Cold Logic is Not a Revolution
Why Liberation Requires Both Emotional Understanding and Rational Clarity
For a long time, I thought that if people were more logical, thought more critically, and had the right facts, the world would be a better place.
I had to come to the conclusion that it might never be the case. Psychology spells out a bunch of ‘errors’, ‘heuristics’, and ‘shortcuts’ related to human reasoning. Social psychology shows us that these ‘shortcuts’ come from the fact that humans are social animals that depend on information from each other. Cognitive psychology points to cognitive ‘errors’ inherent to decision making and information processing. Therapeutic psychology points to distortions in thinking, environmental influences, and biological predispositions.
These human shortcomings in being pure reasoning machines are seen with disdain.
If only people thought more logically, we would suffer less.
If only we had the right people in charge, our country would be better.
If only these people had our values, maybe these things wouldn’t happen to them.
However, this reasoning only upholds the ideals of those who proclaim to be reasonable, logical, and enlightened. It upholds the political force of liberalism and, by extension, the economic system of capitalism. The ideals of a rational system based on individualism, private property, and free markets.
This is the logic of the status quo; it doesn’t matter if this logic is presented differently, as its underlying assumptions are the same.
These assumptions include:
Private property is natural and unquestionable
Capitalism is the default, inevitable economic system
Individuals, not systems, are the primary agents of change or blame
Freedom = choice in markets, not freedom from oppression
The state exists to protect “order,” not redistribute power
A person like Ben Shapiro might say “facts over feelings” to justify abhorrent positions that harm many people. Folks like Steven Pinker might point to a graph that shows global poverty decreasing to abstract the struggle people feel under capitalism. Pseudo-intellectuals like Jordan Peterson might point to fields like biology to justify the marginalization of trans people.
These people might disagree on details, but they regularly weaponize their rendition of ‘logic’ to justify the harm perpetuated by the current systems.
The logic of the status quo, the neoliberal-capitalist system, is regularly used to sanitize the outward harm of said status quo. Countries will say that their GDPs are improving while much of their population struggles with poverty (e.g., Argentina). However, the working masses see past the abstract theory and weaponized logic when they feel the pain of starvation, houselessness, lack of healthcare, lack of education, etc.
They feel the emotional weight of seeing others buy their 5th yacht while they cannot provide for their families.
The status quo defenders will tell us…
That’s just how the world works.
This works to discourage dissent and uphold the status quo. It kills the thought of possibility and change.
Let’s be realistic.
By framing justice, dignity, and change as unrealistic, this phrase assumes that injustice within the current system is the only realistic outcome.
That’s too emotional to be objective.
This assumes that experience within the current system does not count as information that can be counted. Who sets the terms of what ‘objective’ is? What is the objective in this instance?
The argument's framing and underlying assumptions suggest that the current system is justified and that the harm it causes should be discounted. This doesn’t even cover broader topics of imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy, which impact many people outside of the United States.
Nevertheless, we must reject the status quo's logic and push forward a liberatory logic that envisions a future socialist society that does not harm or exploit others.
What is Liberatory Logic?
Liberatory logic is reasoning in the service of justice. It demands that our ways of thinking—scientific, philosophical, or political—be accountable to human dignity and collective liberation. It refuses to separate “truth” from power and rejects the idea that knowledge can be truly neutral in a world shaped by colonialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and white supremacy.
This is a logic that refuses to…
to debate whether exploitation “works”.
to treat dehumanization as a policy preference.
to separate truth from its material consequences.
Instead, it asks:
Who benefits from this logic?
Who is left behind by it?
Does this preserve life or justify harm?
We know that capitalism operates on a logic of scarcity, profit, and disposability. Even if its defenders admit it’s harmful in some respects, they quickly excused it as some form of “lesser evil”. That’s not reason. That’s resignation dressed up as realism.
We must demand better of our economic and political systems so we can stop the cycle of exploitation and unnecessary struggle. People should not be denied basic necessities like housing while others are deciding on their third mansion.
Using Liberatory Logic to Disrupt American Political Myths
In the American political theater, the public is presented with three main choices: conservatism, liberalism, and libertarianism. They pose as competing worldviews, locked in endless debate. But beneath the surface, they all share the same operating system: status quo logic. This is the reasoning that defends exploitation, cloaks harm in rhetoric, and punishes imagination. Reasoning that defends systems like capitalism, imperialism, and colonialism.
Liberatory logic cuts across all three of these ‘choices’.
