Syntheholica

Leftism Enmeshed in the Capitalist Structure

“The Western ‘Left’ that cannot bring itself to support movements against imperialism confirms a feeling I have long had - that in a nominal democracy it is the ‘dissident’ side that actually legitimises the imperialist order. It is this ‘oppositional’ presence that ironically embodies the system it supposedly opposes - just as it was the ‘Leftist’ support given to the draconian covid regulations which ‘justified’ these regulations in the eyes of the general public.”

—George McIntyre

“In this extreme polarised context many on the left now deny the economic exploitation of the periphery by the core imperialist countries. Moreover, this has been accompanied more recently by sharp attacks on the anti-imperialist left. Thus, we are now commonly confronted with such contradictory propositions, emanating from the Western left, as: (1) one nation cannot exploit another; (2) there is no such thing as monopoly capitalism as the economic basis of imperialism; (3) imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalised transnational capitalism; (4) all great powers today are capitalist nations engaged in inter-imperialist struggle; (5) imperialist nations can be judged primarily on a democratic-authoritarian spectrum, so that not all imperialisms are created equal; (6) imperialism is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another; (7) humanitarian imperialism designed to protect human rights is justified; (8) the dominant classes in the Global South are no longer anti-imperialist and are either transnationalist or subimperialist in orientation; (9) [and] the ‘anti-imperialist left’ is ‘Manichean’ in its support of the morally ‘good’ Global South against the morally ‘bad’ Global North.”

—John Bellamy Foster, The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left

“Much of Western Marxism, in its aesthetic and cultural departments, is similarly blinded to the matter of imperialism. Frankfurt School critical theory, despite its seminal insights into the relationships between domination, modern society, and the opportunities for redemption through art as critique, is stunningly silent on racist theory, anti-imperialist resistance, and oppositional practice in the empire. And lest that silence be interpreted as an oversight, we have today’s leading Frankfurt theorist, Jürgen Habermas, explaining in an interview (originally published in The New Left Review) that the silence is deliberate abstention: no, he says, we have nothing to say to ‘anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist struggles in the Third World,’ even if, he adds, ‘I am aware of the fact that this is a eurocentrically limited view.’”

—Edward Said, Culture and Imperialism

“The non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, ‘dead incubator babies,’ ‘viagra supplied soldiers,’ and other emotionally charged accusations against the ‘brutal dictators’ do not find any reasoned connections to the actual events and their consequences at all. We are forced to consume incoherent segments of the broken dreams of the ruling class, with ample excuses and justifications, as if we are watching a series of rationalisation dreams of the ruling class mind with our wide awake minds. In this collective process, we are totally detached from history and material reality as we are forced to embrace the fictitious notion of ‘perpetual now.’ This colonisation of our perception, with forced consumption of incoherent propaganda narratives, leads us, sleep walking, into colonial projects of war, colonialism, and neoliberal restructuring.”

—Hiroyuki Hamada, Social Formation

In this essay I would like to explore three facets of how leftists and left politics can (and have) become entangled with the capitalist imperialist structure. First, I will talk about young empassioned leftists (quite possibly like myself) and my encounters with them in real life. I am glad to see sensitivity and idealism among them since “cynicism is another brand of conformity”, but good intentions can be manipulated by those in power. Second of all, I will examine the institutionalisation of left politics in the academy and the way in which positions taken in left leaning media by academics often subtly affirms the Western empire. Finally, I will concern myself with what I see as a trend towards life style politics and a communist/socialist social media aesthetic, trends that are capitalist commodification.

Once at a local event I saw a booth with a large whiteboard. On it was written a question: Would you rather be good or right? Beneath it the whiteboard was divided in half for people to tally which they’d rather be. Most people chose good. (In case my readers were wondering, I would rather be right, but this is irrelevant here.) I’m fairly certain if I were to ask a sample of leftists in the United States this question, especially those around age twenty, their answer would be that they would rather be good. Ultimately, in a political context, wanting to be perceived by others as good or virtuous makes it difficult to go against the grain. If one is truly threatening the status quo one will be reviled and face many false accusations. Just look at the McCarthyist trope to label communists as Satanic monsters, or the way the United States designates resistance leaders as terrorists. I also think the question can be reframed. For if you are good for the sake of being good without an understanding (being right) you can easily become a weapon in the hands of the most powerful. I feel like there are a lot of well meaning young leftists who are deeply disturbed by the brutality and inequality of the capitalist system, the problem is that an emotional response of horror to injustice is not a solid foundation on which to base an entire political orientation. In some ways, I wonder if a more emotionally based political sensibility is the product of a privileged class position, one’s class consciousness hasn’t been sharpened in the forge. This quote below suggests another material cause of the emotional irrationality, one which contributes to young leftists’ impotence.

“In a nutshell, mainstream media propaganda is the tool focused and used on the youth, as their brains are not fully developed. As the emotional part of the brain is ‘triggered’ through negative stimuli [—] in the name of compassion, the prefrontal cortex responsible for critical thinking and reasoning is damaged due to the trauma of these negative stimuli. This in turn over time damages this vital part of the brain, while the emotional side becomes dominant. [—] When this happens, the person is unable to reason, debate or question.”

—Rita Beitz

Reasons aside, I think it is necessary to have an analytical understanding of capitalism and imperialism. It is important to understand the material causes of injustice so as not to get corralled into false solutions. As we know, a logical mind is more difficult to manipulate than an emotional mind. If one’s politics stem only from a position of feeling it is easy to be misled by emotionally manipulative propaganda. Perhaps this is why an emotionally based left has been allowed to flourish relatively unencumbered as opposed to the repression the left once faced. The existence of a large, loosely cohesive left in the heart of the Western empire serves to prove that the West “upholds its democratic values.” (I put quotes around the phrase because the West has never held democratic values for all people.) Kindness and inclusivity are often taken advantage of by bullies, and who is a bigger bully than the United States? Below are a few examples of young leftists failing, in my mind, to apply an anti-capitalist or Marxist analysis fully to situations.

