In “Going Forward from the Edge of the Abyss,” Adolph Reed reiterates the point he usually makes at election time, which is to vote for the Democrats despite their failings, which, this time around, includes genocide in Palestine, as well as preparing for a NATO war with Russia, Iran and China. He writes: “We must engage; the everyday world and its concrete challenges don’t go away just because we want to transcend them. And we have to relate to that domain through the Dems.”1 The difference between social democratic reformism and revolutionary Marxism does not go away either, just because we would like to transcend one of the two. What interests me in his article, in any case, is its conclusion. Reed writes: “I won’t be surprised if the next four years among intellectuals come increasingly to evoke scenes from Visconti’s The Damned, Bertolucci’s 1900, or Szabó’s Mephisto.”2 I personally lived through such scenes before, during and after my PhD thesis examination at the University of Rochester in 2000. Such pseudo-events are now a routine occurrence for me at conferences and other public gatherings. You could say I have a certain amount of expertise on the subject, as would the people who stage these pseudo-events, though it’s not likely that they think of what they’re doing as fascism. If it isn’t fascism, you can distinguish it from the real McCoy by thinking of it as micro-fascism with simulationist presuppositions. During one conference conversation, I repeated something I first wrote in my book Don’t Network, which is that the choice offered the professional-managerial class today would seem to be a distinction between (Foucauldian) discipline for the losers, or resisters, and (Deleuzian) control for the winners, or compliant flexible personalities. The panelists seemed to miss the point that the winners are not actually winners but are themselves the objects of control. The distinction can also be defined as first order (resistant) and second order (compliant) cybernetics. Think of the difference between Rick Deckard in the original 1982 version of Blade Runner, and KD6-3.7 in Blade Runner 2049, the 2017 sequel. My point was that both options are inadequate to critical social theory.
There are concrete, material reasons for the turn to fascism, most of them having to do with how capitalism seeks to ignore economic problems it should instead confront directly. It avoids these problems through militarism and through a change of the guard among the political elite, neither of which challenges the hegemony of capitalist rule. There are also ideological reasons for the turn to fascism, and films like Mephisto, or more recently, Megalopolis, attempt to capture these more elusive aspects of personality as people are lured, cajoled, threatened and whatever else into compromising situations in which they are expected to lower their political, cultural, ethical or civilizational standards and accept the morality of the thugs. Although I appreciated Guillermo del Toro’s Nightmare Alley (2021) and David O. Russell’s Amsterdam (2022), one of the films that captures this best is Werner Herzog’s Invincible (2001). In Nazi Germany, a strongman is enlisted by a conman to perform as a Nordic Aryan “Siegfried” in order to propagandize the notion of Aryan superiority. As an allegory of the culture industry, the film is one of Herzog’s most direct studies of fascism – though much of his work could be conceived in these terms. Not unlike a séance or a game of Ouija board, the con only works when people agree to suspend disbelief. The difficulty today is that people do not want to suspend disbelief and enter the game – or more exactly, the struggle. It becomes more difficult to fight fascism nowadays because people have the habit of suspending belief. Disbelief becomes generalized and people believe in nothing because others disbelieve. The postmodern suspicion of meta-narratives has become a meta-narrative of suspicion, leading to the repressive desublimation of culture and politics. Think of something like free love, in which people make no commitments to anyone, not even themselves, applied to politics and art. It’s all good because nothing matters. Clinically speaking, the condition that is encouraged is pathological narcissism, or the inability to enjoy all of the consumer society injunctions towards hedonism and permissiveness. These no longer work in giving meaning to so-called counter-cultural conversion strategies, which is why the petty-bourgeois disposition, after first having become a dominant disposition among all classes of society, has entered a stage of decadence.
