaliatory battle cries before.
Nowadays, frankly, I'm far more comfortable with saying "eat the rich!" and "all cops are bastards" because I understand more about how entrenched oppression works. Shaming cops and trying to unnerve the very wealthy are a little different from actually organizing, say, a raid on Jeff Bezo's private compound. There, I draw the line. I've whimpered in the past about fears of the left taking on the extreme right's tactics because "we're better and won't be corrupted" - but what actually happens is just that the extreme right gains new members.
Here's why I wouldn't recommend the latter category. I've spent a few years now trying to research and keep an eye on extremist leftist groups - the tiny, tiny number of people who believe that Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro and the Kims of North Korea have been wronged by history. While it's undeniable that the CIA undermined socialist democracies in South America and Europe, and one can say that sure, some of these revolutionary leaders had good ideas, the totalitarian regimes that eventually came to power should not be apologized for. The fact that Churchill was a racist does not excuse the anti-Semitism, homophobia, and Ukrainian genocide caused by Joseph Stalin.
For a long time, I've tried to figure out how to write an article saying both that this small group of people is pretty much insignificant online, and that they should be watched carefully in case their beliefs leach into the wider left. I noticed that wandering through a series of Leftbook pages - fan pages that support far, far left beliefs - there was a surprising amount of apologia for the dictators mentioned above, as well as gun adoration and what looked an awful lot like vague calls to violence.
Trying to question individual leftists about these things resulted in a sort of foot-dragging annoyance in the responses. "So are you willing to actually launch a raid on a billionaire's compound?" I demanded. "And if so, what about the possibility of them using their employees as human shields?" As one might imagine, the replies to that were often vague and hostile.
I tried to reconcile this violent streak in the dustiest corners of the leftist movement with the broad goals of electoral reform, voter enfranchisement, and the policy issues I've mentioned elsewhere. Granted, the system is in bad shape, but is the alternative violent insurrection?
If yes, you might be a fascist
It was seeing a former leftist advocating for the Capitol Hill terrorists that made everything crystal clear. I'd run across the concept of "red fascism" previously. The fact that totalitarian governments calling themselves "communist" hunted for "fascists," with secret police when necessary, does not mean those regimes were not, in fact, still totalitarian or fascist. But it still shocked me to see an avowed anti-fascist referring to terrorists as family, and proclaiming that any actions to the contrary were "neo-liberal capitulation."
The dramatic irony of defending the fascists they have professed to hate, simply because the FBI is more fascist, gave me a lot to laugh at. Thinking about it for a while wiped the smile right off my face.
The big mistake
People - previously including myself - tend to think that the left and the right curve towards each other with these behaviours, but what it really represents is a sort of snapping-off point. The actual values espoused by leftism and liberalism broadly speaking - personal self-determination, protection of rights of others - experience some conflict with the values of capitalism and conservatism. These definitions of words shift, of course - many people talk about liberalism and neo-liberalism interchangeably, even though that's deeply confusing and inaccurate (please stop, Twitter). There was a time when conservative governments actually did things like conserve air, water, and national parks.
But at the present moment, when leftists start having things in common with the alt-right, I would contend that they are no longer leftists. In attempting to weld the horseshoe's diverging branches together, one of them has snapped off and gotten stuck to the other.
Violent insurrection and overthrow of a government is incompatible with advocating for a peaceful society. Yes, the system is messed up, but trying to accelerate change with a militaristic coup - if it works at all - will not produce the kind of world we want.
This article is too long, but it could still be longer. Suffice to say, most of the "radical left" is not represented by qualms expressed in this article. But a very, very, very small number of people are unwilling to deal with anything less than instantaneous change - and those people may think they're holding leftist ideals, but they've lost the plot.
At the end of the day, all we can do is call out these violent mutterings within our own ranks. Fascism is fascism, even if some of the people calling for it seem - at first - to be calling for the correct sorts of changes. There's a reason Hitler used the term "national socialist" for his party, and it's because smuggling right-wing ideas in with a left-wing package works pretty well.
Unless, of course, as soon as you notice what they're up to, you kick the fascists out.
Have you run into these people? Do you have a counterargument you’d like to make? Hit me up in the comments below.
***
Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and Max the cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.
