Waking up to Woke - 1

Untangling the woke hydra

Have you ever wondered from where the whole “woke” thing emerged?  It seemed as if one minute everything was going reasonably well, and we were confident that we understood our place in a world that seemed fairly set in its ways.  Then, after the death of George Floyd, the Western world seemed to explode, giving birth to a very different, scary and constantly changing landscape for us to negotiate.  While most of us were caught unawares, behind the scenes, there had been a build-up of revolutionary activities just waiting for the right catalyst to set it free so that it could then burst its way into our consciousness.

One of the scary elements in the narrative of its establishment in countries around the world is its use of violence as a legitimate tool for achieving its goals.  The goals of its founders came straight from the playbook of Mark and Lennin.  They made no pretence as to what they wanted to do. They were unashamedly setting out to replace democracy with Marxist Socialism.  They were disappointed with the failures of Communism in Soviet Russia and China and their inability to bring about changes to the way the West was structured. In the light of these failures, they were determined to succeed where they had failed. 

At its best, these opening moves among the Wokistas were by people living in a fantasy world, activists who were trying to achieve the impossible by forcing the ignorant (in their language) and the foolish to act in the way they needed them to perform.  Even more amazing are the lengths to which they were prepared to go to in achieving their own visions of what made the human communities better places to live.  Giving guns to black ghetto revolutionaries and bomb-making skills to students at Ivy League universities, however, was never going to make the world a better place.  While many of the practitioners of woke today will not want to admit to the Marxist origins behind their beliefs, it is something of which the founding fathers of the movement were openly proud.

There are now many books offering reflections as they try to put these events into some kind of perspective for us and I have found many of them most helpful, even if at times the philosophical discussion can become a tad heavy.  There is one author whose thoughts I would like to share, those of Christopher Rufo.  I have found the way he set down the history of the movement very helpful, and what follows from here are some of the insights that I have been able to glean from his writings along with my own reflections and twists.

All things can be traced back to Marcuse

It is always good to have someone to blame for things that go wrong.  In this case, I will confidently lay a large portion of the blame for the woke virus at the feet of Herbert Marcuse.  He was the preeminent philosopher of what today bears the rather grand title - the New Left.  This movement set out to mobilise and bring together the white intelligentsia and the blacks living in the ghettos into a new proletariat.  On the face of it, that would seem to be an impossible union, but it is one that, at least for a short period of time, worked. By collaborating, they sought to demolish the West as we have come to know it.  Following the way Rufo approached his reflections, we can look at the formative years of Woke in terms of three of its most influential players. These were the three key people involved in helping to make the dream of Marcuse a reality. 

There was Angela Davis was one of Marcuse’s graduate students and, after pledging to violently overthrow the state, became the face of racial revolt in the West.

Then there was Paulo Freire was a Brazilian Marxist whose work on turning schools into instruments of revolution became the gospel of left-wing education in America.

Finally, there was Derrick Bell was a Harvard law professor who set the foundation for critical race theory and recruited a cadre of students who would capture elite institutions with their new racialist ideology.

This new narrative hit a nerve and what emerged was a worldview that eventually wove most parts of society, willingly or unwillingly, into its Draconian web. They insisted that:

The leading nations of the West (America, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, European states) are all irredeemably racist nations.

Whites constituted a permanent oppressor class and only white people could be guilty of racism.

White people are unable to avoid being racist.  All they can do is work with victims on undoing some of the harm whites continue to do to those non-whites on the margins of society.  They are however, born racist and they will die as racists in a racist society.

These countries could be saved only through the performance of elaborate guilt rituals and the wholesale overturning of its founding principles.

 All the significant institutions—universities, schools, corporations, government agencies, religions — ended up duped into repeating the revolution’s vocabulary like a mantra: “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion. (DEI).  Meanwhile, in the streets, mobs of left-wing rioters expressed the ideology in physical form, toppling statues of men of historical significance and burning buildings to the ground as symbols of what needed to happen to the entire Western Establishment.