What I want to address here is a phenomenon that I described in my previous blog post and that could use some more elaboration.3 In my book on the Obama portraits I wrote:
“Contemporary culture and politics are … caught in a Chinese finger trap. The greater the need for a radicalization of the political economy, the more that various forms of identity are proffered as the most pertinent problems and pressing issues of the day. This trap manifests the politics of post-representation.”4
Without repeating here my theory of post-representation, or what you could also refer to as post-politics, I anticipate that the far-right Trump regime will not be met with what historically was the most concrete, determinate form of opposition to fascism – namely, socialist and communist internationalism – but the only kind of left we have today, which is a postmodern left with liberal plus identitarian or nationalist characteristics. Expect, however, and this time around, a more revanchist form of identity politics, or micro-fascism, attuned to the mood music being played in Washington D.C. In progressive left circles, the belief in the inevitability of far-right politics as the only probable alternative to global capitalist crisis, on the one hand, and the persistence of the belief that identity politics are an entry point into radical left politics, on the other, will continue to undermine revolutionary theory and proletarian organization.5
Instead of radical class organization, which is what we need, the shiftless droning of the postmodern left is going persist. An anticipation of this can be found in Oprah Winfrey’s speech at the Democratic Party Convention, in which tributes to the “joyful warrior” Kamala Harris were interspersed with the refrain “we’re not going back,” which alludes to the MAGA notion of a golden age of robber barons and (Theodore) Rooseveltian colonial imperialism.6 Of course a progressive neoliberal like Oprah is not suggesting that liberals are not going back to a time of Old Left communist politics, but the Democratic establishment that pushed Bernie Sanders out of the 2020 nomination race did in fact say something to that effect: “this is not going to be the party of Bernie,” as Bill Clinton put it. The same goes for anyone who does anything more than hang a portrait of (Franklin) Roosevelt on a White House wall and sing the macarena at some United States factory somewhere, and this includes Sean Fain, Randi Weingarten, Sean O’Brien, Mark Dimondstein, Michael Coleman, and the like.
Before Oprah uttered those words, and even before Trumpsters created the MAGA slogan, the postmodern left was already reacting to the resurgence of the macro-political left that was making its way from the streets into the academy, from the Battle in Seattle through the 2008 banking crisis to Occupy Wall Street. And it was too much for the postmodern left to think that any class but the middle class could be the leader of progressive change. But this middle class, as Barbara Ehrenreich wrote in Fear of Falling, had already been transformed by deindustrialization, neoconservatism, the yuppie zeitgeist and the New Right.7 A globalized economy of precarity, downsizing and wage suppression beset the middle class, which was now out to save itself first and foremost, never stopping to think that to save itself it has to save the majority. Despite the illustrious rise, especially in the US, of postwar civil rights, second wave feminism and gay liberation, all of them not unrelated to the existence of the Soviet Union and postwar consumer prosperity, and all of them now defanged by postmodern anti-universalism and anti-normativity, the emphasis on diversity in government, business, education and the media is today a desperate expression of middle-class decline. What was once progressive today serves to maintain the status quo.
The North American left does not for the most part appreciate the extent to which class consciousness has been displaced by identitarian thought. And to the detriment of the left, the far right does understand this, even if only on account of its structural advantage as a detachment of the capitalist owners of the means of production. The ruling class benefits from identitarian culture wars as much as it does from labour. The crucial difference is that while class struggle illuminates the culture war, the culture war obscures the class struggle. Consequently, the two wings of the capitalist elite, neoliberal and neoconservative, can countenance one form or another of the culture war. In fact, they routinely, programmatically, stoke its two sides: racist and anti-racist, patriarchal and feminist, xenophobic and pluralist. They do not, in contrast, instigate labour struggle. They prevent it from developing, co-opt or destroy its leadership, sabotage its means of struggle and use government power to send strikers back to work. Although Donald Trump rails against identity groups as much as he does socialists, he claims that the Biden family are Marxist, not Mexican. He mocks the fact that it was “Pocahontas” (Elizabeth Warren) who put the critical last nail in the coffin of the Sanders 2020 campaign. Fascists believe that people prefer to fight against other identity groups than they do the bourgeois class. Since many poor working people aspire to a comfortable, middle-class existence, they aspire to what has been, since the 1970s, structurally improbable for most in their cohort. They compete with their class brothers and sisters in the hope of a better life.
A study of the 2022 conference of the Universities Art Association of Canada found that while fewer than 4 percent of the two hundred or so presentations were concerned with questions of labour and class, more than 75 percent were concerned with one variant or another of identity politics.8 Most of these professionals have PhDs or graduate degrees. Thet are ostensibly the educated elite. An ad hoc study found that among American scholars in humanities and social science departments such as philosophy, political science, sociology, anthropology, literature and art history, there are very few who present themselves on department webpages as Marxist or socialist scholars, fewer than three percent. Among those who identify as leftist, a majority are invested in new social movement methodologies. Otherwise, the more prominent and trendy methodologies today are in health and care studies, race and gender studies, animal studies, new materialisms, international relations, and similar topics that combine easily with neoliberalism. Glancing at left and progressive booksellers, it is impossible to not notice the overwhelming number of titles since around 2012 dedicated to race studies and anti-racism.
