Or why Lucky Luciano is a better baby-sitter for your kids than any African tyrant…
In part 2 of this series, School of Vice described an academic theory called Hobson-Leninism. The theory describes what the industrial societies of white Europe are supposedly to have done during the colonial period; that is they took advantage of far off places in native black or brown lands, stripped them of natural resources, abused the indigenous population; and essentially do to those of a darker complexion what whites do everywhere…exploit the land and the people. The theory itself is not all that important. What happened to the theory is important. It was and is used to inculcate guilt in the dominant white majorities of Europe and North America. Like other theories that fall under the umbrella term Cultural Marxism, it has no validity just like its parent doctrine of Economic Marxism has no validity. It is based in a fabrication about how things are supposed to work, not how they do work.
Briefly, Marxism supposedly found the underlying rules by which society operates, namely class conflict with the working class or proletariat pitted against the ownership class or bourgeoisie. According to the theorists, once the rules were understood, mechanisms could be instituted to eliminate conflict, the inequalities of society eliminated, and all social pathologies alleviated. But, and this is a really big but, there are no underlying rules governing human affairs like there are rules governing the natural world (1). They simply are not there. There are no rules governing the affairs of men like there are physical laws governing the motion of planets. Social scientists have been looking for generations and have failed miserably in the attempt. And when faced with failure over and over and over again? What do all bad scientists do? … Make something up. Force the issue. And how does one force the issue? Try to change how people think. Subject them to re-education and propaganda. Substitute other values for innate values in the effort to achieve desired societal change.
The desire for social change requires both a product and a method. The product is a group of academic theories, known as Critical Theory, derived from Economic Marxism. Hobson-Leninism is only one such theory. Others include:
- Social justice
- Third-wave Feminism
- Neo-progressivism
- Neo-colonialism or post-colonialism
Methods for social change are instituted by the political Left. The method is the advocacy and application of Critical Theory for the achievement of societal change. Its ideas have been employed by the political Left in both Europe and the North America since at least the 1960’s. Becoming pervasive throughout academia, Critical Theory dominates departments in the social sciences and the humanities; Gender Studies and Whiteness Studies are just two such examples. The most vigorous application is seen in academia itself by inculcating certain attitudes and reinforcing the ideas thru minting new academics who toe the Critical Theory line without question. Other applications are seen in the main-stream media and Hollywood through constant repetition of ideas and themes. One of the main staples of Critical Theory is the demonization of oppressors and advocacy for the oppressed. This demonization, in fact, is the main theme amongst this group of theories. It is meant to undermine the dominant social group of Europe and North America, namely white, Christian, straight males and to a lesser extent females. Attack the basic underlying assumptions of this class of people. Whether it’s the relationship between the sexes, gender identity, family, race or religion, every aspect of a person’s identity is put under scrutiny and called into question.
People in general have natural affinities towards family, religion and patriotism. Application of Critical Theory seeks to substitute new values by demonizing the old. Every norm of society is questioned and ideally altered, in an effort to help supposedly oppressed groups. Classical Marxism pitted the bourgeoisie against the proletariat or the-haves versus the-have-nots. Cultural Marxism pits a supposedly oppressive white culture against perceived oppressed groups, frequently defined as minorities. Traditional attitudes towards sex, family, patriotism, and religion are made pathologic and replaced by non-traditional phenomenon including transgenderism and multiculturalism. Traditional views are characterized as irrational fears or phobias like Islamophobia or homophobia. Never mind Muslims and homosexuals have their own preferred affinities. Their affinities are equal to or superior to other affinities and guilt is the emotional lever by which the substitution is made. Likewise, changing the meaning of words can be seen as controlling the terms by which these topics are discussed. In short, induce feelings of guilt where none existed before to leverage in substitute values.
