A Strange Activist Movement Illustrates Leftist Thinking

Keeping up with modern activist and “grassroots” movements is a full-time job. It seems as if new movements spring up daily, highlighting the inherent harm in some seemingly insignificant aspect of our society. Syrup is racist. Fraternities are sexist. If white people move into a neighborhood, they have engaged in gentrification, which oppresses black people, so obviously if white people move out of the neighborhood, it must be good, right? No, that is referred to as white flight, and it also oppresses black people… somehow. But now there is a new noble cause floating around in the progressive ether, the fight against a force that apparently oppresses minorities, destroys working-class communities, and unfairly redirects valuable tax dollars from more worthwhile pursuits. Of course, this force of which I speak is not rioting or police brutality, but the cruel crackdown on shoplifting.

Within elite leftist institutions and among neo-Marxist circles, the push to decriminalize shoplifting has seen increasing support, so much so that in 2014, California even passed a law, Proposition 47, downgrading the theft of property worth less than $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor. And in most west-coast mega-cities, where politicians are somehow even less generous when funding law enforcement than they are when tipping the waitstaff, that effectively means that those laws will simply not be enforced.

Reading further into the proposition, it seems that this law not only targeted shoplifting, but a large number of petty crimes, including drug-dealing, purse-snatching, forgery, mugging, extortion, and drug possession, including the possession of date-rape drugs, such as Rohypnol. This echoes a wider trend seen among neo-Marxists across the country, pushing for the legalization or decriminalization of non-violent anti-social behavior, quality of life crimes, and general vagrancy. Besides the crimes mentioned above, this push has also included the decriminalization of such activities as loitering, public urination and defecation, trespassing, graffiti, vandalism, and open drug use.

Now, a rational and sane member of society might ask why such a push exists at all, even in the minds of the radical professoriate, let alone makes it into actual law on the state level. To understand the rationale behind this movement, one has to truly understand the mind of the leftist. One should never think that these seemingly disconnected movements are completely random or are internally incoherent. There are a few key premises that lie at the root of the neo-Marxist worldview, and all modern liberal political positions are logically derived therefrom.

The leftist does not believe in individual agency. In his sociopolitical cosmology, all anti-social behavior is produced through oppressive societal forces, especially economic ones, that create imbalances, i.e. social hierarchies, in need of rectification. This logic relies on two premises that undergird the bulk of leftist philosophy. The first premise is highly debatable, depending mostly on the ethical philosophy to which one subscribes, but the second is factually correct. The flow of the argument would be as follows:

1. Inequity is immoral (Premise 1)

2. Social hierarchies (economic, gender-based, etc.) create inequities by definition

3. Therefore, social hierarchies themselves are immoral (Conclusion 1)

Furthermore:

1. Certain social forces (capitalism, patriarchy, etc.) lead to social hierarchies (Premise 2)

2. Social hierarchies are immoral (See Conclusion 1)

3. Therefore, these social forces are inherently immoral (Conclusion 2)

This line of thinking is used to justify the fight against a bevy of social systems, ranging from free-market capitalism to the nuclear family, but it does not directly address crime or other similar anti-social behaviors. For that, one would have to take the argument a step further:

1. Social forces that create or reinforce social hierarchies are immoral (See Conclusion 2)

2. Certain behaviors (petty crime, vagrancy, etc.) undermine these social forces

3. Therefore, these behaviors are intrinsically ethical (Conclusion 3)

Obviously, this is a very dangerous conclusion, but it follows perfectly logically from the initial premises, which are in fact part of the bedrock of modern leftist thought. By accepting Conclusion 3, which can be reworded to say “All behavior, including anti-social and criminal behavior, that undermines or dismantles oppressive social forces (meaning those forces that create or reinforce social hierarchies) is inherently moral”, a wide number of socially toxic and morally dubious behaviors become not only justified, but actually encouraged.

Besides the criminal behaviors mentioned above, one could also, using leftist logic, justify the abrogation of free speech (hate speech laws), anti-white racism (affirmative action), and malevolent social ostracization for petty reasons (what is now known as “Cancel Culture”). Furthermore, this logical reasoning can be (and frequently has been) extended to the realm of violent behavior (the “punch a Nazi” movement, which has expanded to encompass any non-leftist, including many of those on the moderate left), as long as such behavior works to dismantle systems of oppression.

Whether the average Democrat realizes it or not, they have already internalized the two premises above, along with several others that are beyond the scope of this essay. No largescale social movement can be formed, let alone maintained for decades, if it is formed based on absolute nonsense. Peering deep into the philosophical foundations of any seemingly foolish ideology, one can find a short series of premises that are likely, on the surface, very reasonable. However, as one travels down the rabbit hole of logical reasoning derived from a flawed premise, although each successive step may seem perfectly reasonable once the previous is accepted, some extremely absurd and perverse conclusions can be reached.