This professional class of authors, academics and journalists is socialist to the extent that its members may be part of a teachers’ union, in which most are not remotely implicated as internationalists. Like most other unionized workers, their main concern is good pay, good work conditions and control over their professional domains. These unions are today heavily invested in DEI advocacy, which has little bearing on the forces that weaken them. In the years ahead, the Trump regime will instigate a more entrenched version of the culture war by imposing policies such as budget reconciliation restitution for whites who have been harmed by diversity mandates. His plans for education are to dismantle the Department of Education and privatize curriculum by placing it in the hands of parents. What is happening today is not a repetition of the shift of the working class from the Democrats to the Reagan Republicans. As Vivek Chibber has helpfully and accurately pointed out, the trickle-down anti-racism and anti-sexism of the New Democrat coalition of minorities and middle-class (sub-)urbanites is no longer enough to secure votes for the Democratic Party.9 The 2024 exit polls indicate that it is working-class minority groups, as opposed to the white working class, that is defecting in significant numbers. In 2016 this included a notable increase among of LGBTQ voters. The Democrats’ lead with non-college educated voters shrank (down 33 percent from Biden), as did the Latino vote (from 71 percent in 2008 to 53 percent in 2024). As Chibber puts it, the Democrats are not simply losing white workers, but all workers, regardless of race. He adds that this weakens the left wing of the party and strengthens the so-called CIA or Liz Cheney Democrats. And the reason for the shift is economic worries, which of course is counter-intuitive given Republican Party policy.
The lesson of the 2024 election, according to Chibber, is “the lesson of a century of struggle.” If he argues that “we just need a left that is capable of understanding it,” the reason is no doubt because the postmodern and liberal left that we have today is programmatically incapable of understanding it.10 This post-political, “critical” left, to the extent that it is leftist at all, in unable to suspend disbelief. Without a genuine leftist opposition to contend with, the liberal middle class will continue to scapegoat the working class for the problems created by capitalism and the ruling elites, fascist or not. Since so many of the people whose work life and identity no longer fit the Archie Bunker model, new stereotypes will be found by contemporary neo-Victorians, like for instance, Bernie bros, Brexiters, sports hooligans, online trolls, chain-store union organizers, dangerous immigrants (made more vulnerable by fear of deportation), Muslim or campus “antisemites,” etc.10 The important point is that this is a problem of middle-class projection since the conflict, now on blast due to the bipartisan blackmail, is not external but internal: the propensity of the American middle class to conspire against socialism and to keep radicalism “in the family,” so to speak, with the apolitical creative class sector vying against the politicized activist and NGO sector. If the latter identify as socialist, it’s most often a new (or never, as Ellen Meiksins Wood referred to it), postmodern or post-left variety that is too caught up in intellectual gymnastics to make the left relevant to the working majority. The most sophisticated of these tell us that Marxism was never so simple as to be comparable to Soviet communism, or that Marxist politics can be reduced to matters of political economy.11
The character of the struggle in the next four years is likely to be a con game that the majority are expected to go along with as they are called upon to do the obvious and suspend belief in socialism. One of the reasons for this, I argue, though not the only or even the most determinant, is that the struggle will continue to be encoded in the form of culture wars, whether nationalist or identitarian.
Notes
1. Adolph Reed, Jr., “Going Forward from the Edge of the Abyss,” nonsite (November 11, 2024), https://nonsite.org/going-forward-from-the-edge-of-the-abyss/.
2. Reed, “Going Forward from the Edge of the Abyss.”
3. Marc James Léger, “Lessons from the Biden Debacle,” Blog of Public Secrets (November 11, 2024), https://legermj.typepad.com/blog/2024/11/lessons-of-the-biden-debacle.html.
4. Marc James Léger, Too Black to Fail: The Obama Portraits and the Politics of Post-Representation (Ottawa: Red Quill Books, 2022) 316.
5. See for example, Communist Revolution, “Perspectives for the Canadian Class Struggle,” YouTube (November 12, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mqHUg2pEnM&t=1146s; BreakThrough News “Trump’s ‘Populism’ Fraud: Cabinet Stacked for Ultra-Right, Billionaire Agenda,” YouTube (November 13, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrQ4DrdKf_c.
6. PBS NewsHour, “WATCH: Oprah Winfrey’s full speech urging voters to choose joy by choosing Harris at the DNC,” YouTube (August 21, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibOYKC3blHY.
7. Barbara Ehrenreich, Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class (New York: Pantheon Books, 1989).
8. Marc James Léger, “United Colours of the UAAC: More on the Politics of Diversity in Canada,” Third Text Online (May 31, 2023), http://thirdtext.org/mjleger-politicsofdiversity.
9. Vivek Chibber, “Requiem for the Obama Coalition,” Jacobin (November 7, 2024), https://jacobin.com/2024/11/obama-democrats-2024-election-race.