Back to a starting point

It all began quite innocently, at a conference in 1967.  At that gathering the philosopher Herbert Marcuse spoke on his topic “Liberation from the Affluent Society” with a passion that caught the imagination of the younger members of the audience.  He went from praising the hippies for inaugurating a sexual and political rebellion. He encouraged young people to take up a Marxist philosophy of rebellion.  He wanted nothing less than “the total reconstruction of our cities…the elimination of ugliness…the transition from capitalism to socialism”.  This should be kept in mind when we begin to drill down into the true nature of Woke.  It is a neo-Marxist movement.

From here Marcuse quickly emerged as a living rallying point for a new revolution, a revolution fed by the philosophies of Kant, Hegel, and Marx.  It comes as something of a surprise to discover that this scholar who is mostly unknown outside of academia ended up being the father of such violent movements as the Weather Underground, the Black Panther Party, and the Baader-Meinhof Gang.  His teachings were used to justify bombings, assassinations, and what amounted to urban guerilla warfare across the West.  In his own writings he referred to this time as the time of the “New Left”.

The ”West” survives by repression

One of his main arguments was the way our modern capitalist society had created the perfect means of repression.  It used wealth and possessions, the manufacture of items to meet our every desire as tools of oppression.  This wealth and abundance served to “anaesthetise” the working-class people.  These people were sucked into its pandering and along with the widespread Welfare programmes, it served to keep people compliant.  When things did go wrong and problems emerged, the elite could blame it all on “the people”, the hoi polio who did not understand their status as both pawns and scapegoats to this capitalist monster.

To address this malaise Marcuse proposed what he called the Great Refusal: the complete disintegration of the existing society, beginning with a revolt in the universities and the ghettos.  The people had to accept that the dissolution of the system’s hypocritical morality and values were necessary if the world was to be a better place,. It was the only way all men and women could attain an authentic equality.  This, however, could only be done through the relentless application of his critical theory of society. 

This “critical theory” has been called the Western Marxism” or the “neo-Marxism” and “critical Marxism” with the key element the writings of Marx. 

His writings certainly shook the thoughts of the leaders of the time with outpourings of hatred directed at him from right across society.   Those writings only became known because of the passionate way young people and the black communities in the ghettos took to those teachings.  President Ronald Reagan denounced him for his “communist ideology”.  There were numerous calls for him to lose his teaching position at the university, threats to his life, bomb threats and even Pope Paul V1 criticised him in a sermon for opening the way to “license cloaked as liberty” and for spreading “animal, barbarous and subhuman degradations”.  But the young radicals worshipped him and hung on his every word.

His efforts led to the capture of our institutions, especially our schools and universities and through them the oppression of just about any kind of opposition. In Marcuse terminology this was a part of the “transvaluing” of all prevailing values.  The old values that had formed the very foundation of our Western culture had to be thrown out and replaced with a radically different perspective on history, anthropology and society.  This flows on naturally from his “critical theory”.  Sound familiar?  It is the battle cry of our new elites as they began their “long march through the universities, media, corporations and central governments” (more on this expression later).  We see its creations at work in organisaations like the ABC, the Guardian newspaper; gives rise to mandatory “Welcome to Country”, Black Lives matter, Me Too, the multiplication of genders, the trans debates, the hamstringing of the police, breaking down of national borders and a whole lot more. Dig down into these and there we will find Marcuse and his thoughts.  Into this mix, of course, we need to place the Church, for it too falls foul of critical theory’s judgment of repressive regimes who use their false moral values to oppress “the people”.  It is to the great advantage of the Church, he maintained, to keep this control, for without it, people may well abandon religion altogether.

The belief was that once society had been made aware of their blindness to the repressive nature of capitalism, they would rebel against it.  That rebellion would take in not just the institutions and society but would then ‘take root in the very nature, “the biology of the individual”.  What were once established biological realities will be exposed for what they are:  oppression disguised as scientific truths.  Out of this struggle would come a pure form of freedom, one in which there would be no exploitation and no violence (even though they could only be established by violence and exploitation).

