Imagine a sociopolitical movement that divides the population roughly into two essential classes: the oppressive “great power” class and the marginalized minority classes, who are said to be oppressed by the powerful. Now imagine that movement tells the population—and especially those minority classes—the following story.

You are oppressed by the great power and its chauvinistic beneficiaries. Our movement sees this and thinks it’s a great injustice. We believe your people should be free from this oppression and should be able to self-determine. Your communities, your political meetings, and your schools, we believe, should be in your own languages. Your history and cultures should be preserved against the great power that threatens to destroy them through forced assimilation and cultural chauvinism. We’re on your side, and they are against you.

 

What’s more, what sets you apart from the great power is that you’re more like us than you are like them. We recognize that. You’re more intrinsically communal and social than they are. They don’t value community like you do, or like we do. They claim to value individual rights and self-determination so long as you agree with them, and they don’t recognize your agency and autonomy, but we do.

 

Because we understand this injustice and have the power to help you, we want to ally ourselves with you. We will help raise up leaders among you who can help you resist the great-power chauvinism from the majority power, and we can bring your representatives into our Congress to fight against them and for your right to self-determination, autonomy, and community!

You might be thinking this story sounds a little bit like a weirdly generic version of the rationale behind our current Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) regime, or a bit like Critical Race Theory (CRT). You’d be right to think so. That’s exactly how DEI and CRT work.

In our DEI-based system, the story is the same with unique specifics. There’s a great-power of “white supremacy culture,” “patriarchy,” “settler-colonialism,” and “heteronormativity” that must be resisted “intersectionally” with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives based on Identity Marxist theories like CRT and radical feminism. It will select leaders of all sorts from among those “marginalized groups” (and their ideological allies) and give them a leg-up in the professional world in every regard—so long as they agree with the underlying Critical Theory–based DEI ideology. This will be done for “equity” and “representation,” and anyone who doesn’t agree is a bigot. Also a bigot is anyone who disagrees with what any diversity hire says. (It will also be bigotry to accuse any diversity hire of being a diversity hire, especially when it’s true.)

What you just read, however, is more or less the story the Communists Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin told the variety of ethnic minorities bordering on and contained within the former Russian Federation in the 1920s, people like Georgians, Ukrainians, Caucasians, Latvians, and Estonians. In their version of the story, the “Great Russian” was imposing a “Great Russian chauvinism” upon them to make them act more Russian, and the Communists were there to help the minority non-Russian identities resist. These minority identities had different values that the Communists said were intrinsically more socialist than the feudal Russians or distant capitalists, so they were natural allies to the Bolsheviks, who by then held power under the banner of the Communist Party.

The Communists promised these non-Russian ethnic minorities—and delivered to them—not just the limited right to self-determination in their ethnic minority enclaves but also raised up leaders among them, both locally and in a second chamber of the Party Congress in Moscow. There was just one catch.

The general rule of both of these policies was to be strictly socialist, of course. Self-determination in their regions was allowed to the degree it didn’t contradict Communist Party goals, policies, programs, or leaders, and ethnic minority leaders were raised up both locally and centrally according to their alignment with the Party line. Only Socialist Georgians like Stalin, Socialist Ukrainians, Socialist Caucasians, Socialist Latvians, and Socialist Estonians, among Socialist others (like the Muslim Tatars) were elevated to leadership anywhere by the Soviets.

The Communists didn’t do this minority-outreach program out of the goodness of their black little Commie hearts, of course. There was a real perk for the Party to having these ethnic minorities in positions of power. Not only were they able to bring in loyalists; they were able to bring in loyalists who, whenever they might propose something more radical than the general Party Congress or other leaders might accept, could be shielded behind accusations of bigotry if anyone disagreed with the good token ethnic minority. Should you disagree with your Ukrainian comrade, for example, you could easily be accused very credibly of harboring and acting from Great Russian chauvinism rather than any principled disagreement.

The purpose of this program, as stated, was generally to promote a high Soviet Communist ideal: fakticheskoye ravenstvo (Фактическое равенство), “actual equality,” or what we call “equity” today. Actual equality was meant to begin with simple economic equality and extend beyond it to total (actual, or “factual”) equality across all domains of human experience and life: social, political, cultural.

