Jack Donovan on men: a masculine tribalism for the far right

This is an interesting piece on Jack Donovan from anti-fascist writer Matthew N. Lyons. Read it here. Vince Rinehart of ATS gets an honorable mention as well.

Lyons did a similar piece on me a few years ago (see here) which is actually by far the best work of its kind critiquing my own work  from the Left, though I thought it veered off into a caricature of my own admittedly heterodox and complicated positions at times. I issued a lengthy reply at the time, which was also reprinted in my book. See here, here, and here.

I find the almost phobic hostility that some on the far Left have to radical decentralist politics, particularly if any rightist cultural or ideological currents are represented, to be a rather curious phenomenon. That someone would regard scattered clusters of city-states, counties, or neighborhoods reflecting the values of “Posse Comitatus, the European New Right, laissez-faire economics, and Calvinist theology” (and presumably co-existing with institutions and communities reflecting polar opposite values) to be more threatening that the slaughter carried out by the America empire, not to mention the surveillance state and corporatist economy maintained by the federal system domestically, is rather astounding.

Without necessarily attributing any of these views to Lyons personally, it seems that the anti-decentralist orientation of much of the Left is rooted in a number of factors. One is merely cultural or historical, and the common identification of ideas like “states’ rights” with past apologists for genuine systems of oppression such as slavery and Jim Crow. Another involves special pleading, or the view that particular groups or movements favored by leftists must always get what they want regardless of other considerations or other needs. Still another is opportunism, or the desire of some to utilize the state (or the corporate system) as a means of self-advancement (this is not uncommon among elites and more affluent sectors of traditional outgroups, for example). And yet another is the ideological paradigm of “totalitarian humanism” that is implicit in much of progressive thought. This involves the idea that the autonomy of civil society must be subordinated to the state in order to enforce progressive values in a wider social context, the view that the central government must impose progressive values on regions and localities, or that foreign policy should be used to impose progressive values at the international level (“military humanism” as Chomsky calls the Samantha Power approach to international relations).

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Reply