It doesn’t argue within the narrow terms of debate, it rewrites the terrain of what we’re allowed to imagine, question, and build. Here’s how:
1. Conservatism: “Tradition,” Order, and Punishment
American conservatism clings to hierarchy and mythologizes suffering as virtue. It paints structural oppression as natural order and justifies punishment as moral necessity. The means by which is does this can vary but it is often based on a religious interpretation of the US typically centered around Christianity.
Status quo logic in conservatism says:
“Inequality is just part of life.”
“People need to learn personal responsibility.”
“Freedom means obeying tradition.”
Liberatory logic disrupts this by asking:
Who does this order serve?
Whose suffering is moralized?
What are you actually trying to preserve—and who paid the cost of that tradition?
It refuses the idea that the past justifies the present. It names patriarchy, white supremacy, and imperial nostalgia as not sacred values, but historical wounds still bleeding. If we do not try to accurately reflect on the past and the harm that was caused… how can we effectively repair the damage? How can we effective avoid repeating the same mistakes? How we effectively stop perpetuating harm to others on a structural level?
Liberatory logic doesn't destroy tradition, it asks whether tradition has been just or unjust.
2. Liberalism: Polished Cruelty, Masked in Progress
Liberalism presents itself as the “reasonable” center—pro-science, pro-diversity, and pro-democracy. But it’s also deeply invested in managing inequality, not ending it. It speaks the language of justice while funding its containment. It supports genocide (as seen in Gaza), US imperialism (as seen in the Iraq war), and capitalist exploitation (as seen with supporting neoliberal policies).
Status quo logic in liberalism says:
“Let’s be pragmatic.”
“Real change takes time.”
“We can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
“We’re making progress, just not all at once.”
Liberatory logic responds:
Progress toward what—and at whose expense?
Why does every compromise ask the oppressed to wait?
If justice is inconvenient, why do you still call it justice?
It has to spotlight how:
Justifies drone strikes with “moral complexity”
Preserves the police while tweeting Black Lives Matter
Expands healthcare access without de-commodifying it
Celebrates symbolic inclusion while avoiding redistribution
Liberatory logic calls out that ‘both sides’ reasoning isn’t balance especially when each ‘side’ is not on equal footing.
It forces liberalism to confront its own complicity, its own comfort, and its love of optics over outcomes. Democratic Party members will say they’re for freedom and protecting the marginalized, but not stand up to the exploitation of others abroad and the stripping of civil liberties at home. We need to see past the rhetoric and see what the outcome of their actions really is.
3. Libertarianism: Freedom Without Responsibility
Libertarianism glorifies the individual while ignoring the systems that make freedom impossible for most people. It mistrusts government but trusts markets uncritically. It turns structural violence into personal choice.
Status quo logic in libertarianism says:
“The free market will correct itself.”
“If you don’t like it, just opt out.”
“Taxation is theft.”
“You’re free to succeed or fail—it’s up to you.”
Liberatory logic confronts this illusion of freedom by asking:
What kind of freedom is it if your survival depends on your boss’s mood?
What kind of choice is it if people are choosing between insulin and rent?
How is the state oppressive for taxing billionaires but not for funding police violence or letting people die without healthcare?
It exposes libertarianism as freedom for the powerful, not for the collective. It supports the cutting of social safety nets under the guise of freedom, but there can be no freedom through poverty, lack of education, lack of healthcare, etc.
Liberatory logic reminds us that freedom without justice is just abandonment and that survival shouldn’t be a gamble.
Why This Matters
Liberatory logic works as a tool to disarm the appearance of rationality when addressing systemic inequality and oppression with neoliberal-capitalist society. This applies especially to the United States which has followed a more neoliberal path which includes austerity, privatization, and increased exploitation of developing nations. This status quo is prop up by three main ideologies in America: Conservatism, Liberalism, and Libertarianism.
All three ideologies dress up harm in different costumes:
Conservatism calls it morality.
Liberalism calls it progress.
Libertarianism calls it freedom.
But what unites them is their use of status quo logic which is reasoning that obscures injustice, resists systemic change, and disciplines the imagination.
Liberatory logic doesn’t just argue better. It disrupts. It interrupts. It reframes.
It doesn’t ask: “Which side are you on?”
It asks: “What kind of world are we building and who are we building it for?”
Leftist must disrupt the status quo as it harms many, we cannot and must not be bought off the with false assumption of rationality the system wants to promote. The current economic and political system in America has it’s own set of assumptions and contradictions that must be questioned. We must resist the framing of the status quo and work towards something better.
We must center our understanding of rationality in care, empathy for others, and how power shapes the world around us.