This DEI-like program, instituted initially in 1921 and more fully in 1923 by Lenin and Stalin jointly, reigned over Soviet policy for most of that decade. It was called korenizatsiya (коренизация), which means “the process of putting down roots.” It was the Soviet Union’s “Inclusion” program that history has recognized as being the world’s first “Affirmative Action Empire.” In practice, it gave a great advantage to the Communists, particularly the most diabolical and Machiavellian among them, and among the people created immense and incurable ethnic strife throughout the young Soviet Union.

In the end, korenizatsiya was precisely the kind of predictable disaster one might expect—likely deliberately so—and it set the stage for a great unification (“Russification”) program in the 1930s where everyone would be a Russian Communist and, to prove it, several million Ukrainians (estimates give 3–9 millions) would be brutally and intentionally starved to death in the Holodomor for their mere capacity to potentially resist. Of course, “self-determination” was always to be secondary to the needs of the Party, and the party didn’t need Ukrainian kulaks nearly as much as it needed their land and their total submission.

The great unification program of korenizatsiya was always embedded within it under the brand name raznoobraziya (разнообразие), a program that Lenin favored and promoted strongly. Raznoobraziya, uncomfortably enough for us today, translates directly from Russian as “diversity,” and we would recognize it by that deceptive term. “Unity in content through diversity in form” was how Lenin understood the concept. That is, people will look different but all think the same: as Communists. By 1930, this “unity in form”—as Russian Stalinist Communists—is exactly what Stalin enacted using the failure of korenizatsiya as justification. The point was always the “unity in content.” “Diversity in form” was just an excuse and a lever. Just like DEI.

How did korenizatsiya get from there, then, to here, now?

In 1965, the (neo)-Marxist Herbert Marcuse wrote in his infamous totalitarian essay “Repressive Tolerance” about “emancipation” to socialism requiring activists find the sociocultural Archimedean point that could leverage the whole society into this reunification of socialist consciousness. The phrase “Archimedean point” refers to a hypothesized spot where a fulcrum could be placed that could prop up a lever that could move the whole Earth. Stalin understood from when he outlined it in Marxism and the National Question in Vienna in 1913 that korenizatsiya would provide that Archimedean point for the Bolshevik vision of the USSR with its Russian core and growing variety of satellites. Marcuse understood the same thing about the tumultuous “melting pot” of the United States in the riotous 1960s.

The conditions Marcuse described in “Repressive Tolerance” and his other writing of the 1960s, particularly An Essay on Liberation (1969), make clear that he was trying to work out how to leverage the various “ghetto populations,” minority though they might be, to create a breakthrough against the capitalist West. His problem was that what he called “advanced capitalism” had tamed the working class and turned them conservative by giving them a better life and pleasant livelihood. Marcuse recognized that the various “ghetto populations” had the needed “vital energy” for revolution, but they didn’t have the theory or social location necessary for it.

To solve this problem, one would be tempted to say Marcuse reinvented korenizatsiya if it weren’t certain that he was already familiar with it, not just once but at least twice, if not three or even four times over. It’s not quite a reinvention if you just import it and apply it. It barely needs to be said today, of course, that Marcuse’s vision is how we ended up with the “liberating tolerance” regime of DEI, CRT, and all the rest, which is to say that Herbert Marcuse knew what he was doing.

See, the thing is that korenizatsiya didn’t die with Stalin’s reversal of the program in the Soviet Union at the end of the 1920s. It wasn’t thrown on the ash-heap of history where it belongs as a catastrophic failed doctrine. Communists don’t throw away destructive things that achieve their ultimate purpose of consolidating their own power. Instead of being abandoned, korenizatsiya was recognized as a powerful tool—a evil means to a totalitarian end—and exported

First, it was adopted line for line by Mao Zedong and his CCP in China to deal with the huge Han Chinese majority and the 55 ethnic minorities in that loose federation. “Criticize Han Chauvinism!” was the brand name for the program, and it worked to undermine the nationalist KMT (Guomindang) regime under Chiang Kai-shek and to consolidate power for Mao’s favored factions in the CCP throughout his reign. Mao brought it in because it works for its intended purpose of breaking down an existing regime and installing and consolidating Communist power over a diverse population.

