Maoism and Wokism and the Tyranny of Bureaucratic Collectivism

Fox News headline: “Colorado teacher calls for ‘FORCEFUL cultural revolution’ targeted at ‘whiteness’: ‘This is sacred’” (see tweet below). “I am absolutely advocating for a cultural revolution,” said Aurora Public Schools teacher Tim Hernandez. At a speech in May, in which he cosplayed a generic civil rights leader, even affecting a black accident and the cadence of a street preacher, he told an audience there were Marxists and Leninists among the AFT union affiliate in Colorado. He did this in plain view of the media organizations present at the rally.

The comparison of Mao’s cultural revolution and Wokism’s color revolution is obvious. Both are what political sociologist call “revolutions-from-above,” a concept I will discuss in a moment. But Fox News is leaving out the most fundamental truth in all this: neither Maoism nor Wokism was/is Marxist. Maybe Hernandez’s audience thinks they’re Marxists, but one is not a Marxist because he says or thinks he is; a man is a Marxist depending on what he says and thinks—and what he does.

Marxism is rooted in class politics and seeks the transformation of the economy from one based on the exploitation of man by man to the exploitation of the environment for the benefit of all with the goal of liberating individuals from the limitations of tribal relations. This teacher obsession with white supremacy tells us that this is not his project. He’s angry at Hannah Grossman for amplifying his tribal obsessions because he, like other progressive teachers, want the media to obscure their activities for the good of the agenda. Most corporate media organizations protect the progressive agenda. Fox News doesn’t.

We recently got another taste of the Maoist character of woke progressivism in the case of the death of a man with a well-known reputation for violence and a lengthy rap sheet who was threatening people on the F train in Manhattan on the New York City Subway. On May 1, 2023, Daniel Penny, a 24-year-old marine, assisted by two other passengers, restrained a career criminal named Jordan Neely. At some point during the event, Neely died. See my May 7 blog The Failure of the State to Protect its Citizens to read my initial thoughts about this case and its implications. You can also read there some of the details of Neely’s extensive record of criminal violence, violence often directed towards children and the elderly. Neely was a menace.

What caused Penny to retrain Neely? According to police, witnesses reported that Neely was behaving in a “hostile and erratic” manner and threatening passengers on the train with violence. He expressed a lack of concern about going to jail for what he about to do, announcing that he was “ready to die.” Witnesses reported that Neely was throwing objects at passengers. The police initially questioned Penny but released him without charges a few hours later. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg initiated an investigation into the incident. On May 3, the medical examiner’s office ruled Neely’s death as a homicide, attributing it to “compression of neck (chokehold).” On May 12, Penny was charged with second-degree manslaughter. If convicted, Penny could face a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison.

In that previous blog, I compare the Neely case to the George Floyd case. The comparison hasn’t escaped the attention of others, for example Twitter profile End Wokeness (see above). This is what we call “left idealism” in Marxist criminology (see my December 2019 blog Demoralization and the Ferguson Effect, as well as my September blog of that same year Marxist Theories of Criminal Justice and Criminogenesis for more). Left idealists make martyrs out of criminals to serve as propaganda props in the project to delegitimize public safety. The desire for chaos is rooted in anarchism and the praxis of transgression. This attitude emerges with the New Left during the 1960s with the postmodernist corruption of critical theory and the adoption of Maoist ideas in the West (see my September 2020 blog The Mao Zedong Thought Shift from the Class-Analytical to Race-Ideological).

To facilitate the woke progressive projects, CNN tells the Neely story this way:

So if Maoism and Wokism aren’t Marxist what are they? They are totalitarian tendencies that use chaos to entrench their respective ideologies. Both Maoism and the Wokism are rooted in bureaucratic collectivism, characteristic of both modern China and the modern West, and, at various points, sow confusion and disorder in order to entrench the ideological assumptions that weaken opposition to authoritarian and illiberal culture and politics. The dynamic of bureaucratic collectivism deindividuates the population, sharply restricting personal autonomy and charisma, deforming the personality. German sociologist Max Weber warned more than century ago that the corporate bureaucratic organization of human activity depersonalizes society, thus leading to mass society. It reduces people to cogs in machines, robbing them of their agency. As Weber put it, bureaucracy is destructive to “individually differentiated conduct.”