Example 1.1 ~ This past summer I felt a strong desire to attend some sort of political meeting. I asked my friends and comrades from Aesthetic Resistance podcast for their thoughts on the state of left wing groups in the U. S. They warned me against the cult like behaviour, fixation on ideological purity, and generalised malaise of many of the leftwing groups but, strong willed autodidact that I am, I decided it would be best to find out for myself. After looking around on social media, I discovered a locally based group called the _______ Women’s Committee [my italics]. From their posts, they seemed genuinely anti-imperialist and self proclaimed themselves as a Marxist group. A few words about non-binary and “trans-women” aside, the group sounded decent. I saw they were having a meeting discussing the 2024 presidential election and its dearth of real choices. Needing to let off steam, I decided to go. When I arrived I was warmly greeted by one of the main organisers, a biological man dressed in a lacy camisole and going by “they/she” pronouns. After milling around a bit the meeting finally began with introductions and the obligatory pronoun ritual. Slightly annoyed, but attempting to keep an open mind I complied with it and set aside judgement until the end of the meeting. The prepared reading material was well chosen and relevant to the election. The organisers, as well many of the attendees, were well spoken and insightful to the current machinations of capitalism and imperialism as seen in the present moment.

Although the experience was not entirely bad, there were two telling incidents as well as a larger symbology at play. One of the readings that we discussed was written by Mariategui, a Marxist theoretician writing in early twentieth century Peru. In the text he made use of the word “woman”. An attendee, obviously a biological female and attired in a flowery dress yet going by “they/them” pronouns, became very upset at the use of the word “woman”. She proceeded to give a small speech about how we’ve put gendered reality behind us etc. Everyone else seemed a bit taken aback at the level of animosity, especially considering she was at a self proclaimed women’s committee meeting, but the group leader ceded to her and talked her down from the brink of hysteria by contextualising the work in its time period. At a different point in the meeting another attendee (who wore a medical mask the entirety of the meeting even though it was outside at a park with ample room for distancing) reminded everyone after the meeting was over how covid rates were on the rise again and we should all be masking out of inclusion and sensitivity. Ashamed at his insensitivity, the group leader regretfully proclaimed that he should have brought masks to hand out and assured the outwardly presenting young man (with she/they pronouns) they would make sure to have them next time.

These incidents aside, the “gender identities” of the attendees and organisers were telling. In order of most to least, there were

-biological women either a) partially or fully medically “transitioned” or b) using non-binary pronouns and presenting ambiguously

-biological men partially transitioned or female identifying

-biological women presenting as such

-biological men presenting as such

Two out of the three organisers, one being the first one I met, were biological men. I found it disheartening that the _______ Women’s Committee had so few women comfortable with being women. To me, all of the gender identity and transgender ideology flaunted by the group proved ironic. After all, the organisers and most of the attendees thought of themselves as Marxists. Yet Marxists are supposed to be dialectical materialists. By this I mean to say that as a Marxist one would say that one’s biological reality would determine the formation of one’s consciousness, not the other way around. Transgender ideology says “people are born into the wrong body”. A proper Marxist analysis would preclude that notion, and instead address the social causes of the body dismorphia, perhaps inverting the phrase to “people are born into the wrong society”. In my mind, transgender ideology is, at bottom, part of the history of philosophical idealism and Cartesian thought. (I think therefore I am, to which a materialist could invert and say I am therefore I think…) Transgenderism bleeds into transhumanism, which both spring from Western philosophical idealism. Not to mention the inseparability of transgenderism and transhumanism from the capitalist structure, commodification of the body, and big pharma. Ultimately, transgender ideology is anti-materialist, in the philosophical sense of the term. To zoom out, here we have a group of self identified Marxists who seem unable to apply their Marxism to gender ideology or big pharma.

Example 1.2 ~ The second biological male organiser of the _______ Women’s Committee, a vaguely military seeming man with long blonde hair and false breasts, also headed up a “Revolutionary Study Group” which I decided to investigate. I had assumed that the Revolutionary Study Group was locally based like the “women’s” committee was. I attended the first of a series of six meetings. I found the organisers to be very well informed and facilitated an engaging conversation. Before the next meeting I learned that the following meetings would be moved indoors because of the approaching bad weather and would be masked (in 2024 mind you). Having a medical exemption from mask wearing that was never respected during the covid years, (I was excluded from practically all social life) I was afraid of asking to be accommodated. To me, the face mask for those on the left seems to symbolise ones purity and virtue; that one is compliant with the emergent biomedical fascism. I decided to see what information I could dredge up about the organisation. Searching the internet, I learned that the Revolutionary Study Group is not a local based organisation and has many chapters across the U. S. Okay, nothing wrong with that. Then a link to a pdf of suggested reading posted on their website caught my eye. The title was “Is China Imperialist?”. Thinking it rather odd for an ostensibly Marxist-Leninist group to be bemoaning China’s supposed imperialism, I scanned through the document. Reaching the conclusion I learned that according to the article, China is imperialist. Not to say that China is perfect by any means, but to say they are imperialist is quite a stretch, especially during an age of blatant U. S. expansionism. To me, U. S. citizens calling China imperialist is in bad taste. At a time when China is endangering dollar hegemony, Americans criticising their presumed imperialism is not really an anti-imperial perspective. Bear in mind that the U. S. military has close to eight hundred military bases across the globe. China, however, has around ten or less outside its borders, most of them still extremely close by. China is not currently engaging in wars abroad or militarily aggressing other countries. To truly be an imperialist power, a country must deploy its military might abroad. In the current situation, then, China is not the imperialist power. The United States is. Should not we then direct the majority of our criticisms towards our own country and government?

“China absolutely is powerful enough to be a whole lot more abusive and murderous abroad, and it simply isn’t. Westerners love to claim that China has secret agendas to conquer the world someday (hilariously implying that these hypothetical future abuses make China morally comparable to the US empire’s current known abuses), but if you actually dig into the evidence for these claims what you’ll find every time is that all they provide evidence for is China’s openly stated goal of a multi-polar world that isn’t ruled by Washington.”

—Caitlin Johnstone, Only Pathetic Bootlickers Spend Their Energy Criticising China

I wondered if the article on their website would convince young leftists to oppose B. R. I. C. S. and the Belt and Road Initiative. One may not support B. R. I. C. S., but it is crucial to recognise the role it plays in weakening dollar hegemony.