10. Chibber, “Requiem for the Obama Coalition.”
11. Crisis and Critique, “Michael Heinrich on the election of Trump, cautious biographies, Marx, ecology, capitalism and critique,” YouTube (November 6, 2024), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxhU5FhATIc; Robinson Erhardt, “Richard Wolff & Michael Hudson: Karl Marx and the Fall of the West,” YouTube (November 10, 2024). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Ovguv1BSA.
POSTSCRIPT
A good example of what I discuss in this essay can be found on the Verso books website. On November 18, 2024, three days after I posted this article, the publisher posted one of their countless promotional items, in this instance dedicated to “The Rise of the far-Right, and How We Fight Back,” with the subtitle “Books to arm yourself in facing the global rise of the far right.” [https://www.versobooks.com/en-ca/blogs/news/the-rise-of-the-far-right-and-how-we-fight-back] While this posting has several titles on the rise of the far right, it has very few on socialism and communism, or on why New Left social movements have failed to do anything much to dislodge the grip of global capitalism. There are many Verso titles that could have been part of that discussion. Instead, and again, despite a few appropriately themed books on fascism and the far right, the majority of those recommended have to do with three topics that are in various ways symptomatic of the decline of the organized internationalist left: 1) localism, 2) attachment to bourgeois parties and liberalism, 3) culture wars and identity politics.
While the books that fall under these three rubrics have their relevance, it is not in any way obvious how all of them together represent a serious strategy for fighting the far right at the same time that we fight liberal capitalism. In fact, many of these readily appeal to the postmodern anti-universalist left in today’s neoliberalized academia, NGOs and new social movement circles, which is to say, they express the concerns and politics of the activist wing of the professional middle class. These titles include: Dean Spade, Mutual Aid: Building Solidarity During This Crisis (and the Next) (2020), The Care Collective, The Care Manifesto: The Politics of Interdependence (2020), Adam Greenfield, Lifehouse: Taking Care of Ourselves in a World on Fire (2024), Hannah Proctor, Burnout: The Emotional Experience of Political Defeat(2024), Sian Norris, Bodies Under Siege: How the Far-Right Attack in Reproductive Rights Went Global (2023), and other books on abortion rights, Breanne Fahs, Burn It Down! Feminist Manifestos for the Revolution (2024), a book that includes the SCUM manifesto by the fascistic Valerie Solanas, Leah Cowan, Why Would Feminists Trust the Police? A Tangled History of Resistance and Complicity (2024), Vron Ware, Beyond the Pale: White Women, Racism, and History(2015), an anti-whiteness tract, Raina Lipsitz, The Rise of a New Left: How Young Radicals Are Shaping the Future of American Politics (2022), which promotes the DSA, Teen Vogue and AOC, John Nichols, The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace’s Anti-Fascist, Anti-Racist Politics (2020), Meagan Day and Micah Uetricht, Bigger Than Bernie: How We Can Win Democratic Socialism in Our Time (2021), a DSA movement builder, Isabell Lorey, Democracy in the Political Present: A Queer-Feminist Theory (2022), another tract in care studies and a critique of the multitudes rhetoric that Lorey previously helped to propagate (expect the same people to offer critiques of care studies within the next decade), Miss Major Griffin-Gracy and Toshio Meronek, Miss Major Speaks: Conversations with a Black Trans Revolutionary (2023), a trans-liberation memoir couched in Cold War rhetoric of surviving the world and expanding freedom beyond mainstream institutions (ironic given the promotion of this kind of work by neoliberal universities and museums), Jules Gill-Peterson, A Short History of Trans Misogyny (2024), Sharon Faye, The Transgender Issue (2022), McKenzie Wark, Love and Money, Sex and Death (2023), Huw Lemmey and Ben Miller, Bad Gays: A Homosexual History (2023). Six books on the Israel-Palestine conflict are also listed.
Much on this “how to fight fascism” list proves the point I made in this article. I would make an exception for the following two titles: Kristin Ross, The Commune Form: The Transformation of Everyday Life (2024), and Lydia Hughes with Jamie Woodcock, Troublemaking: Why You Should Organise Your Workplace (2023). Of course, if you organize your commune and your workplace to be anti-racist, and so on, that is fine, but if you seek to organize them according to the priorities that some people attribute to micro-political and anti-Marxist identity politics, you can expect that 1) your project will fragment in no time, 2) you will not develop into a mass movement. In other words, you will have what we already have, which is a postmodern left that in some limited quarters is planning for a “dirty break” inside the Democratic Party, a failed strategy for a failed programme. The bigger picture is the post-aligned movement in the “Global South,” whose destiny, and notwithstanding the current obsession with Domenico Losurdo’s critique of Western Marxism, is unfettered capitalist development as the best means to alleviate the problems caused by capitalism.