You can read more about Weber’s ideas on bureaucracy in his early twentieth century work Economy and Society. To briefly summarize, Weber held that bureaucracies are organizational structures characterized by a hierarchical division of labor, a chain of command with rigidly defined roles and responsibilities, as well as explicit rules and regulations, and a system of impersonal authority—or of which are rarely the result of democratic processes. Weber argued that the bureaucratic organization of mass human action tends to depersonalize individuals. In bureaucratic systems, individuals are expected to conform to predefined roles, follow standardized procedures, and prioritize organizational goals over personal preferences or aspirations. Depersonalization occurs as people become mere functionaries within the bureaucratic apparatus, their individuality and personal autonomy suppressed and negated. They become embedded in ritual systems without spirit or transcendence.

Weber identifies this as the problem of the “iron cage,” a metaphorical concept representing the restrictive nature of bureaucratic organization, the form of organization characteristic of corporate capitalism, wherein the rationalization and bureaucratization of society impose a system of rules and regulations limit creativity, individual freedom, and personal initiative. The iron cage metaphor emphasizes the loss of human agency and freedom within the rigid structures of bureaucracy. Weber highlighted the phenomenon of “disenchantment,” where traditional beliefs and values, as well as charismatic forms of authority, are displaced by rationalized bureaucratic structures. The rise of bureaucracy is seen as a rationalizing force that undermines the enchantment, personal connection, and charismatic authority that individuals may experience in more traditional or pre-bureaucratic social arrangements. These arrangements are soul-stealing.

This is a common theme in the sociology of the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. The French sociologist Émile Durkheim, in his 1893 book Division of Labor in Society, theorized the shift from pre-modern societies, where individuals are integrated in society through shared beliefs, values, and collective rituals, to the functional and impersonal interdependence characteristic of modern bureaucratic societies, where individuals become socially disconnected, making it challenging for individuals to interact in a shared moral framework. Durkheim argued that as societies become more complex and specialized, traditional moral and social bonds weaken, leading to a sense of normlessness and moral confusion. Sit back for a moment and reflect on what is happening today in the West. Like Weber, Durkheim understood very clearly where modern societies would take us if we allowed bureaucratic rationalization to direct our lives.

Durkheim’s argument borrows much from German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, whose 1887 century book Community and Society also analyzed the effects of modernity on social order, comparing modern society (i.e., Gesellschaft), marked by contractual arrangements, individual interests, impersonal social relationships, and a weak sense of community, with traditional communities (i.e., Gemeinschaft), which are based on strong personal bonds, shared values, and a collective sense of belonging. The crucial finding of these researches, emphasized in Weber and Durkheim’s work, is that the growing complexity of human society undermines the moral order, by shifts control from integration, which is marked by strong and internalized social bonds, to regulation, which is external and typically appears as coercive forms of control. The trajectory of sociocultural evolution in modernity bends towards authoritarian. The progressivism of the so-called left greases the wheels of the train and stops those who would brake it.

China is very must central to the problem. The chaos of Mao’s Cultural Revolution prepared the ground for the bureaucratic collectivism that follow Mao’s death. As I will show in this essay, western transnational corporations (TNCs) have been busy establishing and deepening global economic arrangements with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), not only because of opportunities to maximize the production of surplus value through the super-exploitation of captive populations, but also because the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has perfected the bureaucratic corporate state machinery and is far down the road of rationalizing all aspects of social life—even to the point where, in the social credit system, desired behavior is quantified and reinforced using the technique of applied behavioral analysis or operant conditioning (behaviorism).

Facial recognition is one element of China’s expanding tracking efforts in the development of the social credit system

The social credit system is a scoring system that assesses individuals based on their behaviors and activities. It collects and integrates data from various sources, including business firms, government agencies, financial institutions, and social media platforms. This data is then used to generate a social credit score for each individual, reflecting his trustworthiness and compliance with societal norms and regulations. The system operates through a combination of rewards and penalties. Individuals and entities with high social credit scores enjoy privileges and benefits, such as easier access to loans, expedited bureaucratic processes, and preferential treatment. On the other hand, those with low social credit scores face restrictions and are disadvantaged, suffering limited access to certain services, public shaming, or difficulties in obtaining loans or employment.

I will discuss all this in the next section, but before I do, I also want to define what is meant by “revolutions-from-above,” as well as by the term “color revolutions.” The former term was popularized by the American political sociologist Barrington Moore Jr. in his 1966 book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Moore examined the historical development of different political systems and analyzed the conditions under which authoritarian regimes or democracies emerged. He used the term to refer to a process of significant political and societal transformation initiated and implemented by those in power, typically the ruling elite. Moore argued that revolution-from-above was a distinct path of societal change or development, contrasting it with other modes, such as revolutions-from-below, which involve popular uprising and grassroots movements.