Cultural Marxism, like Economic Marxism, denies individual free will and is deterministic; that is, people’s behavior is supposedly governed by rules they are not aware of and denies individuality and the free choices that come with it. It creates artificial classes of people, namely the oppressed and the oppressors. Which brings us to neo-colonialism (or post-colonialism) as a part of Cultural Marxism. In the current semantic milieu, colonial powers were the oppressors and the indigenous population the oppressed. And after decolonization? Everyone is free, right? There are no more oppressing oppressors to victimize the oppressed, correct? Wrong! According to the theorists, continued economic stagnation and endless tribal conflict is a result not of the inherent backwardness of tribalism but of neo-colonialism where African countries experience continued victimization by white Europeans and North Americans (2). Not surprisingly, this dynamic was never ascribed to the Soviets or Cubans and their influence on the continent.
Colonization happened. Then decolonization happened. Decolonization happened in the aftermath of World War II. It happened in India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Indochina, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. As a rule, the United States supported the idea of national self-determination in contrast to the goals and desires of the other victorious Allied powers. The Soviets were eager to exploit British economic depletion and carve-up its Empire (3). Franklin Roosevelt was too weak-kneed to resist Stalin’s demands (Roosevelt was similarly weak-kneed in giving away eastern and central Europe). Likewise, because of economic depletion and political turmoil at home, the French lost control of Indochina and territories in North Africa over time. Violent sectarianism was the name of the game at the local level. When colonial authority broke down or withdrew, local rivalries which had been long subdued boiled to the surface. The birth of India, Pakistan, Algeria and dozens of African nations was bought with the blood of thousands, and not simply indigenous people fighting Imperial troops in an effort to get them to leave. Oh, no, no, no. Sectarian fighting amongst the indigenous people for pent-up historical and cultural reasons spilled over; and, to jockey for supremacy after colonial administration went home. There is a general rule in history that no freedoms are won without some degree of struggle or conflict to the point of bloodshed. But, what to do after political freedom is won? That is the central disgrace.
African politics continues to be dominated by tribalism. Transplanted Western political institutions are a faint patina layered over inherent tribalism. Western institutions like constitutionalism, the rule of law, and administrative systems were brought to Africa by colonial powers in the nineteenth century, most notably Britain. This illustrates the differing approaches to Imperial rule by the various powers. Western political institutions were not organically developed within Africa over hundreds of years like they were in Europe and North America. These Western institutions paper-over local phenomenon like inter-tribal warfare, witchcraft, polygyny, sexual slavery, and child labor; things the West left behind centuries and millennia ago. In fact, Western colonialism suppressed some of the more primitive urges amongst the native population namely chattel slavery and child marriage, particularly in the Muslim lands of North Africa.
Unfortunately, during decolonization the philosophy of government was based on the pseudo-scientific economic theory of Hobson-Leninism. It became the prevailing wisdom of nation formation (4). In short, according to Johnson, “What the system produced…was a crop of professional politicians, all concealing deep tribal affiliations beneath a veneer of European-style ideology.” So, while talking the talk of Western traditions, the African politicians could only walk the walk of tribalism. The result over the last few decades has been nothing short of a disaster; cronyism, graft, and the reign of gangster-caudillo-cult-like leaders across the entire continent. As an example, with decolonization mostly completed by the end of the 1960’s, African countries had experienced 64 military coups, attempted coups and mutinies across sub-Saharan Africa. One need only look at similar summaries of political change each year in Africa to note, this pattern repeating itself almost continuously ever since.
Next up…The Long, Slow March to Idiocy concludes with Part 4.
- Tyranny of Reason, The Origins and Consequences of the Social Scientific Outlook; Levin, Yuval; University Press of America; Lanham; 2001 or any introductory high school physics text.
- Colonialism 1870-1945, An Introduction; Fieldhouse, D.K.; St. Martin’s Press; New York; 1981; p 8-9
- Modern Times, From the Twenties to the Nineties; Johnson, Paul; Harper Collins; New York; 1991; p 466
- Johnson, op. cit, p 517