We need to ‘tear it down and start again”

What is needed to achieve this new world is a radical “rupture of history”, a complete break away from and destruction of all those institutions, beliefs and legal systems that had brought us to our present state of slavery.  We need to pull all of this down and then make the courageous leap into “the realm of freedom”.   This is where it becomes even more interesting. One of the byproducts of this approach was the necessary subversion of democracy and the “cataclysm of political violence”. Marcuse believed transforming the world could not be achieved in any other way.  The full Marxist vision could not become real unless society went through this regrettable but inevitable period of pain and chaos.  Violence was the only crucible from which a whole new world could emerge.

For Marcuse and his followers, this was nothing but a natural consequence of the desire for progress and liberation.  It was not something to be feared, not something that they should try and find a way around. Tearing everything down would be painful but said violence was the necessary catalyst for progress to begin. 

American pseudo-freedoms soon disappoint

Marcuse emigrated to the USA in 1934 from a Germany gearing up for the outbreak of war under Nazi rule.  Despite all the horrors he had seen there and his experience of the sufferings at the birth of communism, it did not take him too long to become disappointed with the liberal freedoms he experienced in the USA (and for him that disappointment included the entire west).  Capitalism had decayed into mindless consumerism, one in which the people were encouraged to conform to the culture of the time.   The working class were convinced that the more they could accumulate of the goodies of technology and science, the better off they would be and the happier and more content they would become.  From the perspective of Marcuse, this was all about the governments using their social welfare programmes, capitalist excesses and welfare policies to keep people subjugated and compliant.  That happiness, however, did not equate with fulfilment.

He wrote how a “a comfortable, smooth, reasonable, democratic unfreedom prevails in advanced industrial civilization.” The very prosperity that was celebrated in these democracies was incapable of leading men and women to true freedom, because all of this apparent wealth and freedom was being used to camouflage an unfreedom”.  The proletariat were being conned and did not know it, and the price they were paying for all these good things was the very freedom they presumed they already had.  In this topsy turvey world as seen by Marcuse, freedom was slavery and progress left nothing but “barbarism’ in its wake.   He was greatly saddened that the prosperous west had lost sight of the earlier advancements, the great steps forward that had been brought about by classical Marxism.   He writes that

 domination – in the guise of affluence and liberty – extends to all spheres of private and public existence, integrates all authentic opposition, absorbs all alternatives.  Technological rationality reveals its political character as it becomes the great vehicle of better domination, creating a truly totalitarian universe in which society and nature, mind and body are kept in a state of permanent mobilisation for the defence of this universe (from One Dimensional Man).

What to do when the working class is unreliable

He observed that it was no wonder that despair characterised the working class.  They had been stripped of their revolutionary inclinations and the political system had created an environment that wore the garb of true democracy but was in reality nothing less than a “pseudo-democracy”.  Revolution was next to impossible if it was going to rely on the activities of the proletariat rising from their slumber (as it was with Marx). Marxism was predicated on the revolutionary conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie but in the West the proletariat was too comfortable and disinclined to challenge the status quo that kept them comfortable and at “peace”.  They were not even aware of their status as a suppressed people.   How could it be possible to ferment a revolution in a world where people were encouraged to keep things the way they were when those in power controlled society with the promise of life becoming more and more comfortable for them?

 More of the same could offer them a comfortable life and with each new advancement in technology and science, things seemed to be getting better and better.  The working class were little more than the “preconditioned receptacles” for production and advertising.  They were not free. They lived under domination from the bourgeoisie, and for Marcuse, these working classes were little more than “sublimated slaves”. They remained unaware of their true status in the world, and were never going to be the ones through whom the establishment of a genuine Marxist dream could be achieved.  They were, in his words, little more than slaves condemned to “the hell of the Affluent Society”.