Example 2 ~ This fall I got cast in a musical at a local theatre. While in it, I connected with a fellow cast member on social media. The cast member’s profile said he was a vegan animal rights activist, which made me dubious, and an anti-capitalist, which made me intrigued. Coming up to me backstage, the cast member told me how he had learned I was a Marxist from my social media and how he was excited to have a fellow critical thinker to talk to. He then insisted that he had access to “activist resources” if I wanted help getting into that. To make a long and slightly absurd story short, we had a falling out. (I discussed this whole encounter a bit on Aesthetic Resistance #139) I decided to investigate his social media page further and discovered some telling things. First off, he was working for a non profit called Switch 4 Good which incentivises aspiring young athletes to take to social media and advertise how they had switched from dairy to dairy alternatives. I could not find the main source of funding for the non profit, but I will say that the organisation sounded very much in line with the W. E. F. agenda. A main issue that Switch 4 Good campaigned on was that of “dietary racism”, a term I had never heard before until I heard this cast member use it. The claim is that the use of dairy products is discriminating towards racial minorities, since lactose intolerance is prevalent across the globe. Yet the organisation did not suggest merely the removal of dairy, but rather the substitution as its name suggests. However, most of the dairy alternatives are made from cashew or coconut products, the production of which generally rests upon the exploitation of the third world. Are not vegans in white western countries eating diets that are only possible because of a long history of colonialism practicing dietary racism? Anyway you slice it, the cast member was working for an organisation firmly situated within the capitalist/imperialist/colonialist framework. So much for his anti-capitalism.

Secondly, this cast member was being paid (and moved to Oregon) to circulate an animal rights bill that had been turned down twice by Oregonians. (Bear in mind that Oregon has some of the strictest animal protections in the United States, no large factory farms, and a flourishing community of small farmers and ranchers.) Reading through the legalese of the bill, incidentally whose backing I could not trace, it became apparent that, if passed, the bill would make animal husbandry and even pet ownership extremely difficult. (The tying up of an animal or the touching of an animal’s genitalia would be deemed a felony. I guess wiping your cat’s dangle berries is criminal behaviour…) On the whole it seemed that the bill was nefariously designed to put a stranglehold on Oregon’s small farmers and ranchers, again in keeping with W. E. F. plans. Since it would remove local meat from the market but not curb demand for meat, it would open Oregon’s market to the big meat lobby. This meat would come from factory farms. So much for the concern for animal rights. In the end, this cast member was unbeknowingly serving the interests of corporations and working against everyday people.

Now I will zoom out from my snail’s eye view to paint a broader picture. There are many leftists and Marxists embedded in academia and many of them have produced interesting and insightful theory. However, I think the very nature of being institutionalised in the academy has an effect on one’s political positions. These days the universities have been penetrated fully by the power of capital, whereas in the past they were still able to maintain some critical detachment. Especially since 9/11 it has been difficult for radical professors to hold their positions. (A pre- 9/11 example being Michael Parenti, who could never attain tenure.) I would think it would be difficult as a radical university professor, especially if one is teaching critical theory, to fully voice one’s views, views that would endanger one’s career and livelihood. Of course, there are brave professors out there who stick by their guns and maintain their integrity, but they are usually tenured. Yet there are those professors, the poster children of the academicised left, who consciously or unconsciously voice narratives that are useful to the Western empire. These narratives have an insidious way of trickling down into the activist left.

The Western Superiority Narrative

“The moment that the topic of the pre-European African past is raised, many individuals are concerned for various reasons to know about the existence of African ‘civilisations.’ Mainly, this stems from a desire to make comparisons with European ‘civilisations.’ This is not the context in which to evaluate the so-called civilisations of Europe. It is enough to note the behaviour of European capitalists from the epoch of slavery through colonialism, fascism, and genocidal wars in Asia and Africa. Such barbarism causes suspicion to attach to the use of the word ‘civilisation’ to describe Western Europe and North America.”

—Walter Rodney, How Europe Underdeveloped Africa

I’ve noticed leftist academics, and leftists in general, concerning themselves with the authoritarian (perceived or legitimate) nature of other countries. Oftentimes this manifests as a casual reference in an otherwise critical book. In the propaganda machine that is the mainstream media, any country which is not friendly with the Western empire is painted as an authoritarian dictatorship in need of democratising whether or not this is actually true. Instead of condemning other countries struggling for an ill-fated independence, we should recognise the privilege of softer governance afforded by living in the imperial core. The West perpetually attempts to install friendly puppet governments in weaker nations, which are generally much worse than whatever independent leader the country had before, even if they were authoritarian. Because of the imperial dynamic, weak nations are often strong armed into adopting an authoritarian government. The privilege of democratisation is something afforded to nations that are pre approved by the imperial status quo. Western democracy is not the product of some abstract Euro-American exceptionalism. To understand it, it must be examined in the global context. If we zoom out we can see that Western democracy, as superficial as it may be, is the product of military might and geopolitical dominance, as well as centuries of colonialism and slavery. Internal criticism is unproblematic for a global superpower, as it poses no real threat to the existing structure. Free speech and free expression become a privilege of the most powerful empire; it owns the world and need not worry about internal dissent as long as its international affairs are in order. When the empire is actually threatened it becomes just as, if not more, authoritarian than the weaker enemy countries it spent so much time criticising. We saw this with European fascism in the twentieth century, and we are seeing it again today with the decline of Western hegemony. Truly democratic countries going against Western imperialism are a rare breed due to their almost impossible chance of success. For example, if an independent country develops a legitimately progressive government, the U. S. empire will attempt to overthrow it at any cost. Not to the mention economic arm twisting of sanctions and tariffs. If authoritarianism and dictatorships were truly inimical to Western values, the United States would engage in global cooperation, stop interfering in the affairs of other countries, and cease bullying the international community with its military power.