It was also exported to the United States in the 1920s by both Soviet infiltrators and the Communist Party USA, seeking to turn the South into a socialist capital-B “Black” nation that would agitate against the United States on racial lines. Perhaps what saved the US from this powerful Communist racial attack was the Great Depression, which led millions of Southern blacks to migrate north in desperate search of work in the factory cities. Since Stalin’s definition of a nation was a continuous people in a continuous place with a continuous history, this need-driven diaspora of Southern blacks foiled the Soviets’ first attempt at korenizatsiya subversion of the United States. It took until 1989 for Critical Race Theory to get off the ground as its next serious attempt, some sixty years later, not to just gloss over Black Power, the Black Nationalism movement, and the Black Panthers in Marcuse’s day.

Korenizatsiya was also exported to the entire colonized world, Third World and First. It became the basis for the radically violent decolonization movements throughout the Third World, sometimes referred to as “Third Worldism” and sometimes as “postcolonialism.” It also set the stage for the radical indigenous movements that have torn apart nations like South Africa, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, not to mention U.S. states like Alaska, New Mexico, and Hawaii. It has even been secondarily imported into Europe along with the anti-indigenous populations of “migrants” who are currently “decolonizing” Europe through blatant and highly subsidized colonization. Korenizatsiya lives on throughout the entirety of the non-Communist world.

Marcuse was well aware of the program and its uses in the USSR. He was also familiar with and praised its uses in Mao’s revolutions in China. He was deeply aware of the “Third Worldist” liberation movements upon which he based his own ambitions. He was also astutely aware of the racial tensions and manipulative Communist history in the United States before and during the 1960s. It’s therefore extremely likely Marcuse knew he was refactoring korenizatsiya for America’s rawest wounds and softest spots.

In all places where it’s used, korenizatsiya is the same. An aggrieved minority population is told it can self-determine and must do so specifically in resistance against the great-power chauvinism it finds itself embedded in. Grifters and sympathizers within those populations, but no one else, are elevated within the community and in power centers within the majority population. The point is always “diversity in form but unity in content,” which is to say that “diversity” is as superficial to the program as it is to people and is just a cynical pretext to consolidate power in “unity of content” in anti-Western and ultimately Communist visions of control and conquest. Anyone who disagrees is tarred as a bigot. No one in the general population, majority and minority combined, has the slightest idea what to do about it.

In all places where it’s used, korenizatsiya also has the same results. Ethnic strife. A two-tiered system that favors radicals in the name of minority status. Degradation of the tokenized minority communities through socialism, grift, and bad leadership. Eventual backlash by the majority population and escalating ethnic conflict. Trust in systems breaking down and systems themselves breaking down to earn that newfound distrust. Civilizational breakdown and eventual catastrophe—all eyes on South Africa, the leading modern korenizatsiya experiment, for a look a few more years down that road.

What we’ve taken in over the last few decades and established in our countries institutional structures and national psyches is not an enlightened movement of empathy and tolerance that advances civil rights and equal opportunity. It’s a Soviet program of destruction and power consolidation called korenizatsiya that is a parasite on the noble ethics of civil rights and equal opportunity. That is, it’s a diabolical counterfeit that offers us only our own destruction while handing our society over to grifters and their Communist handlers.

The choices we face here in the West are therefore stark. We can continue on this morally gilded road to our own destruction; we can fall prey to the identity-driven backlash korenizatsiya is designed to produce in the “great power” majorities and throw away our peace and freedoms; or we can reject korenizatsiya in both the positive application and negative backlash and assert that free nations honor, respect, and secure individual liberties and recognize “social justice” to be nothing more than a pretext for tyranny.

That choice is ours. There’s only one right answer if we wish to remain free and prosperous.

As many of you know and fewer appreciate, I have been aiming to expose a phenomenon called the “Woke Right” for some time now. This whole matter is an issue of considerable and rather fierce debate.

Is “Woke” the right word for them? Are they really “Right”? Should we call them something else? Is this really even happening? Does it even matter? Is this even important?

Each of these is a worthy enough question and matter for its own debate, but regarding the question of whether “Woke” is the right term for them, I haven’t been fully convinced despite my heavy use of the term. As you’ll see momentarily, I’m now far more convinced.

So far, I have attempted in various X (née Twitter) arenas to explain why I think the term “Woke Right” fits and to identify some examples, and I’ve done a couple of podcasts explaining the phenomenon and making the case more fully. I’ve also done a number of interviews. Still, it remains an open question, are they really Woke, so I decided to do a little experiment. A throwback to an earlier James, if you will. And, as it happens…

We are so back.

