Distinguishing Radical Liberation from Liberal Authoritarianism, by Kenn Orphan

Cal Guard participates in the 2019 San Diego Gay Pride Parade

Image by California National Guard via Flickr

by Kenn Orphan
Writer, Dandelion Salad
Halifax, Nova Scotia
December 14, 2021

“Puritanism has made life itself impossible. More than art, more than estheticism, life represents beauty in a thousand variations; it is indeed, a gigantic panorama of eternal change. Puritanism, on the other hand, rests on a fixed and immovable conception of life; it is based on the Calvinistic idea that life is a curse, imposed upon man by the wrath of God. In order to redeem himself man must do constant penance, must repudiate every natural and healthy impulse, and turn his back on joy and beauty.” — Emma Goldman

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.” — Albert Camus.

Since my last piece regarding the myth of “woke fascism” I have received numerous messages and emails which seem to misunderstand much of what I wrote. So, I wanted to clarify. While there is no such thing as “left fascism,” I do not deny that there are authoritarian currents in what passes as the left today. These do not amount to fascism, but I think they do pose a threat to the democratic process and often aid the far right, as I will talk about below.

In today’s social media culture, radicalism is often reduced to performative social justice or virtue signalling. The way this works is through an impulse among many self-identified progressives (and some leftists) to amplify socially accepted ethics while policing the thought and speech of everyone else. I have seen this manifest in many forms, from “canceling” a person because they may express a divergent opinion regarding gender expression, or in “mob justice” mentality where a group of people gang up on one person online and troll them incessantly for expressing something that is considered unacceptable to today’s progressive sensibilities.

Certainly, the pandemic has exacerbated much of this as well. For instance, anyone who criticizes Big Pharma or discusses the well documented crimes of the medical establishment in the past may be cast unfairly as an “anti-vaxxer,” an ableist, or worse. I may have been guilty of some of this myself. It stems from a desire to find some order and meaning in a world where neither seldom exist and in an era of mistrust and misinformation. But there is an impulse to punish anyone who dissents from this “order” because they are perceived as a threat. And it usually isn’t very helpful at confronting unhinged conspiracy theories or dispelling false information.

I have witnessed some of this myself especially when it comes to topics like sex, gender and sexuality. Many progressive-minded people, primarily Americans from my experience, appear to be on a Victorian/puritanical crusade to purge culture and the world of anything that may be considered “abusive,” might “trigger” someone, or that may make them feel uncomfortable. An urge to shut down discourse or debate. Unfortunately, the #MeToo movement has contributed to this in a rather pernicious way. And no matter what radical veneer it might display, it is liberal authoritarianism at work.

To reiterate, while “woke fascism” is nonsense, progressive or liberal authoritarianism is not. And liberalism often plays handmaiden to real fascism. Back in the 1980s, self-described “radical feminists” like Andrea Dworkin launched a crusade against pornography. In the process, she and others linked arms with conservatives and the far right. Like an echo from the Temperance movement of the early 20th century, these women were merely repeating a similar narrative of reactionaries. Their narrow focus on abuse ended up stamping out much of the incredible progress made by sexual liberation movements in the 1970s.

To many of them, almost any expression of sex, sexuality and the human body were to be defined as oppressive, immoral, degenerate and traumatic. And all of this supposed “debauchery” required severe and draconian government action to surveil, censor and punish the so-called “offenders.” This episode was like a repeat of the notorious “Red Scare” of the McCarthy years where thousands of people where labeled “perverts” or “sexual deviants” and blacklisted from jobs. Countless lives were ruined. Families destroyed. Many committed suicide due to the trauma. And it demonstrated that puritanical crusades never really died in American society. One look at the vicious battle being waged against reproductive freedom and we can see it in action today.

In addition to echoing the Temperance movement, Dworkin and others like her ironically echoed Christian fundamentalists and Calvinists. Without a doubt, most pornography produced today is a product of capitalism. It is exploitative because capitalism is exploitative. But viewing it outside of this lens renders the issue hollow. It becomes just another liberal crusade that ends up aiding conservatives, evangelical Christians and the far right.

With religious zeal, Dworkin rained down fire and brimstone on any who dared deviate from her thin line of what was acceptable and what was obscene. Unsurprisingly, she gained enormous support from the Reagan administration and notoriously anti-gay bigots like James Dobson. Today, celebrated, self described radical feminists like Gail Dines and Julie Bindel appear to be repeating this, although now it is risibly being reframed as a “public health crisis.”