 It is not that this was a free choice.  They had little of the means required to change the world in which they lived because they had been made dependent on what the consumer-driven capitalist society could provide for them.  The West spoke of freedom of conscience, free speech and the freedom to assemble but did all it could to stop all attempts at making these things realities.  They were empty promises.     

Marcuse postulated that the only way out of this hell was through a thoroughgoing revolution.  The present pseudo-democracy had to be abolished.  Democracy was not the answer, and the present diabolical state of the West was evidence of this.  Surprise, surprise, the alternative to democracy was what he called governance by an educational dictatorship – rule by the elites.  These were the only ones capable of discerning between false and genuine consciousness, between freedom and slavery. 

The proletariat needs to be forced into compliance

To this end he wrote in his Essay on Liberation The society…

must first enable its slaves to learn and see and think before they know what is going on and what they themselves can do to change it. And, to the degree to which the slaves have been preconditioned to exist as slaves and be content in that role, their liberation necessarily appears to come from without and from above,” … “They must be ‘forced to be free,’ to ‘see objects as they are, and sometimes as they ought to appear,’ they must be shown the ‘good road’ they are in search of.”

Because what we have been accustomed to living in is a “pseudo-democracy” the only way forward was for the present situation to be abolished.  This will, of necessity, take the form of anti-democratic action. It will take place outside of, and even in opposition to parliament.  Violent is needed. There is no other way forward.

This vision of Marcuse arose out of his studies of Marx and Lenin.  The reality for him was that the consumerist West would need a period in which it was governed by a temporary dictatorship.   This dictatorship would be left in the hands of the intellectuals (people like Marcuse himself?).

To establish the kind of environment capable of birthing a transformation of society , the world needed an elite group. What was needed was for this elite to “unleash the destructive power of the slums”.   The language used here is informative.  Only with a tidal wave of violence could the existing system be torn down.  Violence and more violence.

Out of all of this thinking and writing came the New Left.  This group was made up of student protesters, race activists, radical feminists and a wide array of counter-cultural warriors.  Marcuse defined the New Left in this way:

“The New Left is, with some exceptions, neo-Marxist rather than Marxist in the orthodox sense; it is strongly influenced by what is called Maoism and by the revolutionary movements in the Third World.”

Some uncomfortable alliances

In promoting the growth of this New Left, Marcuse moved away from classical Marxist philosophy in that the revolution on its way was not one instigated by the proletariat, by the working classes.  It was a product of the coming together of the elites and societies marginalised, those who enjoyed “privilege” as well as those who were “dispossessed”. 

This movement was already evidenced in the street battles that were commonplace in major cities – anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-imperialist, anti-democratic – and were awakening the consciousness of the masses in the cause of socialism. 

Partnering in this movement were students from Ivy League universities and the people living in the ghettos of the West Coast. While for Marcuse the goal was still socialism, he urged students and others to be subtle in the way they introduced change, moving “one step to the next”.  They could not go straight to a socialist society, though that was where they were heading.  While not entirely desirable, this odd amalgam of the elites and the marginalised black population was a necessary first step.

“Utopian possibilities are inherent in the technical and technological forces of advanced capitalism and socialism,” Marcuse said. “The rational utilization of these forces on a global scale would terminate poverty and scarcity within a very foreseeable future.”

Those engaged in this revolutionary process would be a part of a collaboration between the “young middle-class intelligentsia” and “black militants”.  Instead of the classical Marxist view of class conflict, Marcuse imagined that racial conflict was the way forward.  He thought the black population in the ghettos who were living in dire conditions would be more easily organised and directed.  They were already demanding change and forming themselves up into useful geographical blocks, and from there they were able to strike at the heart of the means of production and things of political importance.

Subversives vs Corporate America (read Australia)

For Marcuse, the sight of the breakout of rioting, looting, arson and widespread bloodshed that marked this revolution emerging from the ghettos filled him with great joy.  In the 1960’s, these were good signs.  They were indications that at last the oppressed were setting in place the foundations for their liberation.  They were at the forefront of a whole new world where genuine freedoms were available to all.  Under the broad banner of Black Power, the New Left promoted what they saw as a subversive movement aimed at breaking down corporate America. 

