by Brennen Ryan
It is being reported:
“An academic study from researchers at Brunel University London assessed 171 men, looking at their height, weight, overall physical strength and bicep circumference, along with their views on redistribution of wealth and income inequality. The study, published in the Evolution and Human Behavior journal, found that weaker men were more likely to favor socialist policies than stronger men.”
Is it true? Are socialists really weaklings?
We need to clarify what exactly is being claimed. The study is based on the left-right political continuum that falsely conceives “socialist policies” as akin to liberalism as part of “the left.” Real socialism has nothing to do with liberalism. The phrase “socialist policies” is misused in the report. There it refers to revisionism, not real socialism. “Socialism,” in this context, is being used to refer to First World liberals, labor parties, social democrats, Trotskyists, First Worldist sects, etc. Once we understand that the study correlates being liberal in the First World with physical weakness, its conclusions ring true: liberals are weenies. And, furthermore, most fake socialists are also weenies because they are really just liberals.
Historically, real socialists have often been the ones who have pointed out the effeminate, faggy, degenerate nature of certain segments of the bourgeoisie. The physically-weak liberal bourgeois or degenerate petty bourgeois has often been contrasted with the muscular, chiseled proletarian in socialist propaganda. The propaganda of both the Soviet Union and China are good examples. Both depict romanticized forms of the proletarian citizen-soldier. The proletarian was depicted as strong, militant, determined, heroic. Art reflects reality. These are the traits all people were to aspire to under socialism. Strength and power were publically fetishized far more in past socialism than they are in the capitalist First World today. Real socialist culture was far more masculine and heteronormative than the “gender-bending” cultural of today’s neoliberal Empire.
Dr. Price, the author of the study, draws social Darwinist conclusions from his research:
“This is about our Stone Age brains, in a modern society. Our minds evolved in environments where strength was a big determinant of success. If you find yourself in a body not threatened by other males, if you feel you can win competitions for status, then maybe you start thinking inequality is pretty good.”
This kind of analysis may make some sense in the First World, where economic success is no longer tied to production. Economic success in the First World is about siphoning off wealth that often originates in the Third World. So success is delinked from the direct producer and his muscle. In the First World, people who are less successful in life due to their physique surely do favor policies that favor themselves. However, these people are not proletarians nor do they embrace real proletarian, socialist politics. Rather, they embrace limited redistribution schemes that favor themselves without upsetting imperialist exploitation of real proletarian muscle in the Third World. Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the mass politics of social democrats of his day as an extension of Christianity, which he saw as a “slave revolt in morality.” He saw Christian morality as a slave mentality, one rooted in fear and resentment of those better than yourself. Is there not fear and resentment running through liberalism and social-democratic reform, especially in the First World? The liberal not only fears and resents his conservative bourgeois opponents, but the liberal also resents and dreads the real proletarians, the Proletarian World. And if push comes to shove, the liberal always sides with his fellow bourgeoisie against proletarian revolution. The study’s social Darwinist analysis does not apply to the real proletarians – workers, farmers, small owners, lumpen – in the Third World nor proletarian pockets within the First World, especially lumpen. The proletarian is physically stronger than either the liberal or conservative bourgeoisie. Our physicality, and the bourgeois fear of it, is one reason the bourgeoisie has rigged the social game on every level to confer advantages to themselves, even on the personal level. It was Engels who remarked that capitalism had changed marriage, and sex by implication, into prostitution. Despite attempts by the bourgeoisie to confer evolutionary advantages to themselves artificially, the real proletariat often still wins the sex game.
Liberalism has won out over other bourgeois ideologies to become the main ideology of Empire today. Liberalism has a long, complex history with the revolutionary movement and our proletarian people. Of all bourgeois ideologies, liberalism has been the most effective at infiltrating the proletarian movement. Liberalism is an enemy ideology that has led to revisionism again and again. Thus it is absolutely necessary to combat the corrosive effects of liberalism on the revolutionary movement. One of Mao’s famous titles is “Combat Liberalism.”
One important aspect of fighting liberalism today is separating the concept of proletarian from our ideas of weakness. Liberalism is about fear, weakness, insecurity and the need to control. The liberals cannot control us or deal with us as we are, so they project something of their own nature onto us. Thus originates the paternalistic, liberal discourse that sees the exploited as weak, needing to be saved by another. And, for the liberal, to save us is to turn us into a lesser version of himself, to tame us. Unfortunately, the proletariat often internalizes this liberal narrative resulting in a collective lack of self confidence and ability to fight. This is one of the reasons identity politics is toxic. Identity politics is a race to establish who is the weakest, who needs the most help from the liberals, who needs the safest space. This kind of oppression olympics sets the proletariat up for failure. It replaces proletarian politics with the whining of weirdos and their paternalistic, liberal saviors. This kind of toxic liberalism does far more damage to the revolutionary movement today than crude racist and sexist attacks of those openly hostile to us. Liberalism is the sugar-coated bullet fired at us by the bourgeoisie. And like Mao said, the sugar-coated bullet is the most dangerous.
The proletariat is not weak. We are strong. We are the source of everything. The roofs above our heads were built with our hands. The chairs we sit in were crafted by us. We feed and clothe the world. Everything we own comes from our labor, our blood, our sweat. Marx’s Labor Theory of Value, whatever its flaws, is a theory of muscle. We are the muscle, but also the brain, the most creative. Our music, literature, culture is far more original and genius than any other. Our soldiers are braver. We are more athletic. We are the muscle, brain, and heart of all that is good.
“Revolution is not a diner party.” Revolution is about strength. It is about becomming who we really are. We must be our best selves. Lenin said without power all is illusion. Power is many things, but it is nothing without muscle. Revolution is about having the physical capacity to crush our enemies. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is a dictatorship, muscle. We must do everything, collectively and individually, to become stronger to make total revolution. The Leading Light is strength.
The bourgeoisie with its mass media and cultural army tries to obscure this reality from us. Leading Lights see through the lie. The proletariat is a sleeping god. We are waking up.