Political Correctness & Cultural Marxism - What Would Groucho Say?

These are the laws of my administration:
No one's allowed to smoke,
Or tell a dirty joke,
And whistling is forbidden.

by Zvi Baranoff

Politically Correct, Cultural Marxism, Deplatforming

These are terms that are being tossed about in the social dialogue and they tend to skew or derail important conversations. I have seen them popping up more and more. It may be mostly a matter of which tide pools I am floating or wading through in the vast ocean of cyberspace. It seems however that the terms have significantly oozed their way into common usage, as I have also seen them in published articles by fairly mainstream publications.

It is sometimes a question of when to confront disingenuous dialogue and when to ignore it. Part of that is whether engagement is useful as far as seeking understanding and shared agreement or if the dialogue leads to empowering and legitimizing a dishonest and disingenuous red herring argument that had ulterior motives. Generally speaking, I choose to ignore.

The Linguistic Twit in me however insists that words and terms have real meaning when used in one way. They are pure intellectual garbage when misused. They become right wing propaganda when used in a certain context.

Politically Correct

This term has a totally different meaning than how it has come to be used. The mangling of the term is something I noted decades ago.

For historical reference, the term comes out of Marxist intellectual and political circles. A Marxist study group may grapple with an issue to determine - from their ideological position - what is politically correct. Within this context they may debate where they stand on a local issue or on international matters.

In this context, for instance, the Communist Party in the USA was opposed to involvement in World War II as long as the Soviet Union was at peace with the Fascist regime in Germany and that was the position adopted by the membership. When war broke out on that front it became politically correct from their prospective to support the war effort and antiwar activists shifted their public position.  

After the war and throughout the Cold War period, ideological leftists in their small circles debated all sorts of issues and grappled with the search for politically correct positions. If one is working in a group or political party it makes sense to have everyone on the same page. They broke up into tiny groups recognized by the alphabet soup names identifying their political identity. Marxists were subdivided and subdivided again, denouncing each other over minor points of political correctness. There were a bunch of these groups back a few decades ago but they have mostly faded away or self destructed over their internal contradictions. (What about Albania?!?)

Politically correct? Paul Krassner published a poster and a bumper sticker in the Sixties that read “Fuck Communism!” At the time, no one quite knew in which way they were offended. Leftists like Communism. Conservatives did not like the word “fuck”. Now, I guess, Conservatives have changed their tune.

Cultural Marxism

What the hell is that supposed to mean? The first time I heard it I pictured in my mind a college dorm with a Che Guevara poster hanging on the wall. The term, however has some history. It is a way of attacking not just Marxists but anyone within their possible sphere of influence by painting them all with a broad brush. The term seems to be used today to describe anyone to the left of whomever used the term. As Marxist organizations are almost totally marginalized or irrelevant the political Right Wing seems all the more determined to toss that term about. Without a real Boogie Man to confront the Right Wing creates Straw Men.

Deplatforming

This seems to largely be a cyberspace issue although it also enters into a question of free speech on public campuses. The question of free speech is always a touchy matter. At what point does speech drift into action? Can we differentiate between shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater which is rightly a crime and shouting “Theater!” in a crowded fire which is the tradition of political activists from the stream where I tend to swim.

Yippie!

Abbie

I have NEVER been politically correct. I am a Groucho Marxist. To quote Groucho, “I would never join an organization that would have me as a member.” I have, however, spent most of my life in predominantly left wing circles. Sometimes I just had to wait for the politics to catch up with me and sometimes I just had to go my own way.

Back in the 1980s there were a series of large demonstrations in DC organized by broad coalitions to oppose various military intervention policies. We would pile into buses and join in with the vast crowds. They would march and chant: “The People! United! Will Never Be Defeated!” That was very popular. My friends and I chanted instead: “My uncle’s! A Diamond Cutter! He Mows the Lawn at Yankee Stadium!”

Trotskyist groups would show up at these sort of events and try to spin off part of the crowd, offering a seemingly purer and more radical position. We would shout at them “A Chicken In Every Pot! An Icepick for Every Trot!” not that we identified with Stalinists, but hey, that's funny and I don't care if it is not politically correct.

Back then, demonstrations used megaphones to encourage the droning chants of the gathered throngs. The antiwar chants focused on the idea that the money spent on the war efforts could better be spent elsewhere. “Money For Schools! Not for Wars!” was popular. This was also at the height of the Reagan years when the War on Drugs was broadly supported across the political spectrum. They chanted “Fight Drugs! Not wars!”

Sometimes the megaphones got passed around. Why anyone thought it was a good idea to hand me a megaphone I will never know. I looked at it. I looked at my friends. I held the megaphone to my mouth and proclaimed in the singsong pattern “Money for Drugs! Not for Wars!” This was greeted first with laughs and then others joined in. Then, the Peace Police marshalling the event crowded me from all sides and pried the microphone from my hands.

Smoke A Joint! Make A Point!

Those of us from the Marijuana Movement were always out of step, or as one might say politically incorrect. The hard left labeled us lumpenproletariat, as petty criminals and degenerates or not working class enough because we did not have factory jobs or something like that. A lot of them were anti pot. Some of them would publicly maintain that politically correct position but would come around to smoke our weed.