The concept of revolution-from-above has since been used by scholars and analysts to describe and analyze various historical and contemporary cases of top-down transformations, including state-led modernization efforts, political reforms, and policy changes implemented by authoritarian regimes. Often these top-down transformations are carried out under cover of manufactured populist uprisings, what are known as “color revolutions,” which mass media organizations and political elites portray as popular protests or political movements that aim to overthrow existing governments or regimes, typically in what those sources portray as authoritarian states. Color revolutions get their name from the propagandistic use of specific colors to represent the purported populist movements. These colors are visible in flags, banners, and clothing worn by protesters. Color revolutions can be thought of as societal-wide AstroTurf operations.

Color revolutions generally characterized by large-scale protests and demonstrations that emphasize nonviolent means of resistance. Participants employ high-profile acts of civil disobedience, sit-ins, marches, and other forms of apparent peaceful protest to express their discontent and demand political change. However, color revolutions are also often violent, which those steering the disinformation campaign censor, downplay, or reframe. These movements typically involve students, intellectuals, civil society organizations, and disaffected elements of the population. Legacy and social media and other forms of communication play a crucial role in organizing and mobilizing participants, defining the terms of the “struggle” in ways that avoid class analysis so as to not threaten the actual structure of power, i.e., class power. Color revolutions often use the rhetoric of democratic reforms, but the regimes installed in their names are typically administrative and technocratic. The actual aim of color revolution is therefore to install or entrench authoritarian regimes by portraying opponents as corrupt, illegitimate, or fascist.

The public is told that color revolutions are complex political and social movements that arise from a combination of domestic grievances, political disassociation, popular aspirations, and socio-economic factors. They involve the agency and participation of diverse local actors, including civil society organizations, student groups, opposition parties, and ordinary citizens. However, the CIA or other Western intelligence agencies organize or support color revolutions to advance corporate and geopolitical interests and influence the political outcomes of countries deemed problematic. The Ukraine was one of those sites (see my History and Sides-Taking in the Russo-Ukrainian War; see also The US is Not Provoking Russia—And Other Tall Tales). The popular uprisings associated with color revolutions are often orchestrated or manipulated by external actors as a means of regime change; TNCs and Western governments and organizations develop and finance civil society groups that serve as propaganda hubs for Western interests.

Sometimes the civil society groups stood up by the authoritarians implode, such as we are witnessing with the principle movement involved in the 2020 color revolution that installed Joe Biden as president of the Untied States. But the revolution-from-above has in the wings new groups ready awaiting mobilization.

* * *

Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, which took place in China from 1966 to 1976, was a revolution-from-above aimed at reasserting Mao’s authority and transforming Chinese society. What Mao envisioned in a transformed society were not explicit. Much of what was promulgated was Marx-ish jargon mixed with traditional Chinese thought, including elements of the communitarian philosophy of Confucius. However, Mao’s actions, such as mass mobilization and purges, were aimed at controlling and manipulating the people to suppress dissent and maintain dominance of Community Party. Mao used ideological indoctrination and mass movements to ensure loyalty to doctrine and obedience to the dictatorship. His policies, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, were motivated by a desire to consolidate power within the party.

Mao emphasized the concept of the “mass line,” which feigned seeking truth from the masses, appearing to integrate popular perspectives into decision-making processes. This approach drew on traditional Chinese ideas of collectivism and harmony (as opposed to solidarity), reflecting Confucian and communitarian influences. Mao exploited Confucian ethics and moral principles to promote discipline, loyalty, and respect for authority. He emphasized the virtue of dedication to the collective cause. However, while Confucius advocated for strong family relationships as a foundational element of a well-ordered society, placing great emphasis on filial piety (loyalty, obedience, and respect), which he believed individuals owe their parents and elders within the family, Mao sought to undermine the family structure. Confucius emphasized the hierarchical structure of the family, with obedience flowing from children to parents and from younger generations to older generations. Confucius taught that individuals should fulfill their familial roles and responsibilities with sincerity and devotion. Mao sought to replace the family with the state, conditioning the population to be obedient to the Communist Party—the state as father.