Ironically, it is often the elite in the LGBTQ community who appear to be taking up this crusade today. Since marriage equality passed in the US, bourgeois respectability politics have sadly gained ground too. Now, more than in the past, prominent, powerful and wealthy LGBTQ couples seek to mimic their heterosexual counterparts. Heteronormativity, along with shaming and virtue signaling, has become all the rage in some circles.

In truth, sexual “deviance” from the norm has always been looked at through the lens of Protestant Christian purity in the US. It is seen as something to suppress, police or expunge. And with so many prominent queer people clamouring to join the mundane cultural mainstream, the avantgarde and the different are increasingly being vanished or marginalized. But there is also an increasing conservatism within bourgeois LGBTQ circles which serves to perpetuate the oppressive systems of capitalist exploitation, class and nationalistic militarism. Just look to how many Pride Parades today are inundated with sponsors or contingents from corporations, banks, police and the military sector for an idea of how far it has gone.

Despite what many might argue, there is nothing radical about appealing to authority within a deeply authoritarian society. And while we recognize the silliness of “woke fascism,” we should not ignore the abuses of progressive or liberal authoritarianism masquerading as radicalism. Opposing societal ills like misogyny, homophobia and racism should never court censorship or echo reactionary structures of oppression.

The true radical experience should always be liberating for everyone, but especially the poor, the marginalized, and the powerless. It should ultimately condemn punitive ideologies of retributive justice, because wallowing in a state of perpetual victimhood or narcissistic woundedness only ends up serving the powerful by reinforcing their hierarchical worldview. Radical liberation revels in its creative imagination to transform society from a place of trauma to one of solidarity. And anything less than that is not worthy of our energy.

Kenn Orphan is a writer, artist, antiwar and anti-capitalist activist, hospice social worker and radical nature lover living in Halifax, Nova Scotia. As an independent writer and artist Kenn Orphan depends on donations and commissions. If you would like to support his work and his blog you can do so via PayPal. He may be contacted at KennOrphan.com.

Previously published on Kenn Orphan, Dec. 13, 2021

From the archives:

The Dangerous Myth of “Left Woke Fascism,” by Kenn Orphan

Revival of Class Politics in the U.S.… Will It Be Socialism or Fascism? by Finian Cunningham

A Dystopian Hellscape Beckons: 21 Dark Clouds Over 2021 Amerika, by Paul Street

Hapless Biden Administration Is Weimar Republic on Way to U.S. Fascism, by Finian Cunningham

America’s Instinctive Fascism Creeps On, by Paul Street

The War on Wokeness, by Kenn Orphan

How Liberal Capitalism Has Devolved Into Open Tyranny, by Rainer Shea

4 thoughts on “Distinguishing Radical Liberation from Liberal Authoritarianism, by Kenn Orphan

  1. Pingback: Ralph Nader and Chris Hedges: Woke Imperialism – Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: Rising Above The Hurt To Enjoy A Day In The Sun, by Tom H. Hastings – Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Stonewall was a Call for Revolution, Not a Celebration of Conformity, by Kenn Orphan + Stonewall Forever – Dandelion Salad

  4. Although I can agree with much or all of what Kenn Orphan says, there may be a wider related issue that he has not said enough about. I think that too many people in our political landscape lack nuance. That comes partly from laziness, but also partly from other factors that may be unavoidable.

    One problem is simply the complexity of politics. It takes a while to see all of what is really going on. The Marxist-Leninists, for instance, keep giving me lists of a dozen books that they want me to read before I open my mouth again. But there is no end to the learning, and we cannot wait until we have a Ph.D. in politics before participating in it. We need to form opinions and act upon them, on the basis of knowledge that we realize is imperfect. How much knowledge should we have before proceeding? That question has no easy answer. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity,” said Yeats; nowadays that’s called the Dunning–Kruger effect.

    Another problem is the adversarial nature of politics. For instance, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is sometimes true — we have to form temporary alliances to achieve short-term objectives. And our use of reasoning has to be more like lawyers than like scientists — more committed to winning than to discovering all of the truth. We have to persuade others to join our cause without asking them to read a dozen books. Thus, sometimes we must avoid nuance intentionally.

    In the better world to come, after the revolution, we will all have the same objective: to make the world better for everyone. Then we may still debate how that is to be done, and then we will have time and room for nuance. Until then, though, we just have to muddle through. I don’t have answers to this question; the best I can do is try to make the question clearer.

Comments are closed.