To put the conclusion out front before I explain myself, I figured a good way to test the “Woke Right” for Wokeness would be to submit a little hoax essay to what I presume is their flagship publication, American Reformer. To produce this “Woke Right” hoax, I took a couple thousand words straight out of The Manifesto of the Communist Party, by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (better known as the Communist Manifesto), and lightly modified it into a “Woke Right” critique of liberalism, which the so-called “Woke Right” hate. They published it: The Liberal Consensus and the New Christian Right (It’s archived here in case they take it down).

I figured there’s nothing more definitively Woke than the Communist Manifesto, so I think we can drop with the inverted commas here and get on with calling them the Woke Right after this. They published Karl Marx’s definitive Communist work, dressed up to resemble their own pompous, self-pitying drivel, when it was submitted from a completely unknown author with no internet footprint whatsoever bearing the name “Marcus Carlson” (get it? Haha).

That question answered raises the deeper second question above—which I will not address here—about if they are really on the “Right,” as they consistently claim they are. For them on this, I’ll only say, I have been using the term “Right Hand of the Left.”

So what did I do, and why did I do it? Before explaining myself, I’ll explain the mechanics of this little prank.

I started by taking the preamble and then just short of six continuous pages of text from the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto. This chapter is titled “Bourgeoisie and Proletarians” and is the part of the manifesto where Marx and Engels make the case that the bourgeoisie (middle class, owners, management, and wealthy) as a class is abusive of the proletariat (workers) as a class in just about every way you could imagine. I then rather crudely swapped out references to the bourgeoisie with something to do with either liberalism, liberals, classical liberalism, or their real and mighty bugbear that they call “the post-war liberal consensus,” which they believe oppresses them. Concurrently, I swapped out references to the proletariat with references to an object they call the “New Christian Right” as a way of referring to themselves. I then massaged some of the specifics for fit, flourish, and flow, cut a bunch and consolidated to fit the word count requirement, attached the document to an email from a made-to-order burner account, and hit “send.” A few days later, they published it on American Reformer with minimal edits.

So far as these terms of art go, meaning “post-war liberal consensus” and “New Christian Right,” I didn’t invent them. I took them from a couple articles published on American Reformer aiming to describe their own movement, what it’s about, and what it believes oppresses them. While these are technically terms to explain in another time and place, what I noticed (when re-reading The Communist Manifesto to prepare a pair of podcasts about it) is that Marx’s complaints about the bourgeoisie and vision of the proletariat match what I had read on American Reformer itself about the Woke Right with regard to the “liberal consensus” and liberalism along with their vision for a New Christian Right. It required shockingly minimal editing to make Karl Marx’s arguments transform into Woke Right arguments about American liberalism. (In fact, I have the original first step document in its raw form, if anyone wants to see it, revealing just how fast the connection is.)

So, that’s what I did. Why did I do it? And why target American Reformer?

I don’t have any particular animus against American Reformer to speak of, but so far as I know, it’s the flagship publication for what I’ve been calling the Woke Right, or at least the Protestant “Christian Nationalist” (or, “Ecumenical Integralist”) wing of the Woke Right. It makes a good target, though, because American Reformer represents not the cringe-inducing (antisemitic) fringe of the Woke Right but its more respectable, mainstream wing. Beyond that, I know rather little about it because, as I’ve said many times, I mostly find the Woke Right to be an enormously irritating distraction that I don’t actually give much time to and try to avoid thinking about entirely. Wandering into Woke Right thinking is far too easy a mistake for us to keep making, I keep telling myself, but we, as a loose coalition, keep making it. Maybe that’s because it has a ton of money behind it and because they use divisive Woke dialectical tactics to divide movements and collect supporters….

What I learned doing the Grievance Studies Affair, however, is that if you can’t tell people about an ideological problem out there in the world, you can show them instead by participating directly, if disingenuously. That is, you can hoax them and get them to publish a blatant caricature of their own beliefs in an embarrassing yet informative way. Rather famously, I, et al., got a feminist social work academic journal to accept a rewrite of a chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf as a pathway forward for intersectional feminism as a movement.

