"Leftism" is a Noncept

But hack-frauds, pseuds, and the terminally confused wield it with great aplomb

Author’s note: Please support me by purchasing my new book!

“Leftism” is an anti-concept, a linguistic tool for sophists. Whatever is meant by its usage can only be understood within the particular context of the individual speaker and his or her autobiographically-informed paradigm. In a private conversation between peers this is bad enough, but once the term is deployed in service of a political or sociological analysis, any hope of objectivity must be thrown out altogether. At present, a great many people use this word thereby granting it undue conceptual validity. Its widespread usage therefore poses a challenge, not just in terms of rhetoric and analysis but also from the perspective of activism and political organization (all of the above necessarily requiring clear-headed thought).

All that “leftism” ever denotes, or is used to indicate, are those things which the individual speaker himself considers intolerable. While there may be good empirical reason for rejecting any given political bugaboo, arbitrarily bundling them together irrespective of whether or not they fit is a fools errand (and strong evidence of a mind which has lapsed into solipsism). Any such attempt cedes conceptual credibility when applied at scale, as the concept is ultimately an empty signifier: pointing to it leads us nowhere.

It is only the belief in a unity which allows individual speakers to use the word (or observe usages of the word) and feel that there’s a common understanding which grounds the concept, legitimizing its usage. This is obviously false, and so political or sociological analyses which hinge (even if only obliquely) on the use of this kind of language, inevitably fail. They fail because their analysis relies on heuristic-based thinking which substitutes difficult tasks (identifying those political entities responsible for the things I dislike) with simpler ones (systematizing observed patterns based on the things I dislike). Not being able to see beyond their own prejudices, they fall into sophistry.

Beyond the marginal heuristic value in using this term, for instance it allows us to quickly (but not always correctly) identify the political affiliation of a given stranger, it does not allow us to better understand him (much less organize against him, if necessary). We would not meaningfully be able to identify his “leftist agenda” nor prosecute his “network of leftists” for the language only serves to substantiate gut feelings. In this sense it is possible to speak of “left-wingers”, but not of “leftism”; while we are unconsciously (or otherwise) recognizing patterns of political identification, we are often not seeing that investigation to its conclusion, instead settling into private prejudices (e.g., those things already familiar to us). The intense taboo against uncovering political sovereignty is partly to blame for this psychological tendency, although there are other reasons why this happens (which I will get to momentarily).

What we learn from the popularization of this sort of language is that, taking into account its analytical shortcomings, it effectively mystifies patronage networks and other actually-existing centers of power. “Leftism” as a concept is simply the reification of a folk heuristic to the benefit of shadow sovereigns who can only operate politically so long as they are never properly identified. In the language of psychologist and economist Daniel Kahneman, “leftism” is a “system 1” conclusion, or in other words, an intellectual rush job.

In Kahneman’s theoretical vocabulary, “system 1” refers to the psychological tendency towards fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, and unconsciously generated judgments. These judgments are informed strictly by the inputs from your perceptual experience, what Daniel Kahneman calls the “WYSIATI principle” (what you see is all there is). His “system 1” cognition operates alongside “system 2” cognition, a more deliberate and effortful style which consecrates the intuitions of system 1, converting them into beliefs, attitudes, and intentions.

Kahneman dichotomizes intuition and reason as discrete power centers of the brain, the mismatched efforts of the two responsible for all manner of cognitive biases and fallacies due to the heuristic-based ways in which we think. In this case we must acknowledge conceptual “leftism” as an instance of this heuristic-based fallacy (the tendency I described earlier in which we substitute difficult cognitive tasks with simpler ones), as the answer to who rules over us is not “leftists” and the ideology of the ruling class is not “leftism”.

Two serious problems emerge from this view: since “leftist” is a category with no concrete referent there is nowhere one can go to apprehend them; at the same time, the list of “leftists” can grow exponentially since all one must do to become a “leftist” is trigger the heuristic-based thinking of those who accept the concepts validity. It would not be wrong, ultimately, to describe this behavior as paranoid: having developed a faulty mental construct to help him avoid pain and discomfort, the individual operates from a condition of existential terror (he is being attacked and can barely defend himself). So there are psychological challenges experienced by those who accept this language, just as there are political challenges for us imposed, in the first place, by their belief.

Rhetoric about the “woke/anti-woke” is similarly misguided. Heuristic-derived categories solidify into “legitimate historical objects”, the origins of which can be excavated from dusty, old textbooks but whose adherents can not be prosecuted in the here and now (consider the infamous liberal rejoinder: “Well no one can tell me who or what woke even is!”). Here we see the ultimate failure of such thinking, as it disables the individual from engaging with the actual philosophic and political challenges of his day, instead leaving him in an arrogant, Cervantean stupor, fighting figments of his imagination.

It is not possible to organize or legislate against leftism. This is true for the same reason that you cannot kick the ghost out from my closet: because it isn’t real. Now, I have observed three of the more common causes for its usage, with only one being even remotely defensible:

1. to evade censorship,

2. to signal allegiance to nominally right-wing institutions and organizations, and

3. out of ignorance (unconscious conformity to the prevailing discursive language)

Regarding the first count, we would need to evaluate on an individual basis the degree to which use of this language to avoid de-platforming and the like constitutes cowardice or pragmatism. In almost all cases, speakers would do better abandoning such rhetoric entirely. It is almost always better to speak more directly, more transparently, and with greater integrity (in many ways the new social media climate encourages it). When given an opportunity to speak frankly with one’s audience, he or she should take it.

Turning our attention to the second point: it is common to see speakers adopting extreme rhetoric in support of their “anti-leftism”, a trend which we should respond to with intense scrutiny. Not all who engage in this behavior are bad actors (see point #3, often the naïve and the neophytes among us are responsible for this type of conduct), but when they are it is often due to their mixed heritage. In these cases, “leftism” represents the red line in the sand which they cannot cross, for doing so might require them to look at themselves and the conditions of their own existence with uncomfortable skepticism (e.g., the ethnic or racial émigré who takes up nationalist or nativist politics). Compelled towards political activism but otherwise disinterested in self-reflection, “anti-leftism” is the life jacket which keeps them afloat amidst the waves of political chaos.

Those who cannot, with confidence, identify themselves and their interests (whether to themselves or others) are similarly ill-equipped to define the friend-enemy distinction, for their own confusion is too great. This fact is revealed, ultimately, in their language and rhetoric.