For Marcuse, even this was not yet a genuine revolution. It was a part of the preparation of the groundwork from which the genuine revolution would emerge.  For there to be a true revolution, the masses needed to move beyond the universities and ghettos to join with those third-world revolutionaries engaged in bitter wars of liberation.  They needed to throw their lot with those seeking a world-wide Socialism.  For that to become a reality, the economic and social stability needed to be smashed, and the old social cohesion weakened and done away with.

This coming together of the white student radicals with the black militants would bring about this collapse of the West.  Out of the resulting chaos would come the authentic revolutionary class, those setting in place the permanent changes to society that were so desperately needed.

In the West we live in a state of “repressive tolerance”, where we are told that we are free, and that dissent is accepted.  The reality is far from it.  Institutions, corporations, and governments all combine to give the impression of collaborating for the well-being of all, but the sad reality is that they are little more than oppressors.    What is needed is a new regime of “liberating tolerance”.  This would evolve into the kind of world we know all too well today.  Society had to be intolerant of movements from the Right and tolerant of movements from the Left. 

This was all acceptable in the vision of Marcuse because it would “ ……extend to the stage of actions as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word”.  Thus, censorship, repression and when necessary, violence, would all be acceptable and reasonable avenues of change.  To achieve what is good for society, (even if they do not appreciate it as the time) undemocratic actions will be needed.

Some ideas need to come with trigger warnings

There will be some ideas that, for the sake of the revolution will need to be censored.  Political opposition must be pushed to the background and vilified, even turning their ideas into hate speech. There will likely be times when even the “suspension of the right of free speech and free assembly” is necessary.  But this is selective.  These should only be applied to those on the Right, for it is they who form a “clear and present danger” to the advancement of society.  There had to be a hard-line intolerance in the universities, corporations, media outlets, educational institutions, religious groups, religions, political parties and all the apparatus of the state to these dangerous people. It is better to stop free speech for the sake of an end that is good, a good that takes the shape of socialism.

How did he justify these contradictory ideas?

First of all he established the premise:  Modern capitalist societies had created a successful veneer of peace but the reality was that the veneer was nothing more than a mask used to legitimise their own wars of repression against the people. 

This is evidenced, for example in the way police violence is seen as acceptable as long as it maintains the existing societal visions.  This institutionalised violence is usually directed towards racial and other minorities.

Secondly, because what we call law and order is in reality a system of suppression, democracy is nothing but a pseudo-democracy, morality is thinly disguised immorality; what was proclaimed as being legitimate is in fact illegitimate.  The minority groups are therefore rightly entitled to throw the Molotov cocktail or hand grenade and grab hold of a semiautomatic weapon supporting their just cause.  Through whatever means possible.

This was an important point for Marcuse and the New Left.  Violence was for them an inevitable necessity.  It was the only way for the oppressed to find a genuine freedom.  In this battle legal norms proved to be inadequate and therefore no forms of action we to be overlooked. 

It comes as no surprise to find that this theory of a “just” revolution was incredibly popular among those new radicals who had responded positively to Marcuse’s teachings. They felt justified in attacking every manifestation of the Establishment.  It was a world of revolutions, a revolution we saw breaking out in – student riots, armed police in the streets, Mao Zedong bringing about his own form of a cultural revolution in China, Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries in Latin and South America, Cambodia and spreading in Africa.  Liberation was on its way even if the only secure way of obtaining it was at the end of a gun.

Having introduced the writing of Marcuse into the mix, we are now able to move onto some of the key figures who took to putting this neo-Marxist view into reality.  In so doing, I shall highlight some of the ongoing consequences that created so much confusion and pain to the bewildered majority, those people who had little idea of what was unfolding all around them.

Bishop Michael Hough                                      February 2025