Moreover, I learned that if you’re going to target publications for a “hoax-ish” exposé, you should aim at the most significant one you can. That turns out to be American Reformer, which I also featured in one of my podcasts about the Woke Right. (Incidentally, I learned almost all I really needed to know about the Woke Right, their arguments, their mentality, etc., from that one article I read for the podcast, which isn’t surprising because Woke Right “philosophy” is effectively just another Grievance or Woke architecture, and these are all extremely easily produced once you know the names for various pieces and the specific accusations attached to them.)

Why did I do it? That’s a lot simpler. I suspected that the so-called Woke Right really is Woke; many people disagreed; and I wanted to test that hypothesis instead of arguing about it to very little effect. Up to now, when I have pointed it out, argued it, explained it, and discussed it, I’ve been vigorously assured I’m completely wrong and this “New Christian Right” is not Woke at all. In fact, I learned I’m the bad guy here: “attacking Christians,” “punching Right,” “punching down” (amusingly), “gatekeeping,” and “being subversive, divisive, or [insert any of many slurs].”

Well, I’ve been here before, and back then a simple test sufficed. I ran this test once in the Grievance Studies Affair to expose the Left in academia. It was easily replicated against the so-called Woke Right. The result, though limited in scope, is a positive one. The Woke Right is Woke enough to argue against liberalism in exactly the same pompous and conspiratorial way (literally) Karl Marx argued against his own class enemy. So, if by “Woke” we mean running the Woke operating system and sociopolitical architecture, the Woke Right is clearly Woke.

So, circumstances relevant to the Woke Right also compel me to ask, is this me attacking Christians or “dividing the right”? Well, no. You are free for yourself to decide if the “New Christian Right” represents Christians or Christianity, but this was little more than a simple test to see if they’re a Woke duck. They walk like a Woke duck. They talk like a Woke duck. They’re a Woke duck.

They considered a lightly modified excerpt from the Communist Manifesto to be a “powerful article” for who they are and what they think (that we can expect they will not stand behind now that they know what it is, of course). If that aligns with Christianity is something for others to decide. If spotting this worrying Woke trend as it permeates the movement to stop Woke is “dividing the right,” maybe using terms like “right” here isn’t what we need to be doing. Maybe we should just be stopping Woke, however it presents itself.

Does this mean I’m saying the Woke Right are Communists? No, not at all. Historically, Fascism was a reaction to Communism that adopted the Communist operating system but not Communism or its specific agendas. In fact, they adopted the operating system of Communism specifically to be “anti-Marxist” (according to Mussolini)—just like the Woke Right. I do not think the Woke Right are Communists—aside from some infiltrators who must certainly be taking advantage of the Woke Right movements. I think they have taken up the Woke operating system, nothing more, nothing less. I do hope we won’t now repeat obvious historical mistakes, but I’m not accusing them of being Communists. They did not accept a Communist, qua Communism, text but a modified version that flatters their sensibilities.

In fact, it’s rather the opposite, in a way. The Woke Right, or at least the nerd-macho “New Christian Right” at American Reformer, etc., positions itself as the only viable solution to Communism in the West. In fact, their niche is something like being the only outfit, broadly construed, that is capable of equipping the American Church of resisting Communism—and certainly they have positioned themselves vigorously against my work as being productive to that particular cause. Well, as is evident, they haven’t done their homework at all. Clearly, my hoax essay only passed editorial muster because, it is now abundantly clear, these particular fellows are unlikely even to have read the Communist Manifesto. If winning a war requires knowing your enemy, as Sun Tzu said, they don’t even recognize him when he shows up on their own front door.

As a final question, you might be wondering how tight this hoax is. I’ll let you judge for yourself. Here (pdf), you’ll find a document showing the whole story in four appendices: a comparative back-and-forth text, the final submitted text (American Reformer published a very lightly edited version of this), the relevant sections of the Communist Manifesto, and my initial word and concept–swap so you can see my process before the final editing. A small sample of the back-and-forth text, from beginning and end, are offered here as a taste.

Communist Manifesto:

[p. 27, preamble] A spectre is haunting Europe – the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies.

Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power? Where is the opposition that has not hurled back the branding reproach of communism, against the more advanced opposition parties, as well as against its reactionary adversaries?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Communism is already acknowledged by all European powers to be itself a power.

II. It is high time that Communists should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Communism with a manifesto of the party itself.