Left leaning academics often adopt the implicit assumptions of Western humanism and its ideological superiority. Even though anti-racism and an international outlook are talking points in left circles, there is this internalised notion of Western progress. I think at this point it is fairly evident that Western humanism has never been a universal proposition encompassing all humans. In my opinion, the genocide in Gaza was the nail in the coffin of European humanism. Even though left wing academics criticise capitalism and imperialism, there is a tendency to view Western humanism as detached from the socio-economic structure out of which it developed. Western notions of social progress are held to be the ultimate example of human freedom, with other cultures chided for not adopting them. Western values, which arose out of colonial capitalism, scientific techno-rationality, and Enlightenment Christianity, are the yardstick by which to measure the worth of other societies and cultures. To me, wishing to impose one’s values on a different culture is a colonialist mindset. The perceived backwardness of other cultures has been used to justify imperial interventions for centuries.

I’ve noticed a trend in discourse and thought on the left to decouple social progress from economic progress. One can be a socially conservative communist, or a socially progressive capitalist. However, how socially progressive can an alienating and extractive economic system be? Social progressivism without economic change continues to give power to the destructive drive of capital. The segmenting and shattering of human traditions, belief systems, communities, and families is inherent to capitalism. It can result in what us Westerners consider social progress, but we should not expect all societies to want to follow the same path. In my opinion, a more equitable but socially conservative socialism is preferable than an “anything goes” late capitalism. The drive of capital is “All that is solid melts into air.” To a certain point this can liberate people from the bounds of tradition, but once out of control the social fabric becomes horrifically frayed and every person becomes a fragmented and commodified individual. Besides, social progressivism in a capitalist/imperialist/colonialist context results in states like Israel: supportive of transgender rights, a safe haven for pedophiles, transhumanist, genocidal, and ultimately fascist. Thus I would argue that social progress without economic progress (by that I mean a change in the economic structure) is not progress at all, but rather the destruction of what makes us human. Every living organism is commodified and divided into quantifiable parts. Capitalism adopts an inclusive veneer, hiding its malignancy and backwardness.

At a certain point, social values, similar to technology, tend to develop in the wrong direction within the context of capitalism. I believe medicalised transgenderism and transhumanism serve as a testament to the malformation of social development within the capitalist framework. We should support legitimate social progress such as the separation of church and state, not faux social progress like men in women’s safe spaces. We should always bear in mind that social progress alone is merely a means, not an end. Even if capitalism had all the social progress in the world, it would still be an exploitive and, might I add, obsolete economic system that enriches the few at the expense of the many. Social progress without economic progress is no progress at all, merely an excuse to maintain the status quo under the guise that it is “diverse” etc.

The Climate Narrative

“Capitalism is an economy of waste, and this waste must disappear before the eyes of those who are entitled to enjoy a good life: it must be disposed of without being seen. [—] I want to highlight here that this economy of waste production is inextricably linked to the production of human beings as ‘scum’, as ‘waste’. An entire humanity is condemned to undertake invisible and over exploited work to create a world suitable for hyper-consumption and maintaining institutions.”

—Françoise Vergès, A Decolonial Feminism

In the West, the left has been a vociferous proponent of the green agenda. Support has been voiced for, but is not limited to, green energy, electric vehicles, bike only cities, synthetic meat, and restrictions on consumer goods. These measures are not necessarily bad in and of themselves, but if enacted within the framework of imperial capitalism they end up being perverse and exploitive. The working class, under the present system, would be the most effected by restrictions on personal motor vehicle use and coercion into bicycling as one’s primary mode of transportation. Given the length of the working day and the fact that many people work multiple jobs the added commute time of biking to and from work, or even taking public transportation, eats into the small amount of remaining free time that the working class has. Support for the green agenda further alienates the working class from the left because the working class, seeing climate restrictions play out within the capitalist framework, recognise that they are getting the short end of the stick. To be able to bike or walk everywhere, eat a diet which is calorically low per dollar, and purchase only environmentally friendly consumer goods is the privilege of the upper middle class. After a day of physically tiring work, biking home to a steaming bowl of vegan foraged mushroom soup seems repugnant.

As well as class, there seems to be a racial component to aspects of the climate discourse. (There are some leftists who discuss climate issues while keeping the global south at the forefront such as Andreas Malm*, but there are also Western (Northern) centric ones unable to look at the global situation.) Take left leaning owners of electric vehicles as an example. Electric vehicles are a large emerging market, yet the lithium batteries used to construct said vehicles are composed of rare earth minerals sourced from the third world. The working conditions in lithium and cobalt mines are absolutely horrible. Oftentimes the work is assigned to children, due to their small size, which permanently damages their health. So even if electric vehicles are “emission free”, they rest on the super-exploitation of black and brown peoples. This example illustrates how the climate narrative aids in the oppression of the global south. It also seems that there is an implicit assumption that Africa cannot be allowed to industrialise, improve sanitation for all, and raise the standard of living for its population to “modern” standards because the West has fucked the climate up so much. The guttural voice of the Western empire seems to say, “We’re sorry, we spent literally centuries exploiting and oppressing you, but you can never develop past what we decide for you because we destroyed the entire planet before you had a chance to experience our decadent degree of modern comforts.” The Western empire has worked diligently to convince the global population that Western standards of consumption mark the pinnacle of human freedom and happiness, yet criticises them for not doing their part in being “green”.

In my opinion, the left’s acceptance of the propaganda touting climate armageddon stems from the emotional basis of their politics. Coming at the Earth from a heartfelt perspective makes one respond with horror at the media blitzkreig of “climate disasters”. In nature documentaries, books, and reputable scientific publications we are given doomsday predictions and emotionally charged stories of the suffering of our fellow creatures, plants, and the Earth. Most well adjusted people have an instinctual attachment to their natural environment, which makes the emotional manipulation of the climate narrative highly effective. Whatever one thinks of the climate science, one should recognise that capitalism is incompatible with ecological stewardship due to its extractive nature and need for quick returns. The left tend to view green energy and restrictions on consumer goods as a restraint on capitalism, constraining big oil especially. In the age of Amazon and the “rent economy”, restrictions on consumer goods are actually part of the next stage of capitalism. Rentable clothing and post-consumer recycled products mean less money spent on raw materials, therefore a higher profit margin. Green energy constitutes an emerging market that conveniently ignores its reliance on fossil fuels. Consumers can feel their climate guilt assuaged by using green energy and green energy manufactured goods, while ignoring the environmental degradation and human exploitation that is congruous with the manufacture of wind turbines and solar panels. Due to the conflictual nature of capitalist society, it is difficult to engage in discourse around environmental issues without falling into pre-approved narrative. To avoid this, we must always remember that the primary contradiction in our society is capitalism. Environmental destruction is merely a symptom of a much larger disease. If the primary contradiction, capitalism, is not solved any solution enacted will deform itself to fit into the capitalist framework.