Mao’s Cultural Revolution

Mao’s policies and the actions of the Red Guards fomented strained relationships between children and their elders. This was seen in the actions of Red Guards and the campaign of youth mobilization. Mao mobilized radical youth groups known as Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. The youth were encouraged to challenge and criticize authority figures, including parents and teachers, and the elderly more broadly, portrayed as representing the old order or “bourgeois elements.” Red Guards encouraged their peers to view their elders with suspicion, as potential sources of “counter-revolutionary” influence. The Cultural Revolution aggressively promoted the idea of overthrowing established hierarchies, including familial and intergenerational relationships. Influenced by Mao’s rhetoric and the prevailing atmosphere of the Cultural Revolution, youth rebelled against traditional values and authority figures. Conflicts arose when older generations held onto traditional beliefs and practices; if they weren’t “counter-revolutionary,” then they lack revolutionary fervor.

In his rhetoric, Mao sought the revolution to rid the party of “bourgeois” elements that he believed threatened socialist ideals. By “bourgeois,” Mao was referring to the liberal secular emphasis on free speech and thought, individualism, and scientific materialism (in contrast, Marx and Engels use the term to describe the ruling class, its historical trajectory, and the character of the law that sustained it rule). Mao mobilized the Red Guards to challenge party officials, intellectuals, and anyone perceived as a threat to Maoism. Red Guards engaged in acts of harassment, public humiliation, destruction of cultural artifacts and desecration of historical monuments, and physical violence. It should not escape the reader that the corporate state and the Democratic Party used the same approach during the 2020 presidential campaign to disrupt democracy and shape the outcome. Indeed, they continue pursuing these tactics. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and trans activists represent America’s Red Guard and, like the Red Guard, engage in acts of harassment, public humiliation, destruction of cultural artifacts and desecration of historical monuments, and physical violence, condemning the liberal values of free speech and conscience, individualism, and scientific materialism, while preaching animosity towards the older generation and traditional values. “OK Boomer.”

You might wonder how the youth of America could be so enthusiastic about the elderly Joe Biden, who was 76 years old when he announced his candidacy for president in April 2019. But he wasn’t much older than Mao Zedong when the latter launched the Cultural Revolution n 1966. Mao was 72 years of age when China’s lost decade began. Turns out, as with race, young woke progressive types are not as committed to identity as they are to ideology. “Vote blue no matter who.”

The personality cult surrounding Mao reached its peak during the Cultural Revolution. His Little Red Book, which contained selected quotations from his writings, became a symbol of loyalty to Maoism. It was widely distributed and memorized by millions of people (you can see it displayed in the above picture). Classrooms were disrupted, schools and universities shut down, curricula subverted. Intellectuals and academics were targeted, with many sent through reeducation programs or subjected to public humiliation. The power struggles and purges resulted in a significant loss of institutional stability and hindered effective governance. The Cultural Revolution caused significant economic disruptions and setbacks. Industrial production declined, agricultural productivity suffered, and infrastructure development slowed down. Economic instability and mismanagement during this period resulted in widespread poverty and economic hardship. Again, all this should feel familiar to the Western observer. The chaos and decline function as if designed to clear the path for a deeper, more thoroughgoing system of control.

The Cultural Revolution ended with Mao’s death in 1976. In its aftermath, the Chinese government launched economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping. Xiaoping, who held power from the late 1970s until the early 1990s, is associated with the ideology of “Deng Xiaoping Theory” (theory used here to give the ideology the feel of something scientific) or Dengism. Dengism focused on the modernization of China’s economy while maintaining the political dominance of the Communist Party. Dengism parlayed the chaos of the Cultural Revolution to entrench totalitarianism. It was Deng who conjured the propaganda slogan “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” which he told the world was a system combining communist ideals with market-oriented reforms and economic liberalization, i.e., the development of corporate capitalism and global economic ties. His commitment to socialism was betrayed by another of his sayings: “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

The interrelations between China and the West since the Cultural Revolution have been marked by a complex interplay of business, economic, and geopolitical factors. So it is imperative to examine China’s economic transformation, its integration with the Western economies, and the ensuing geopolitical implications to understand why the transnational corporate and political elite have pursued elements of the Chinese model. This is also what lies beneath the chaos and decline of the West. It is not just the work of the Chinese to destroy the enlightened West. The managed decline of the American Republic and the democratic systems liberal values that have long marked the trans-Atlantic is also the work of Western elites. The Democratic Party is central to this project.