American Reformer:

A rising spirit is haunting America: the spirit of a true Christian Right. Moreover, all the existing powers of the American Regime since the end of the Second World War have aligned themselves against it and its re-emergence from the shadows of American civic life, politics, and religion—the Marxist Left and its neo-Marxist “Woke” descendant, the liberal establishment, the neoconservatives, and their police and intelligence apparatuses.

There are two consequences of this unholy alliance. First, the Christian Right itself is recognized by all these forces to be a power and thus a threat. Second, it is time for this arranged order to end and for a New Christian Right to emerge and stake its rightful claim on twenty-first century American politics.

The Communist Manifesto:

[pp. 36–37, ch. 1] This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself.

American Reformer:

This organization of the New Christian Right into a movement will continually be upset again by the competition between its various factions, but it is rising. We take no enemies to the Right and always redouble our efforts to our Left. In that way, we ever rise up again, stronger, firmer, mightier for all these contests. For this reason, in the end, we will win back our culture and take back our communities, and the liberals can go ahead and thank themselves.

I’ll close here and open the space for discussion. This is my explanation for this little experiment. My conclusion is that I validated my hypothesis in a significant way that will advance the debate. The Woke Right is Woke. They saw themselves in what can only be called a “Communist Manifesto for Christian Nationalists.”

Postmodern Neo-Marxists

For the last few decades, North American education schools have been ground zero for two dangerous intellectual movements: critical theory and postmodernism. While they may seem like they don’t mix well on the surface, both of these ideologies have taken over teacher training programs, creating a twisted form of education that’s designed to indoctrinate rather than teach students anything useful. 

Critical theory, which I generally refer to as “Critical Marxism” (following Marxist educator Isaac Gottesman), claims to expose hidden systems of oppression and inequality in society. Postmodernism, which I generally refer to as “Postmodern Marxism,” questions reality itself, insisting that there are no universal truths, no fixed meanings, and no stable identities. In their hands, education has become a battleground where the primary goal isn’t teaching students how to think but how to become a Marxist and tear apart society.

This story is a big one and I’m obligated to leave out more than I can include because a full deep dive would require a book-length explanation. Luckily, you can find a large part of that story in James Lindsay’s The Marxification of Education and Lancing (me) and Lindsay’s The Queering of the American Child. Rather than get bogged down in too many intricate details, this essay will focus on the merging of critical theory and postmodernism. 

You’ll notice I referenced Critical Theory as Critical Marxism, and Postmodernism as Postmodern Marxism. While I do this because I think it is technically correct, I also do it because it gives the game away at the starting line. Critical Theory and Postmodernism mix well together and synthesize because they both share the same root system: Marxism. This merger, with deep roots feeding both strains of the same wicked program, has warped the field of education, pushing radical ideas into classrooms and turning schools into breeding grounds for activism rather than places of learning.

Critical Theory (Critical Marxism)

Critical theory started in the early 20th century with the Frankfurt School, a group of German intellectuals who claimed to have figured out how oppression really works in society. They believed that capitalism and Enlightenment reason were tools used to control people and blind them to the “true” perception of reality. Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse spent their careers arguing that mass culture, from television to movies to schools, wasn’t making people freer or more informed but was brainwashing them into accepting their place in a rigged system.

It didn’t take long for these ideas to find their way into education. By the 1960s, educators influenced by the Frankfurt School and the Marxism of the New Left were arguing that schools didn’t just pass on knowledge; they reinforced social hierarchies and reproduced the status-quo—which they referred to as the “hidden curriculum.” This gave rise to a “problem of (social) reproduction” in which the institutions of society, like schools, churches, parents, media, law, etc., reproduce the existing society rather than producing fertile ground for a cultural and/or economic revolution.

The “problem of reproduction” was difficult to solve, and Marxists spent a long time banging their heads against their desks lamenting the fact that everyone was too stupid to see how miserable they really were; too stupid to see “the truth” of Critical Marxism. Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed and The Politics of Education were major turning points in solving it. 

Freire, a Brazilian Marxist and Liberation Theologian, believed that traditional education was just another way to keep the poor and oppressed in their place and created a Marxist theory of education and of knowing. Instead of teaching students how to succeed in society, he wanted education to become a tool of revolution. His ideas led to the rise of critical pedagogy—a form of teaching that encourages students to challenge authority, question all forms of power, and, essentially, become revolutionaries. Paulo Freire’s methods offered the critical theorists a way to solve their problem of reproduction by allowing them to hide radicalizing material inside everyday academic curriculum.