Even outside of the capitalist framework, I am skeptical if extreme climate measures should be enacted. I think a more balanced approach would be to cease to bomb other countries, reduce weapons manufacturing, eliminate unnecessary plastic packaging, and confiscate the private jets as well as the yachts of the super rich. The elites consume more energy than whole nations. If their obscene level of consumption were not present I think there would be enough resources for everyone to have a decent standard of living and fossil fuel use would be drastically reduced. We should be concerned for our biosphere and the creatures within it, but we must not succumb to fear and despair in regards the environment. It can become a self defeating attitude, believing that we’re too far gone to embark on a healing mission. How can we not but see this mindset as helpful to the eternalisation of capitalism? It is “the end of history” repackaged in a different context. Life always finds a way, and I think we should be optimistic about the regenerative qualities of the land and the creatures once they are free from the yoke of capital. Sometimes I will embark on flights of fancy, imagining the possibilities of working with nature in a communist context and what kind of environmentally symbiotic human communities could be created. Whether or not you’re a communist, I’m sure we can all appreciate the Earth’s wonders and the potential of incorporating indigenous knowledge in a post-capitalist world.

*Although he started from the false premise that the Earth is turning into an incinerator, Andreas Malm’s book The Progress of This Storm is good at addressing capitalism’s destruction of the environment and how a dialectical-historical materialist analysis is the best framework with which to address ecological degradation.

The Covid Narrative

“[—] Under the circumstances of fundamental crises it becomes necessary to cast aside the otherwise much more convenient regulatory devices of ‘liberal ideology’. They are replaced by ‘states of emergency’ whose declared purpose is the reconstitution of the formerly prevailing conditions of capitalist ‘normality’ [—].”

—István Mészáros, Social Structure and Forms of Consciousness

Sadly, many on the left sided with the ruling class’s turn to biomedical fascism during the covid years. The leftist intelligentsia were sheltered from the full severity of the economic consequences of the lockdowns due to the fact that they could work from home. This made a divide between the “laptop class” and the working class perspective. The working class was either forced out of work with improper compensation for wages lost, or forced to work and suffer the health consequences of wearing a mask for eight hours a day at minimum. It seems to me that the academic left thought that the lockdowns were a case of government and public health winning out over the hidden hand in the market. Yet state intervention into the market is not always a socialist win to be celebrated. When the bourgeois state intervenes in the market there is another name for that: fascism. At a time when corporatations, tech billionaires, and the U. S. military had (and still have) so much power, it would be absurd to think that the state was operating in the interests of the people. Big pharma does not care a wink for the actual health and well being of the public. To the medical industrial complex, the human body is a pin cushion waiting to be turned into a dollar sign. The lockdowns were a state intervention into the market, yet the bourgeoisie were the beneficiaries of said intervention. On the brink of one of capitalism’s periodic (and endemic) crises, the lockdowns both let the market down gently and bolstered corporate power by removal of competition. Fascism has historically been a last ditch measure to save capitalism when it is facing a potentially life threatening crises. The situation in 2020 was no exception.

However, I would argue that the covid era was a bigger historical turning point than twentieth century European fascism was. Covid lockdowns marked the greatest upward transfer of wealth in human history. Some leftists saw the devastating effects the lockdowns had on small businesses as a win against capitalism, forgetting Lenin’s “Tens of thousands of huge enterprises are everything; millions of small ones are nothing.” The corporations were unaffected by the lockdowns, which eliminated the small and medium sized businesses that were competing for market shares. In fact, the lockdowns gave corporate power a greater foothold, especially giants like Amazon and the tech industry. (If one wants to better understand the power of corporations and the banks, I heavily suggest that you read Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. Written over a hundred years ago, it is chillingly relevant today. Yet I might add that the present situation is worse than Lenin could ever have imagined.) The human cost of the lockdowns was staggering, especially in societies that offered a bare minimum safety net. During the covid era in the U. S. homelessness soared, poor children were left without adequate care, elderly people were put into forced isolation, medical patients were deprived of lifesaving treatments, and domestic abuse victims were shut in with their abusers. The isolation people experienced was psychologically damaging, especially at a time when loneliness was already a serious societal problem. The closure of the schools and children’s activities stuck out to me as especially harmful. Whatever one may think about the lethality of covid the scientific consensus showed that children were not at risk. No public official to my knowledge ever expressed concern for children cloistered away in their homes. Children who had abusive family members were shut up with their oppressors, who could justify keeping their children under tight control by saying they were being “covid cautious”. Children who lived in apartments, especially those whose caregivers were essential workers, were deprived of the outside time and movement necessary for the physical and mental well being of the young. The necessity of socialising young children was denied, their well being ignored. The upper and upper middle class’s children, however, remained largely unaffected, given that their parents could afford to pay for private lessons and other exclusive activities during the lockdowns. Any way you look at it, the lockdowns and mask mandates caused an increase in poverty, mental illness, and loneliness. The pandemic [“”] could have been managed in a way to protect those at risk while preventing the spread of fear and panic instead of promoting it, and the material well being of vulnerable populations could have been insured. However, I do not think the measures were ever about health and I think the increasing proletarianisation of Western populations was one of the ruling class’s goals of the entire event.

“From this perspective fascism is less about power and more about an insistence upon ‘difference’ (conveniently an inferior). The absolutisation of inequality. The absolute need for poverty.”