Since the late 1970s, China has embarked on a path of economic reform and liberalization. The introduction of market-oriented policies, such as the establishment of special economic zones (SEZs), the same as the export processing zones (EPZs) that proliferate throughout the third world, allowed for increased foreign investment, export-oriented manufacturing, and gradual integration into the global economy. China’s economic transformation and its vast labor force attracted significant Western investment. Western TNCs recognized the potential of China’s large market and low-cost production capabilities. This led to the establishment of numerous joint ventures and manufacturing facilities, enabling the transfer of technology and knowledge to China. China emerged as the world’s factory, supplying cheap goods to Western markets. China’s integration into the global economy was facilitated by its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Additionally, China’s growing importance in global finance is evident in its increasing participation in international financial institutions and the internationalization of the Chinese yuan.

As US senator, Joe Biden played a significant role in the normalization of relations between the United States and China. Beginning in the late 1970s, Biden, as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was actively engaged in shaping US policy towards China. During this time, the United States was transitioning from recognizing Taiwan as the sole representative of China to establishing diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Biden, along with other senators and policymakers, played a part in paving the way for this normalization process. Biden visited China in 1979 just months after diplomatic relations were established between the US and China. Biden aggressively advocated for increased economic exchange and engagement to foster better relations between the two countries. As Vice-President, Biden once more played a key role in promoting economic ties between the United States and China. He participated in high-level economic dialogues and trade talks. Biden has bragged about his deep personal relationship with current dictator Xi Jinping, Biden supported efforts to promote cultural, educational, and people-to-people exchanges between the United States and China. All this with a nation that any rational observer understands is repressive of a totalitarian state with global ambitions.

China was granted Most Favored Nation (MFN) status by the United States in 1980. The decision to grant MFN status to China was supported and advocated by several individuals and groups within the United States. One notable figure who played a key role in advocating for granting MFN status to China was President Jimmy Carter. During his administration in the late 1970s, Carter pursued a policy of engagement with China and worked to normalize relations between the two countries. His administration recognized the potential benefits of engaging with China economically and strategically. Both Carter’s National Security Advisor and Secretary of State were involved in negotiations with China during his presidency. Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, formerly the director of the Trilateral Corporations, played a significant role in shaping the administration’s foreign policy towards China. Carter’s Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance, also a trilateralist, played a key role in diplomatic relations with China. He was involved in negotiations and discussions with Chinese officials, working towards strengthening bilateral relations and addressing various issues of mutual concern during his tenure. The business community, particularly TNCs, also played a role in advocating for closer economic ties with China. Their influence and lobbying efforts supported the case for granting MFN status. In 2001, culminating a decade of transnationalization under the Clinton Administration, China’s MFN status was converted to Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the United States.

China’s rapid economic growth and its transformation into the world’s second-largest economy, which could not have happened with the concerted effort of the West documented above, have had profound geopolitical implications. Think about it. Why doesn’t the MSM dwell on treatment of the Uyghurs, a large ethnic group in China. Xinjiang, officially known as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), is home to approximately 12 million Uyghurs, primarily Muslims. The Uyghurs are not immigrants. They have lived in XUAR since ancient times. The Uyghurs have their distinct language, which bears similarities to Turkish, and they identify themselves as being culturally and ethnically connected to Central Asian countries. They have a rich cultural heritage and history that reflects their interactions with neighboring Central Asian nations. Multiple investigations have turned up numerous reports of disturbing practices and policies targeting Uyghurs, including mass detentions, surveillance, and forced labor. Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the situation is the existence of re-education camps or “vocational training centers.” These facilities are reported to hold a significant number of Uyghurs, where they are subjected to indoctrination and forced labor.

Re-education camps in China’s ‘no-rights zone’ 

Why doesn’t the MSM report the spread of Chinese influence throughout the West? China has significantly increased its outward foreign direct investments (outbound FDI) to Western countries. Chinese companies have made investments across sectors, including automotive, energy, infrastructure, real estate, and technology industries. Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies have acquired foreign assets, formed joint ventures, and invested in start-ups in Western nations. China has engaged in strategic acquisitions of Western companies, aiming to acquire advanced technology, expertise, and established brands. Notable examples include Chinese investments in the automotive sector, where Chinese companies have acquired European car manufacturers, facilitating the transfer of technology and market access. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has extended its influence into Western countries through infrastructure investments. Chinese firms have participated in the construction of ports, railways, and telecommunications networks, promoting connectivity and trade between China and the West.

