This is one of the more interesting pieces I’ve seen attempting to explain the cultural and sociological transformation of the modern left without falling into purely partisan talking points - extemely well done on that front. The essay’s core argument - that large sections of contemporary left politics became detached from working-class reality and increasingly shaped by PMC institutional culture, symbolic politics, and status competition - is provocative but equally enjoyable to read.
What I found strongest was the focus on incentives and class composition rather than simply reducing everything to morality or “bad actors.” The sections on elite overproduction, activist culture, media ecosystems, and the tendency for politics to become performative identity signalling rather than coalition-building felt particularly sharp.
I also think the essay identifies a real tension many movements struggle with: the difference between trying to persuade ordinary people where they actually are versus assuming political transformation begins with ideological re-education and cultural purification.
Even where the piece becomes overly sweeping or inflammatory (this is rare), it still raises questions that are difficult to dismiss outright:
Why has class-first politics struggled to regain mass appeal?
Why do many working-class voters increasingly distrust institutions claiming to represent them?
And at what point does a movement’s internal culture begin undermining its external political viability?
A lot here will be controversial from all areas of the political spectrum, but the essay (at least in my view) explains the structural explanation for the last decade of political realignment rather than treating it as a simple battle between good people and bad people. I've written on similar topics (you can find my pieces on my publication), but I find your analysis on another level. This is excellently written!
Thats crazy. In 2026 they still like that. I remember when in 2020 they banned Adolph Reed JR. (a black marxist intellectual) because he was too “class reductionist”
Marxism is heavily rooted in Christianity, which itself is an idealist, universalist religion that sees itself as the "one true faith"- Marx himself drew his ideas from Hegel's views towards history as a narrative of progress towards a greater ideal (as opposed to a series of conflicts between opposing camps with opposing goals and opposing visions). This was directly derived from his Christian absolute idealism, seeing the world as progressing towards a sense of Christian morality.
The Roman-derived West has become more and more dogmatic, idealistic, and obsessed with rightthink witch hunts since Christianity took over this culture in the 3rd century AD, with only a few bursts of freedom such as the Protestant Reformation and occasional 18th-20th century Revolution that just resulted in counterchurches that see themselves as the greater religion (including secular religions like liberalism and Marxist-Leninism).
When American liberals try to witch hunt Nazis and hate speech over the "Paradox of Tolerance", or Soviet tanks run over Czech dissidents in the 1968 Prague Spring, I see the same mindset of the Spanish inquisition or the Great Schism of the Crusades. A universalist church created by a Jewish death cult from a man named Jesus Christ that will never cease to find heretics to hunt, that lucked out and conquered the known world in 400 years due to the miraculous combination of gunpowder and the carrack only to burn it to the ground in a sea of Christian witch hunts and Christian-derived liberal, communist, nationalist, progressive witch hunts.
(As an aside, I suspect that the success of innovation in East Asian countries over the last few decades can be at least somewhat attributed to their atheism, as Asians at the individual level are fueled by the very natural loyalty to their clan and raw competition, and the empirical, scientific analaysis of the world around them, as opposed to converting followers and hunting heretics from any dogma created around an ik onkar God cult).
excellent piece, perhaps one of the most complex i’ve ever read and one that i’m very tempted to cite in a planned YouTube video essay about leftists operating under the assumption that immigrant minorities will give them their support. it’s genuinely heartening to know that people are still willing to engage critically with leftist ideologies, especially as a Venezuelan who has had to deal with my experiences being forced into abstract concepts for the left to dunk on Trump while ignoring the cultural and political dynamics we have in our country.
Well said. Beliefs are often socially load-bearing, be they "religious" or ideological or political: a costly signal of in-group loyalty. The more heterodox or extreme, the costlier the signal, and hence the greater value for in-group cohesion (which IMO explains a lot of the dogmatism in Actually Existing Leftist Groups).
This can sometimes include what I'd call an "epistemic sacrifice": a sincere belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, functions exactly the same way as a belief that gulags and the Holodomor are merely Western imperialist propaganda: a sorting function for who to trust, and who to distrust.
"Elephant in the Brain" by Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler is a good read on the power of belief-as-signaling, and Robert Trivers' "Folly of Fools" covers similar ground, on the evolutionary incentives towards self-deception. (The most effective grifters often believe their own grift.)