—John Steppling, The Unconscious of Hollywood

Because of the way in which the left was complicit during the covid era, mass surveillance technologies were able to be rolled out without comment. The left historically had been opposed to mass surveillance technologies, the “War on Terror” for example, but their enthralment to the covid narrative proved highly problematic in this respect. I know some leftists have been surprised at the extent of crackdowns on pro-Palestinian college protestors. However, I would argue that it was all precipitated by the universities’ full embrace of strict covid mandates and bio-surveillance, which the left largely supported. The material conditions of the academic left aside, I think a large reason that many leftists, especially young ones, supported the covid measures so strongly relates back to preferring to be good rather than right. The propaganda of the covid narrative was framed in highly moralised way. If one complied, it showed that one cared about their community and was not selfish. I think it is a positive impulse to not want to be an egoistic individualist, but wanting to signal one is a caring person is not an excuse for failing to analyse the material reality of a situation. There were some stubborn and ignorant people who opposed the covid measures because they did not want to be personally inconvenienced and hated to see *gasp* meddling in the hidden hand of the market. I do not respect or endorse these people in the least. The problem was that the mainstream media conveniently lumped anybody questioning the scientific legitimacy of the covid measures in with the “right wing Trump supporters” or whatever one wishes to call them. The noncompliant, or even slightly questioning, were deemed to be heartless grandma killers screeching about their individual “rights”. The left was emotionally manipulated into partaking in the wholesale doxing of covid critical leftists, scientists, and workers. The left again took the kindness and inclusivity bait, fooled into believing that only “conspiracy theorists” had safety concerns about the mRNA based gene therapies and the efficacy of mask wearing. To me, it was quite ironic how the covid “vaccines” became such a partisan issue. To the left, refusal of the shots meant one was a Trump supporter. Yet many Trump supporters got “vaccinated” unquestioningly, and Operation Warp Speed was rolled out under Donald Trump. Trump is still so proud of Operation Warp Speed that he insists upon perpetually bragging about it! This is why I also fail to understand those who dissented during covid, yet have been corralled into believing that Trump is some sort of a saviour. Perhaps, per István Mészáros, people are able to hold two contradictory and for all intents and purposes irrational beliefs at the same time because we live under the rule of an irrational and contradictory economic system…. Capitalism as institutionalised schizophrenia…

After the upward transfer of wealth was complete the economy had to come back online. But there was a problem, the fear created around covid was rampant yet the population had to be put back to work. Perpetual masking became a means to get the population working and consuming once more, offering them a security blanket to assuage their fears. Early on, mask mandates served as a way to keep the essential workers working, without having to address legitimate health concerns and provide proper sick leave. (To note, many essential workers were against masking due to the ineffectiveness of mask wearing to prevent viral infections and the consequent health effects long term masking was having on their health.) Let us note that essential workers were much more sceptical of the covid measures than the “laptop class” due to the fact that, a) many of them survived the pandemic and b) they did not see the bodies piling up. I think that many of the essential workers developed a finer tuned class consciousness during covid because it became apparent that the upper and upper middle class viewed them as expendable (and therefore lesser) human beings.

“They will engineer viruses and release them in public so the capitalist drug manufacturers can profit from making vaccines, it’s just a business for them.”

—Muammar Al Quadaffi, 2009 to the United Nations

I have noticed a trend on the left to somehow exempt the sphere of science and technology as operating within the capitalist structure. Yet I think now more than ever before these sectors are deeply wedded to capital. Again, we return to how within the framework of capitalism, science and technology develop in a direction determined by profitability, not human need. Progress in these fields, without a correlating societal progress in the direction of human well being, is always seen as acceptable because it strengthens the power of capital. It provides the illusion of motion in an otherwise stagnant social form. The left’s blind spot regarding big pharma became odiously apparent during the covid years, with their excitement to receive Pharma’s latest cash cow: mRNA technology. The vaccine mandates made the shots even more profitable, serving as a way for the government to funnel money into the pharmaceutical companies, some of which had never been able to produce products which successfully passed their sаfety trials. Since the same sort of saccharine moralising propaganda surrounded the covid “vaccines”, the left supported the vaccine mandates. Where I live, many leftists went to an extreme and heavily advocated vaccine passports, often helping to enforce them. As someone who did not receive the mRNA gene therapy due to safety concerns for personal medical reasons, it was a harrowing experience being othered by my community. I still have leftist friends who I never speak about covid with, out of fear that my vaccination status would bring out a very different side of them. It has been noted by many intelligent theorists that this radical othering of human beings is a key component, if not the psychological basis, of fascism. Indeed, I concur with Max Parry who once said that covid revealed many people’s inner fascist.

When we couple the economic aspect of the lockdowns with the radical othering of unvaccinated human beings, we are left with the economic and the psychological basis for fascism. To me, the left’s response during the covid era was telling. It showed that when push came to shove, the left would enforce the status quo at any cost. Medical masks became a symbol of one’s virtue, and thus one’s compliance to existing authority. I do not think that this was a conscious decision of submission, rather an unconscious one for those whose goodwill was preyed upon by an intensive and expensive propaganda campaign. Believing the propaganda lies, the left revealed its enmeshment in the establishment. If we are to be revolutionaries we should not be afraid of being deemed callous by the bourgeois intelligentsia.

#Leftist Inc.

“Capital is thus in effect an extended informatics-machine-mediated calculus of social difference, an algorithmic management of rights that differentially severs producers from the value they create. Its managerial infrastructure casts its networked epistemology, its means of production, to posit the cosmos as information and sets everyone to work generating more information in the name of sorting it out and oftentimes in the name of survival. [——] Information [—] does not merely exist; it is not a Platonic form, an ontological condition, or a glimmering and transcendent divinity. Like private property, its history of formation is as violent as the history of capital itself, because its history is the history of capital itself.”

—Jonathan Beller, The Message is Murder

The social media algorithms have finally figured out my politics, if I scroll through social media feeds I encounter many Marxist memes and leftist swag wear. It has been niggling at me for sometime now, the phenomenon of leftist politics as some sort of social media clothing aesthetic and the waging of meme war instead of class war. Unsure as to why it was bothering me so much, after reading Jonathan Beller’s The Message is Murder I finally realised why. Not that the book talks about this trend specifically, but Beller’s discussion of how social media’s economy of attention and information as we know it are a product of capitalism. Left politics as t-shirts and internet content is a commodification, a sort of packaging of a complex school of thought (Marxism) and resistance into consumable goods and reductive pixel assemblages (memes). Although I enjoy a good meme now and then, as well as Soviet cat posters (don’t ask…), I view this trend as a way for capital to restructure resistance into a label to be worn.