China has strengthened economic ties with African and South American countries through trade agreements, preferential loans, and “development aid.” These are the markers of neo-imperialism activities. China has invested significantly in Africa and South America to secure access to natural resources. Chinese SOEs operate agricultural, mining, and oil exploration and extraction projects, often involving long-term contracts and joint ventures. Through the BRI, China has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in Africa and South America. These investments aim to enhance regional connectivity and promote economic growth. Projects such as roads, railways, ports, and power plants have been undertaken, exploiting cheap sources of labor, and improving infrastructure for business operations. Critics of China’s investments in the Third World raise concerns about debt sustainability, environmental impact, labor standards, and local economic autonomy—typical concerns about neo-imperialist activities. Indeed, there is worry that Chinese investments will lead to debt dependency and limited technology transfer, while others express concerns about environmental degradation resulting from resource extraction. Recently, Western governments have discovered network of Chinese police stations operating globally, including North America.

Do you see now why you hear very little about China in the MSM? You know that Western journalists and news executives know this information. If they were worried about the threat posed to the world by a totalitarian communist power, why wouldn’t they report on the matter? Because they’re not worried about. They’re not worried about it because these developments are in the interests of the powers the MSM serves. The MSM’s function is to facilitate the construction of one world government, and China’s slave labor and governing model is ideal for the plan.

* * *

This is the New Fascism, and the Democratic Party is the principle domestic political force devolving democratic-republicanism at home and replacing it with the ideas and systems developed in the wake Mao’s cultural revolution—and accomplishing this with the same tactics used to create that path. This is what lies behind critical race theory and gender ideology and their anti-epistemic foundation of postmodernism and the corruption of critical theory. The purpose of these crackpot ideas is to disrupt the thinking and politics of the people by dividing the population by race, promoting anti-white bigotry, confusing the youth about reality, and alienating children from their parents in order to reincorporate America more fully in a corporate state system of control.

It is not that Communist China is taking over the world. It doesn’t have to. Its ideas will win because Western transnational power is seeking the same ends. (See Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism: Fascism Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow; Physical Capital, Human Capital, Technology, and Productive Work—These Drive the Real Economy; The New Serfdom and its Useful Idiots: Boots Waiting to Stamp on the Face of Humanity; The Future of a Delusion: Mass Formation Psychosis and the Fetish of Corporate Statism; China Represents the Existential Threat of our Time—and the Democratic Party is a Chief Enabler; The Behemoth Returns: The Nazis Racialized Everything. So Do CRTs.)

I know it feels like a conspiracy when the administrative state and the attendant technocracy—the academia, the culture industry, mass media, the medical-industrial complex, the public education system, even many churches—are aligned and organized around an ideology that is objectively absurd. That this is happening is obvious simply by observing and empirically describing the system. You are told to deny what you can see with your own eyes, but millions of people across the West see things for what they are. The bizarre things our youth believe today—just like the youth in Maoist China or the youth in Nazi Germany—didn’t happen by accident. It happened because an elite have captured our institutions. The adults in the room fell asleep at their screens. Moreover, the elite don’t believe any of the nonsense the professional-managerial class, the functionaries of the corporate state, embrace and push into the heads of their captive audiences.

You may ask, For what? To what ends? What’s the agenda? What I just said. The elite know that tens of million in the United States—and billions around the world—will resist the global neo-feudalist order and the transnational extended state they are standing up. The populist-nationalist uprising across the West tell them they won’t have it so easy. The people are awakening. So they have to double down on changing what the masses think. And to do this, they have to destroy the family. Like Mao, they have get our children. They have to delegitimize our culture and our institutions. They are doing a damn good job of it. (To read my earlier writings on this, see my July 2020 blogs Mao Zedong Thought and the New Left Corruption of Emancipatory Politics and The Mao Zedong Thought Shift from the Class-Analytical to Race-Ideological. Also, from April 2023: The Cultural Revolution.)

In contrast to the transnational corporatist project, Marxism is a project to realize more fully the principles of the Enlightenment by resolving the internal contradictions that inhere in bourgeois society, which have grown ever more pathological with the rise of corporate personhood and an unaccountable administrative apparatus that serves the desire of an immoral elite (this is the source of the perversions that mark our culture). (See Bridging the Left-Right Divide to Confront the New World Order). Anti-racism gets in the way of that project. Anti-racism has folks thinking about the wrong thing. Identity politics, of which anti-racism is a major element, disrupts working class consciousness by substituting ideological concerns for materialist analysis. Wokism is neo-Maoism, and its function is the same as it was with the old Maoism, and that had little to do with Marxism.

Published by

Andrew Austin

Andrew Austin is on the faculty of Democracy and Justice Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin—Green Bay. He has published numerous articles, essays, and reviews in books, encyclopedia, journals, and newspapers.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.