This shift in thinking about education, from being a neutral place of learning to a place where students should be mobilized against "oppressive" systems, was just the beginning. Freire’s ideas caught on in education schools across North America, and suddenly teaching wasn’t about passing on knowledge; it was about creating social activists. More than that, teachers and students were now charged with “joining History and theology” into a “prophetic vision of social justice” that would “create the Kingdom of God here on earth.” (Quotes from Henry Giroux’s foreword to The Politics of Education.)

Postmodernism [Postmodern Marxism]

While critical theory was busy making everything about power and oppression, postmodernism came along to undermine the very idea that there was any truth to fight for. Postmodernism, which became influential in the latter half of the 20th century, rejects the idea that there is such a thing as objective truth or meaning. Jean-François Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, and Michel Foucault claimed that all of our beliefs about truth, history, and identity were simply “grand narratives”—stories manufactured by powerful and privileged people in society designed to maintain the status-quo; the sheet pulled over everyone’s eyes to blind them to the fact that their reality is built upon a mountain of shifting sands. What is a mountain, anyway?! Of course, they were merely reproducing Marx’s critiques of what he called “ideology” in a slightly new way.

Lyotard, for instance, declared the “end of grand narratives,” meaning that we could no longer believe in the big stories that shaped Modern thought. Derrida went further by saying that language itself is unstable, and that words and symbols never have fixed meanings. This kind of thinking might seem abstract, silly, and easily relegated to some dark corner of the University, but when it makes its way into children’s education it does real damage. If you tell students that there’s no truth and that everything is up for interpretation, you leave them with nothing solid to hold onto; you leave them with only shifting sands underneath their feet; you leave them relying on “experts” who get to perceive their world for them.

Postmodernism created a world where everything is questioned, but nothing is ever answered. This intellectual paralysis found its way into the classroom, making education less about learning and more about endlessly debating the meaning of everything, even the most basic facts of life. Postmodernism quite literally is the death of common-sense. It leads to the types of insane responses and outrage you get when you post something benign like “water is wet” or “the sky is blue” on X (Twitter).

Critical Postmodernist Pedagogy

At first glance, critical theory and postmodernism seem like they shouldn’t mix. “Very Smart People” get rather upset when you suggest that the two have merged. Critical theory is all about exposing power structures and “creating the Kingdom of God here on earth,” which is really just “social justice,” while postmodernism says there’s no such thing as stable meaning or truth. So, how can you mix a “grand narrative” [Critical Marxism] with a grand narrative destroyer, Postmodernism? The answer is rather straightforward: education schools. Enter “critical postmodernist pedagogy.” Why there? Because they had a problem (of reproduction) to “fix,” and they would pick up and use any tool they could to get it done. Because the two schools of thought ultimately come from the same source, Marxism, the task wasn’t as hard as the “Very Smart People” assume.

To help us understand this delightful twist, we turn to world-renowned socialist educator Peter McLaren, a guy who wrote a whole lot about “comrade Jesus” in his book Pedagogy of Insurrection: From Resurrection to Revolution. McLaren realized that postmodernism’s skepticism about truth and meaning threatened the ability of critical pedagogy—which stems from the Critical Theory tradition applied to education—to pursue “social justice.” After all, if there are no truths, how can we fight for justice? If everything is fake and made up in the service of power, how do we grab hold of anything? 

On the surface, it would appear that playing with postmodernism was a surefire way to tether one’s self (what is “self” anyway?!) to a rocket to nowhere, rather than tangible Marxist activism. Instead of rejecting postmodernism as a result, however, McLaren and his colleagues twisted it into something they could use. They added new receptor sites to Critical Theory so postmodernism could plug in. They argued that while postmodernism’s critique of universal truths was valuable, it didn’t mean abandoning the fight for social change. Instead, educators should embrace the uncertainty of the postmodern world while still pushing students to challenge power and work for social justice. Sure, there is no truth—except for oppression. Surely that exists, and if oppression exists then it can be used as a North Star for figuring out how to properly apply postmodernism to achieve one’s revolutionary political goals.