Wearing an anti-capitalist t-shirt begins to be viewed as a symbolic act against the status quo. Yet, given that capitalism guts out the meaning of symbols except the symbol of universal exchange value (money), it becomes no different than wearing any other t-shirt. A whole kitchen economy springs up around creating left wing flags, attire, mugs, and what have you. Of course, in terms of having to earn a living for oneself, this is a preferable choice to being exploited in the workplace. So in no way do I fault people for their decisions. However, on a deeper level I think it is problematic. One’s politics, which claim to be revolutionary, are commodified to sustain one’s income within the context of capitalism. In some ways a hammer and sickle t-shirt, for example, eviscerates the meaning out of itself. Likely produced by low wage workers in a “developing” country (meaning a country purposefully kept down by imperialist colonialism), the material of the shirt itself has no real connection to communism. The only connection it has is a symbolic one, a performative act that in the greater scheme of things is meaningless.

One problem with the digital medium is that it is a double edged sword. On the one hand, the internet does “democratise” information (to a certain degree), allowing broader access to dissident viewpoints. On the other hand, contributing to the internet feeds the data hungry beast of digital capitalism. If the medium is the message, I would say that digital memes contribute to the reduction of our attention spans and orient our perceptions to only accepting simplistic information. A meme is the distillation of an idea down to its most basic elements, often with a touch of mockery or humour. I am unsure if memes are an effective tool of agit-prop, given that memes generally only speak to those already initiated into the politics they espouse. As someone with a sarcasm and irony comprehension problem, I find memes to be borderline esoteric. Thus I do not think memes are a good way to “speak to the people”. Left wing memes are algorithmically fed to those inclined to view left wing internet content in the first place, thus struggling to reach anyone with a different political outlook. In regards the transmission of complex ideas, the meme can provide no broader historical context, or elucidate the insidious intricacy of the machinations of capitalist imperialism. It creates a superficial idea of what left wing politics and policies are.

The false idea of what is “left” can function in two ways. First, it becomes a roundabout way for the right to label policies completely aligned with neoliberal capitalism and biomedical fascism as “communist/Marxist”. For example the W. E. F. saying “you will own nothing and be happy”. Secondly, I think devoloping one’s politics via memes is an unstable foundation for any sort of political analysis. It seems young leftists who receive their political education in such a palatable form are more likely to succumb to propaganda campaigns. Without a proper understanding of theory and a lack of on the ground experience, policies which have left wing form but not content come to be taken as the real thing. I’m sure there are naive young people who would believe a Universal Basic Income implemented by a hidden ruling class of tech oligarchs is somehow the full scale implementation of communism. (UBIs sound good in theory, but, dubious logistics aside, how they are implemented and by whom is of the utmost importance. If a UBI is implemented without a change in the social structure, it merely prolongs the life of capitalism and pacifies an increasingly proletarianised public. The state pays the population who then spends their UBI at some corporation. Reduced down, the state pays the corporation. In a way, not much different than the company store of nineteenth century America.) It is all well and good to have a chuckle at a subversive meme, but we must not be soothed into thinking that the presence of said meme is the sign of a changing tide. At a time when digitalisation threatens every aspect of human life, a new banner of resistance needs to be raised: the revolution will not be commodified.

I am probably starting to sound incredibly pessimistic, but I think it is important to examine the material underpinnings of the tools we use. The devices used to create Marxist memes, say, rest upon the exploitation of the peoples of the global south. This is not to say no one can make memes, or that it is somehow our own fault that the world is this way. I think quite a lot of people, if given the choice, would rather not have their consumer goods rest on the suffering of other human beings. My point, rather, is that we cannot allow the proliferation of left wing internet content and attire to fool us into thinking that these are effective means of resistance. The Western empire is savvy with its use of soft power, and as long as the system itself is not critically endangered it is beneficial for the ruling class to allow dissent on the internet. Because the capitalist system is about as hale and hearty as Joe Biden at this point, shadow banning and censorship are increasing, and if a revolutionary zeitgeist were reached I suspect that internet speech would be completely locked down. Being a content creator is not futile, (I’m creating internet content as we speak…) but I think we should be cautious not to overestimate it as a field of struggle. I am of a mind that real change will come from people taking action in their communities, not some guy in basement spending six hours a day making pro-communism social media content. The most important thing that digital content creation can do is challenge the narrative, which is by all means an important if not pivotal task, but we must remember that change in the realm of ideas counts very little if the material conditions remain unaltered.

Perhaps I’ve been going about this whole essay the wrong way. I’ve examined the theoretical errors of the Western left, but maybe I did not undertake enough of a materialist analysis. Perhaps the problem with the Western left is not in their Western centric thinking, but rather in their material situation of living in the West. What I mean by this is that a leftist in the West, in contrast with a revolutionary in the global south for example, has a relatively comfortable life because of the functioning of Western imperialism. The globalised functioning of capitalist imperialism provides a better standard of living for those within the imperial core, a standard which rests on the exploitation of the periphery. The immanent decline of the United States as an empire is rapidly changing this standard of living. For example, home ownership is quickly becoming out of reach for most young people. This leaves the working class who lives inside the empire increasingly less able to be materially invested in maintaining the status quo. This fact has caused working Americans to become ever more suspicious of mainstream narratives, creating an opportunity for radical politics to enter the stage. Unfortunately the left in academia has not been of much help in this matter. As part of the “laptop class”, they have been largely insulated from the economic tribulations experienced by the rest of the population. What emerges is the Western left’s reaping sustenance from the machinations of their material investment in the capital imperialist framework.

Propaganda in Terms of the Media

“The mass media shape taste and cloud judgement. They instruct and they condition. With their saturation of images, current affairs and ‘news’ devoid of anything new, they fascinate and they nauseate. They expand communications and they threaten coherence and thought, vocabulary and verbal expression, language itself.”

