For more than two centuries, Left-wing movements have presented themselves as enemies of hierarchy, privilege, wealth, authority, and oppression. Their rhetoric is full of liberation, equality, justice, democracy, and empowerment.
Yet whenever one examines their history, a strange pattern emerges: the problem is never power itself. The problem is who currently possesses it.
Once power changes hands, the rhetoric of liberation tends to disappear remarkably quickly.
The Revolutionary Pattern
The French Revolution began with liberty. It ended with the Committee of Public Safety.
The revolutionaries spoke endlessly about freedom and the rights of man. Once in power, however, they became obsessed with rooting out enemies, traitors, reactionaries, and insufficiently committed revolutionaries.
The result was the Reign of Terror. People who had demanded liberty suddenly found themselves explaining why mass executions were necessary. The problem was never authority. The problem was authority in the wrong hands.
The Marxist Pattern
Marx followed a similar path. His followers speak constantly about equality and the abolition of class hierarchy. Yet Marx’s own solution involved the famous:
" Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
A curious dictatorship that somehow always required enlightened intellectuals to explain what the proletariat really wanted.
Lenin refined the idea through the Vanguard Party. The workers were supposedly sovereign, but they required a small, educated elite to interpret their interests correctly. The masses could not be trusted. Only the vanguard could.
Again, the issue was not hierarchy. The issue was who occupied the top rung.
Marcuse and Repressive Tolerance
The pattern continued into the twentieth century.
Herbert Marcuse argued that tolerance itself could become oppressive. His solution? Selective intolerance.
Certain opinions should be suppressed. Certain speakers should not be heard. Certain viewpoints should be excluded from public discourse.
In effect: freedom for the correct opinions. Restrictions for the incorrect ones.
This logic now underpins much of modern cancellation culture, deplatforming, and speech regulation.
Again, power is not rejected. It is redirected.
Postmodernism and Power
The postmodernists supposedly rejected grand narratives. They questioned truth, objectivity, reason, science, and universal standards. Yet many retained a near-religious faith in power.
Michel Foucault’s famous “knowledge-power” framework treated institutions, expertise, science, and truth claims as manifestations of power structures.
The irony is extraordinary. Those who claim to distrust power spend an enormous amount of time attempting to acquire it:
- Universities.
- Bureaucracies.
- Media organisations.
- Education systems.
- Corporate HR departments.
The Modern Example
Modern activist politics constantly speaks the language of equality. Yet observe the emotional reaction whenever political power is threatened:
- A non-Left candidate wins an election: “Democracy has failed.”
- A referendum produces the wrong result: “The public was misinformed.”
- A court issues an unfavourable ruling: “The system is broken.”
When Power Is Not Yet Secure
History becomes particularly ugly when revolutionary activists gain power but fear they have not secured it completely.
This is where terror emerges.
- The Red Terror.
- The Cultural Revolution.
- The Killing Fields.
- Countless purges.
- Countless secret police.
- Countless “temporary” emergency measures.
The language changes remarkably little across centuries.
- Counter-revolutionaries.
- Reactionaries.
- Kulaks.
- Class enemies.
- Oppressors.
- Fascists.
- Threats to democracy.
The Hierarchy Illusion
Perhaps the greatest deception is the claim that the Left opposes hierarchy. It doesn’t.
No functioning society lacks hierarchy. No organisation lacks hierarchy. No movement lacks hierarchy.
Even movements dedicated to abolishing hierarchy immediately create leaders, activists, experts, theorists, committees, administrators, and enforcers.
The question is never: Should hierarchy exist?
The question is: Who gets to sit at the top?
The modern activist often condemns hierarchy right up until the moment they obtain status within one. Then hierarchy becomes representation. Or social justice. Or expertise. Or lived experience. Or equity. Anything but hierarchy.
The Politics of Envy
The same principle applies to wealth. Many Left-wing activists speak as though they object to riches. Often, they object to someone else’s riches.
If wealth were inherently immoral, lottery winners would be condemned with the same enthusiasm as business owners. Curiously, they rarely are.
What matters is not usually wealth itself. It is who possesses it: the successful businessman is suspect. The politically aligned millionaire is often celebrated.
The language of anti-wealth frequently masks something older and more powerful: Envy.
What They Really Want
The deepest mistake conservatives and liberals often make is taking revolutionary rhetoric literally.
When activists speak of abolishing power, they rarely mean abolishing power.
When they speak of dismantling hierarchy, they rarely mean dismantling hierarchy.
When they speak of redistribution, they rarely mean reducing influence.
They usually mean:
- Transfer power.
- Transfer hierarchy.
- Transfer influence.
- Transfer control.
The machinery remains. Only the operators change.
Conclusion
The defining feature of much Left-wing political thought is not opposition to power. It is fascination with power.
- Power to direct.
- Power to regulate.
- Power to censor.
- Power to redistribute.
- Power to punish.
- Power to reshape society according to a vision that ordinary people supposedly cannot see for themselves.
And history suggests that whenever movements become obsessed with creating heaven on earth, they become remarkably willing to create hell first.
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister, This article was sourced HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.