The moderate or non ideological Left - social democrats and liberals - insisted that pot was not a big deal, was a distraction, was not important… They would not stand up for our issue publicly and would publicly support War on Drugs orthodoxy. They would come around and smoke our weed or want to buy some from us on the sly.

Even when we helped break open deep contradictions in War on Drugs policy, we were politically shunned. Ronald Reagan went on national TV to show a bag of crack bought within sight of the White House! We exposed the cocaine trafficking aspect of the Contras. Overthrow published  a front page story with the title Ron Sells Crack to Fund the Contras! We called for drug reform but most of the political spectrum called for more War on Drugs. It has taken decades for the collective mindset to catch up.

Dialogue Across Ideological Lines

The Marijuana Movement built a broad coalition by ignoring much commonly held political perspectives and supposed wisdom. We focused on our issue and worked with anyone that would work with us. Leftists and liberals often shunned us but we found we could work in coalition with some conservatives and Libertarians on this issue.

We also would confront anyone that took regressive public stands on drug policy. As an example, I confronted Jesse Jackson during his “Up With Hope! Down With Dope!” speechifying orthodoxy of the War on Drugs days at a public event in our nation's capital, when he opened the floor to questions from the audience. He listened thoughtfully as I pointed out fallacies in his position. Other folks, I am quite sure, also approached him. Over time Jesse Jackson shifted his political position and he is now a solid ally in favor of drug law reform.

So, this does all factor in to a matter of platforms. Any time you have a public event, be it rally, demonstration or conference there are questions about who gets to speak and what positions are “politically correct” for that event. As a general rule of thumb, we allowed anyone that agreed with us about pot and helped promote the event an opportunity to address the crowds we garnered. At the same time, we strived to steer the cultural and political direction. One way we did this was by coupling Smoke In events with Rock Against Racism concerts.

Where Do We Draw the Line?

Over the last few year the question of Platform became more of an issue for the Marijuana movement on a couple of fronts. One issue involved sexist or sexualized advertising for cannabis products. This was a question for magazine editors as well as conference organizers. The second issue was what to do with Roger Stone, the Right Wing nutjob that happens to smoke pot and has been a very public supporter of legalization.

The question of sexualized advertising remains in flux but we have seen a general shift away from it, especially as more women moved into leadership roles on a political level, editorial and managerial roles within the publications and ownership roles in the industry.

Roger Stone encouraged a huge debate on multiple levels. He had spoken at events in the past. He was also drifting more and more into the uncharted political territory of conspiracy theory lunacy.

He was deplatformed on several levels. Some people refused to sell him weed. That was at the level of personal decision and not Movement or organization. He was also uninvited from a conference and has not been invited to any since. He is likely to be indicted in the Trump & Russia fiasco and even if he isn't indicted he is permanently tarred by his disreputable behavior and public rants. It was wise (politically correct?) to distance ourselves from him.

So, platforms need to be considered from multiple perspectives. One is to whom we offer a platform. Another is whom we allow a platform even when in disagreement on key issues. Finally, the question of who we attempt to deny any platform. Of course, free speech is a complicated matter and nothing is truly free.

When Fascists are marching in our streets, this question becomes most poignant and relevant. Should governments deny them permits to march? Should we counter protest? Should we drive them off the streets? Well, all I can answer to that is that it depends. Generally speaking, I have no problem with driving them off the streets.

The question of thugs and hooligans is different than politicians and public personalities. When and how to confront opposition spokespersons is a whole other can of worms. Should we heckle, challenge and/or confront? Again, the answer is not so simple.

Let A Thousand Pies Fly!

One tactical way to directly confront opposition spokespersons and reactionary politicians that was developed in the 1960s and fine tuned in the 1970s is the Political Pie Assassination. All sorts of political hacks have had pies thrown or shoved into their faces. Aron Kay made a political career with this tactic. Have Pie. Will Travel.

Feel free to call this impolite, rude, obnoxious or politically incorrect. I will point out that politicians hit with pies do not win elections. Some call this the Yippie Curse. The public just has a really hard time taking seriously anyone with whip cream on their face. A Bozo covered in sticky pie-ness makes a wonderful front page newspaper photo, I must say!

So, sometimes ridicule is the best way to take away someone's platform. Fuck them if they can't take a joke and joke them if they can't take a fuck.

As “Left” as I am, I don't much think that this whole political correctness concern is a big issue. We all know the difference between offense and assault. Hardly any of us are concerned about a dirty joke or an off colored remark. None of us are building Reeducation Camps to round up Straight White Men. Heck, a lot of my friends are all three of those.

I am far more concerned about the political drift to the right at this time than any perceived threat from the left of me.  I am concerned about those with the jackboots and tanks and armies and police at their disposal. I think that actual authoritarian governments are a far greater concern to my freedom than the possibility that some supposed Cultural Marxist will use authoritarian force or social coercion to make me let them use the bathroom or other such hot button public fake dangers.

There may be clowns to the left and there are certainly some dangerous jokers to the right. In between, it is Just Us. Me, I still like pot and would love a slice of pie, politically correct or not. What about you?