“Critical postmodernist pedagogy” therefore combines Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux’s critical pedagogy with postmodern tools: a postmodern neo-Marxism for educational domains. It’s a method of teaching students that their identities and realities are socially constructed and shaped by power dynamics, but at the same time encourages them to fight back against those very dynamics because one thing is for certain; oppression exists and humanity must be liberated from it. “Oppression” is the one grand narrative that can’t be touched. It alone survives the postmodern impact; an escape hatch to hang on to Critical Theory as the dialectical engine of History while at the same time claiming that we can’t really know the true nature of our reality, aside from the fact that the oppressed have a reality they must reveal to us so we can join them in revealing the Kingdom of God here on earth.

Kincheloe’s Critical Constructivism

What McLaren and others began in the 1980s—merging critical theory with postmodernism—eventually evolved into what Joe Kincheloe later solidified with his theory of critical constructivism. In his 2005 book, Critical Constructivism: A Primer, Kincheloe took the groundwork laid by Freire, Giroux, and McLaren and codified it even further. He argued that education wasn’t just about teaching students to critique the world around them; it was about helping them actively construct a new reality based on their own perceptions of social justice; based on their own “concrete conditions” and “lived experience” of reality.

Kincheloe’s critical constructivism is built on the idea that there is no neutral way of seeing the world. He states, “No truly objective way of seeing exists…what appears as objective reality is merely what our mind constructs.” (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 8). According to this view, every fact, every piece of knowledge is filtered through our consciousness, which is shaped by the social forces and power dynamics around us. For Kincheloe, this means that education isn’t about teaching students objective truths because, in his view, no such truths exist. Instead, teachers must awaken their students to the social constructions that influence their understanding of the world. Once this critical consciousness is awakened, students can begin the process of critically constructing a new, more just reality. Students can become “world builders” equipped with “dangerous knowledge” and an “emancipatory source of authority.”

Kincheloe wasn’t satisfied with just teaching students to see the world as unjust—he wanted them to be empowered to take it apart and reconstruct it. In Critical Constructivism, he writes that teachers must “become aware of the ways their own identities and views of the world have been shaped by power relations.” Only once this critical self-awareness is developed, he argues, can educators help their students awaken to the social forces shaping their lives. This process of awakening, or developing critical consciousness, turns teachers into critical constructivists—educators who actively work to transform their students into Marxist revolutionaries. 

Of course, this is the same process of self-transformation Paulo Freire said is required of all teachers (and priests and pastors) and compared to living through a personal Easter of death and rebirth on the side of the oppressed (The Politics of Education, chapter 10). It is also the “qualitative change” in every individual demanded by the most influential of the Critical Marxists, Herbert Marcuse, throughout his writings—this being for Marcuse what makes socialism possible. It is also the “complete return of man to his social (i.e., human) nature” according to Marx in his 1844 Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (pdf). In the Marxist religion, there’s nothing new under the sun!

Kincheloe’s critical constructivism builds directly on McLaren’s earlier work by adding a layer of (postmodernist) constructivist theory, which argues that individuals actively construct knowledge through their interactions with the world. By merging this with critical theory, Kincheloe pushes the idea that not only must students challenge power structures, but they must also understand how their own perceptions and beliefs are constructed by those very structures. This “worldview,” according to Kincheloe, is “a theory of how humans learn, a unified system that includes epistemology, cognition, and the nature of human existence.” (Kincheloe, 2005, p. 7). As noted, Kincheloe’s contributions aren’t really contributions at all. He understood Paulo Freire’s program deeply and the Marxism behind it. There is nothing new added here that Paulo Freire himself did not argue himself. Kincheloe simply provided a more accurate translation in plainspoken English.

Conclusion

North American education schools have become the perfect incubators for these radical political programs. Critical theory and postmodernism mix well together because they share the same roots—Marxism. Marxism, in its own rights, has deep roots too, roots that trace all the way back to philosophers like Hegel, Kant, and Rousseau. All the way back to the first people who questioned the nature of our reality and concluded that everything exists in the mind. It’s no coincidence that the people who have merged Neo-Marxist critical theory with postmodernism think that they can take handle merging their grand narrative with the grand narrative destroyer. They get to do it because they have the right ideas about the true nature of reality, and they can’t wait to place our faces under their boots so we can admire the view.