—Henri Lefebvre, A Critique of Everyday Life; Volume 2

Another pivotal issue is propaganda and how susceptible the Western left is to the emotional manipulation of it. I’ve noticed people who gravitate towards left wing politics usually do so because they are caring people who wish to improve the world. Due to the psychopathic nature of the capitalist elites, this naive goodwill is turned against itself. The great propagandists of the empire have figured out the correct messaging to elicit the desired response from the left. As we see in media everywhere (big example being the 2023 Barbie movie), the ruling class have figured out how to make propaganda appear “leftist” while actually being reactionary, if not downright fascist. The population of the U. S. is propagandised to through news, tv shows, movies, and novels that the empire is a force for good in the world, bringing democracy and human rights wherever it touches. Star Trek: The Next Generation illustrates my point. On the surface it appears progressive, yet if we dig deeper there are some shady underpinnings. For all appearances it seems humanity has attained multi-racial and multi-species society, one with equal opportunities for women and minorities. Allusions are made to the elimination of poverty and the obsolescence of money back home on Earth, sounds kind of communistic right? However, Earth and the United Federation of Planets, which extends over much of the universe, mentions no governing body except for Starfleet. Starfleet is a military organisation with all of its officers funnelled through Starfleet academy. Viewed from this angle, it sounds like the Federation is run by a technocratic military elite. All this aside, the Federation claims to be peacefully exploring the galaxy, yet it seems that it wishes to incorporate all other societies into itself. Since the Federation is practically a front for Starfleet, which is mostly run by human anglophone males, it appears that equal representation for Earth’s nations, let alone other alien planetary “nationalities” and species, is out of the question. The Federation seems to only be able to operate with peaceful diplomacy because of their cosmically dominant position. The moment the empire is threatened, by the Romulan empire or other species resisting incorporation into the Federation, the fascistic, colonising underside of Starfleet is revealed. (Interesting to note that the Cardassians, Klingons, and Romulans have “empires” while the Federation is somehow exempt from this judgement…) How progressive is the show then, when it depicts an anglophone military organisation spreading its power across the universe? Progress without anti-imperialism is not progress at all. Instead it rings of the civilising mission of the white man from the colonial days of old. Societies are deformed by the continuing legacy of colonialist imperialism and then chided for their backwardness. In the West we often wonder how other countries have such “anachronistic” social mores, yet we live in a declining empire that retards the rest of the world to maintain hegemony. (Not to mention globalised capitalism is about as anachronistic a social structure as one could ask for.)

Would you rather be good or right? We must shift our answer to preferring to be right. Have the courage to be reviled, most likely this means you are on the correct path. If your so called radical politics are earning you a high salary, media attention, and praise from powerful NGOs you have become a sell out. If you are onto something true you will be smeared and your reach restricted. Many great theorists and revolutionaries are dismissed to this day, whether by the right as “woke cultural Marxists” (whatever that means…) or by the left as “outdated and problematic”. We do not live in a free society, one where ideas arise organically based upon their democratic traction. We live in a society driven by class antagonisms where the ruling class has a vested interest in keeping us under control. The figures and narratives thrust into the spotlight are often, consciously or unconsciously there to serve the interests of the empire. Propaganda is used to create a false consciousness in the subject population so that they cannot accurately perceive the society in which they live. As resentment grows amongst subject populations the empire’s propaganda will intensify. The internet, originally a military operation, ostensibly offers the democratisation of information, but in reality it is highly managed and is designed to steer our perceptions along preconceived pathways. Algorithms are used to bury what the empire wishes to remain hidden, while simultaneously creating the illusion of a free flow of ideas. Due to the multiplicity of interests within the ruling class there is never one hegemonic narrative. We are bombarded by a variety of narratives, giving us the illusion of choice. But ultimately the narratives are all within the capitalist framework, turning the media into a black hole with no way out.

“I’m old enough to remember that during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, the internet was supposed to be a force for good — for democracy, freedom, and egalitarianism. That of course was always a sham — more corporate propaganda and Wall Street boosterism and consumer marketing than anything else. Today we are seeing the internet as it has always been rather than what the marketing copy that had been shoved into our faces. At its core, the internet’s really been about empire and control…wealth and power.”

—Yasha Levine, The Internet, Computers, Genocide

To arm ourselves against the tsunami of conflictual information we must remember the hidden axis upon which capitalism turns. Underneath the media packaging, which events are enshrouded in, there lurks a vested class interest. Capitalism is a system based on class antagonism and exploitation, therefore it is foolish to think that the ruling class does not constitute an organised body which is acutely aware of its own interests. Even though the members of the ruling class are not completely homogenised in their interests and are a group allergic to legitimate cooperation, they are more than willing to work together to maintain the capitalist system and protect their wealth. The psychopathic bourgeoisie and their empire managers view compassion as a weakness. They understand propaganda is an effective way of controlling a population of people who still value compassion and kindness. Thus it is crucial to keep class analysis at the forefront of our minds. When confronted by a news story, scientific research, or other information it is important to ask who is profiting from this? Are there vested interests at play? In the age of deep fakes, MK Ultra, and the scandalous revelation as to the real purpose of USAID nothing coming from the mouthpieces of business and empire can be taken at face value. The information landscape of the modern era is a labyrinth with dead ends and traps around almost every corner. And in the centre of the maze sits a class of very wealthy and deluded psychopaths, keen on disappearing themselves from the view of the increasing proletarianised public. We must remember that the Western empire’s imperialist missions serve the ruling class’s interests, not ours. The empire does not exist to protect us from barbarism, rather to provide a fortress for the capitalists so that they have a safe haven from which to conduct their plundering of the wealth of the Earth; natural resources and human labour. (An average U. S. citizen has more in common with an amputee in Gaza than they do with Elon Musk.) When presented with narratives, we must dissect them with a double bladed analysis of capitalism and imperialism and not let our feelings lead us astray. Remain vigilant, engage with your community, and stay angry at the ruling class. Someday the stranglehold of capitalist imperialism will be broken. (I’ll help break it or die trying.) Stay strong and fight the good fight, or rather fight the right fight.

“Emotions are steep like cliffs, -

please,

step away farther.

Farther

step away, please.”

—Vladimir Mayakovsky

Links

Cited above:

https://dissidentvoice.org/2024/01/social-formation/

The Unconscious of Hollywood

https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/

The internet, computers, genocide

Three informative pieces:

Tariffs and Continental Divides

https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/wargames-and-fartcoins-brace-yourselves-for-an-explosive-start-to-2025/

https://propagandainfocus.com/the-end-of-pluralism-and-the-decline-of-soft-power/

An informative talk:

Mentioned above as essential reading:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

The economic situation a lot of us are in: