Why New Left Theory is just One Big Justification for Rebellion

Having studied, analyzed and talked about the ideology and philosophical theories of the contemporary Western far-left so much for several years, I can’t help but notice something: all of it can basically be summarized as one big justification for rebellion. Specifically, unconditional, unlimited rebellion, i.e. not limiting rebellion to situations where there is actually well-grounded justification, and not limiting the scope of rebellion to only when and where it is well justified. The point here is, all movements for change ‘rebel’ against the status quo to some extent. The rebellious spirit definitely has its place in bringing about positive change, and also in resisting tyranny. Abolitionism rebelled against the then-status quo of slavery, women’s suffrage and first wave feminism rebelled against the then-well accepted idea that men are superior and deserve more rights, and so on. These movements all rebelled against specific pre-existing ideas, institutions and/or laws that were rationally found to be unjustified. On the other hand, the contemporary Western far-left’s vision doesn’t accept limiting the rebellious spirit in this way. Their philosophical theories tend to justify a far wider-ranging, all-encompassing type of rebellion. The kind of rebellion that could result in the indiscriminate tearing down of existing and long-standing values and institutions, regardless of merit.

This open-ended and unrestricted spirit of rebellion is actually one of the things that makes the contemporary Western activist left incompatible with traditional liberalism. Remember that old-school liberals only challenge aspects of the status quo that they find unjust, irrational, or otherwise unsound, after rational thinking and deliberation. The old-school liberal never engages in open-ended and unrestricted rebellion, both because this would not generally be a rational and justified course of action to take, and because this indiscriminate attack on everything, whether justified or not, would detract from their well-justified criticisms of the things they most want to change. (This follows the logic that, to the average observer, if someone keeps complaining about everything, then they might themselves be the problem after all, and their complaints should probably be taken less seriously.) In conclusion, open-ended and unrestricted rebellion would be seen by the old-school liberal as both irrational and counterproductive.

Using real world examples, one can see that the old-school liberal is generally correct here. Think about this: if gay marriage activists opposed not only laws limiting marriage to one man and one woman, but also indiscriminately attacked the fact that marriage is between two people, or perhaps even the institution of marriage itself, or even the very concept of family itself, they would have undercut their case for rational reform severely, to the extent that gay marriage might not even have been legalized at all! Luckily, gay marriage activists, being mostly old-school liberals, limited their opposition to the then-status quo to only where it was rationally justified, and did not wage an open-ended and unrestrained rebellion against all things to do with marriage and family. This is why gay marriage gradually gained public acceptance and support. When faced with arguments like these, the ultra-rebellious far-left really has no rational comeback available to them. If they don’t want to give up their belief in open-ended and unrestricted rebellion, they would have to resort to irrational ideas. This is actually one explanation for why critical anarchist ideology was developed and propagated, despite being logically invalid and also not supported by any historical empirical evidence. For the ultra-rebellious far-left, critical anarchist ideology is not taken up because of its rational validity or its track record of success. It is taken up to provide justification for continuing an otherwise unjustifiable open-ended and unrestrained rebellion. Its value is therefore not in actually improving things in the real world, but in giving the rebellious-minded a (false) leg to stand on.

In the past few years, I have generally labelled the contemporary far-left’s postmodern critical theory ideology as ‘critical anarchism’. I still believe this is a valid way of looking at the phenomenon, one that emphasizes the results. However, looking at it from a more psychological viewpoint, one can also see it all as basically an open-ended and unlimited justification for rebellion. I think one can look at this from two angles actually: firstly, if critical anarchism is to be the goal, then open-ended and unlimited rebellion would be well justified. If everything is an oppressive social construct, then rebelling against and destructing everything in the status quo is not only justified, but even heroic. Herbert Marcuse’s call for the ‘Great Refusal’ in the 1960s, his conflation of Freudian repression with political oppression and implicit calls to see them as one and the same and to abolish both simultaneously, Michel Foucault’s perception of power being everywhere and resistance being applicable everywhere, and the activist left’s decrying of calls for civility as ‘tone policing’, are all basically open-ended justifications for unrestrained rebellion. On the other hand, if one is already psychologically predisposed to favor unrestrained rebellion, then critical anarchist philosophies would provide the justification one needs to act on one’s impulses. This is why those with this kind of ultra-rebellious predisposition would naturally feel that critical anarchist philosophies are ‘liberating’. The kind of liberation they bring is to the ultra-rebellious mind, to free it from any and all constraint. It might not even actually have anything to do at all with liberation of people in the real world from social and political oppression.