How did modern leftism and its associated challenges come to be? For Erik von Kuehnelt-Ledin, the answer lies in the depth of our inquiry. The average person might point to World War II as the starting point, but those with deeper knowledge recognize that the roots stretch back to World War I.
In fact, it seems this isn’t a battle that can be won through social media or yet another trendy ideology. A historian reflects on Kuehnelt-Ledin’s thoughts, suggesting that the “resurgence of leftism” actually traces back even further—to the French Revolution. This event is described as a significant source of many ideological struggles that affect Western society and beyond.
Paul Kingsnorth offers a thought-provoking perspective in his book, “Against the Machine: About the Destruction of Humanity.” He appears to align with a similar view as von Kuehnelt-Ledin. He discusses how the growing dissatisfaction and disillusionment in society have roots deep in history, pointing to the upheavals of the 20th century that shattered long-held beliefs and traditions.
Kingsnorth sees these historic events as symptoms of a recurring ailment, one that began with the storming of the Bastille. That moment marked the birth of radical ideology, dismantling established hierarchies, and heralding a wave of liberal experiments across Europe. Yet, Kingsnorth doesn’t stop at identifying the origins; he delves into what currently fuels the crisis we face.
He argues that a “monster of the desert”—a figure he associates with both “machine” and “progress”—has consumed the world, erasing borders, traditions, and ways of seeing. This force distorts our perception of reality, so that the truly meaningful—nature’s beauty, spiritual truths—becomes hidden if it doesn’t fit within quantifiable metrics.
In his view, contemporary values—progress, materialism, and a hyper-individualism—have infiltrated our lives so extensively that we accept them as natural. He describes these ideas with what he calls the “four S’s”:
-
Science: Emphasizing a purely material view of existence.
-
Self: Redefining identity and purpose through individualism.
-
Sex: Grounding meaning in desire.
-
Screens: Acting as a barrier to genuine reality.
These are in stark contrast to previous values, summarized as the “four P’s”: past, place, people, and prayer. Kingsnorth argues that while the four S’s displace these older concepts, the latter are essential for a grounded moral structure in society.
The disdain towards the four P’s can be seen as a threat to the relentless drive of the modern machine. They’re often dismissed as naive or worse, reactionary. As former President Obama once noted, those left behind by progress sometimes cling bitterly to old beliefs.
Kingsnorth acknowledges that, in theory, conservatism might counter the machine’s values by valuing tradition and resisting centralized power. Yet, he points out that often conservatism operates within the very framework it claims to oppose.
A sentiment from GK Chesterton encapsulated this: traditionalists may inadvertently defend revolutionary changes as part of a new tradition. Thus, the result is often a preservation of the revolution’s aftermath rather than reclaiming what was lost.
In light of this, Kingsnorth sought a term for those who genuinely resist the machine—he landed on “reactionary radicalism.” It defies the conventional left-right divide and strives to restore a moral economy centered on genuine human connections rather than the fragmented nature of the liberal approach.
However, how can this vision be fully realized? This battle, Kingsnorth insists, won’t be fought through social media or contemporary platforms. Instead, he suggests practical resistance such as homeschooling—“the most crucial action,” in his view.
More broadly, he advocates for turning away from purely rational pursuits, promoting the building of resilient systems that resist assimilation, and the rejection of technologies that can lead to dependence. It’s about reviving the four P’s once more.
For those captivated by the allure of machines, such thinkers may appear primitive or threatening. But Kingsnorth poses an important question: what type of “savage” do you become? The “raw” savage is free from machine influence, while the “cooked” savage lives within the system but quietly resists.
In either case, the aim is to become inedible to the all-consuming machine; a collective of indigestible individuals may just be what is needed to challenge this omnipresent force.
