That’s How Incrementalism Works

One of the guest writers at Ace has a nice piece, Why Don’t We Do Our Own ‘Long March’?

This question is a common thread in our comments section here, from many corners. We all seem to understand what the Long March (or the Gramscian March, if you prefer) is, how it works, what it has done and where it has led us. The evidence of its success is manifest in our institutions, not a single one of which has survived and all of which have been subsumed by the neo-socialist ideology that shoots through them. The Long March was entirely successful and the war is now over. They won.

The post is basically about how the commies won and we non-commies are not going to be able to do the same thing. As part of the reasoning as to why, the author gets into how the left used our “remarkably flexible, tolerant, open, honest and consistent [societies]. We are non-violent more often than we are violent in that we’d rather work out our issues through talking and disobedience than through open physical conflict“.

We are, in short, a juicy target for subversion if the right angle can be found.

The Postmodernist/Critical Theory crowd found that angle: justice and fairness. We are fundamentally just and fair. This gave them the wedge they needed, and why they put everything into fairness and justice terms. “It’s wrong that women are discriminated against in the workplace,” they said. “Fair enough, you’re right, all men are created equal,” we said. And so on. And with each turn of the crank, they increased their influence and position of power within our institutions. They did so at the beginning by pointing out actual inconsistencies between our liberal philosophy and our legal practice. They weren’t always wrong, and they weren’t always lying – and they used that as their wedge at the beginning. From there, they went insane. Each success allowed them to gain power, until long after there stopped being any legitimacy.

That’s how incrementalism works. You need to gain a foothold with something legitimate – like, for example, “Jim Crow laws are wrong.” If successful, you can keep pushing on more and more fronts until you end up at absurdities like “white people eating Thai food is cultural fetishism that reflects systemic white supremacy and racism.” And the more you push, and the more footholds you gain, the more of your people – or people just coincidentally aligned with you – will surround you. You will gain greater institutional control. You can then use that institutional control to turn out the next generation of operators, who will be even more radical than you.

And then the links to those comments from Jesse Kelly start to appear.

As an aside, if this sounds distantly familiar, it should. This is classical class-warfare Marxism in a new context. Instead of the relatively strict and inflexible “bourgeoisie” and “proletariat” economic classes, you now have the general and flexible “powerful” and “dis-empowered” – or, to put it in Critical Theory terms, the “oppressor” and the “oppressed” – and that can be applied gratuitously everywhere. This is what makes Postmodernism as a philosophy astoundingly powerful, and much more powerful than Marxism.

And then what to do. It’s not pretty.

Opt out and demand changes – massive, fundamental, regressive changes – before permitting ourselves to participate. There are a couple of ways to do this. Many are violent – open war, for example. Those are also high-risk and extremely destructive. It may come to that, but I don’t advocate for it. A better approach, I think, is massive, simultaneous direct action against them. A strike. A massive, long, general strike. No truckers trucking. No miners mining. No programmers programming. No stockers stocking. No assemblers assembling. No engineers engineering. Gridlock, crashing production, collapsing tax revenues, electrical power outages, gas delivery failures, transportation failure – and clog what’s left with massive, unstoppable peaceful demonstrations that grind everything left standing to a halt – with the oppression and arrest and all the rest that will come with it – as a necessary cost.

Subversion will fail. Reconquest is necessary, and that requires monumental action directly targeted at the people in charge, to scare them, starve them, and impoverish them into retreat. That might be the toehold that allows for the subversion or outright retaking of their institutions – under constant threat of retaliation that destroys their world. It might destroy ours, too, but it’s all I’ve got.

And then, what’d'ya know, ‘Freedom Truckers’ threaten to shut down Australia….

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.