I think you are on to something, but the term "symbolic capitalist" so much confuses my brain that I cannot really understand this essay. I mean, Marxists, leftists, etc. tend be against capitalists, not themselves being a kind of a capitalist. Could you rename it to something like symbol-controllers or something?
Anyhow a very common problem is that it is impossible to represent all minorities because they are often against each other. Like how could one represent LGBTQ, feminism and Islam at the same time? And in the US black people have the highest church-going rate, and are known to be generally not being very LGBTQ-friendly.
On some level if we accept everything you say, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. If populism is so great, what's the problem? Your boy trump is on the case. The common man should be reaping the benefits any day now. Is it just that the people taking the full settlers view are ruining the vibe?
“What makes racialized Marxism especially insidious within communist and socialist formations is that it wears the costume of materialism while operating on entirely idealist premises. “
My small contribution to this is that this may have something to do with the fact that many (if not most?) on the left have nothing but a remedial understanding of economics, if not a complete lack of interest in it. There are very few people on the left today (off the top of my head I can only think of Yanis Varoufakis) who can make meaningful contributions to the discussion “how should the world materially be and how do we build that”
Read Tyranny of the Minority and get back to me. We don’t even really know what the majority of Americans want anymore. The system for elections is incredibly rigged against what the majority of Americans want or even know about. How many democracies still have an electoral system like the representation of our Senate or an electoral college process for electing the President? We have fallen hopelessly behind in modern democracy. Read the book. Let’s get back to basics so we can actually have a country that is not overwhelmingly over represented by the most uneducated citizens of this country. Can we all agree long enough to get to first base so our government is forced to start DOING what the majority of Americans actually want? Nexus by Yuval ? is another excellent book that discusses the issues (positive and negative) with historical and modern communication methods. Parts are a bit dense for the average but the people engaged in this discussion would have absolutely no problem getting through it!
Whether you can believe in democracy while disrespecting the opinions and intelligence of the demos depends on what you think democracy is supposed to do. It is true that a lot of accounts of the value and legitimacy of democracy are based on the idea that the beliefs and common sense of the demos are wise and worth listening to.
But I find a different account much more plausible: democracy, especially representative democracy, is a mechanism to hold elites accountable. Under this model elites generally know better than the average person, but like anyone else can become corrupt, incompetent, or insane. Democracy is a tool that allow us to discipline elites by removing them from office if they perform poorly.
Under this model, populism is a perversion of democracy where demagogues try to discredit and replace elites by promising to implement popular programs that the average person does not realize are bad. They frame elite resistance as an attempt by the elite to dominate the demos, rather than an attempt by the elite to save the demos from itself. It replaces democracy as an accountability mechanism with democracy as a way to decide on actual policy.
In re some leftist and feminist persons, if they make themselves physically ugly out of a misguided political impulse, would it not be reasonable to infer that their politics are themselves ugly? Seriously, I'm asking. I'm a leftist myself, at least economically, but the question presents itself.<<The overrepresentation of visibly heterogeneous individuals at left-wing protests, communist party events, and activist organizations is not a stereotype conjured by right-wing propagandists. It is an observable sociological fact, and it has consequences. Every pro-Palestine demonstration featuring a rainbow of pride flags, every communist party Instagram account that looks more like a catalogue of subcultural identities than a political organization, every DSA convention interrupted by privilege-checking rituals and trigger-warning protocols, confirms, in the minds of ordinary working people, that the left is a freak show run by and for people who have nothing in common with them. To be clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with being trans, non-binary, queer, neurodivergent, or any other identity that falls outside the statistical mainstream. Plenty of people who carry these identities live perfectly ordinary lives and have perfectly ordinary political instincts. The problem is not the presence of these individuals. The problem is the ratio, the degree to which they have come to define the left’s public face, and the degree to which the left’s cultural codes, from pronoun rituals to the privilege-stacking hierarchies in which straight white men are perpetually last in line, have been optimized to make these individuals feel welcome at the direct expense of making everyone else feel unwelcome.>>
Like communism here is so different. My granddad was in the Communist party in China starting in the 40s. He linked homosexuality, pedophilia and religion and largely neglected his kids. I'm center right, but I also keep an eye on the left because it's interesting.
There's a horseshoe theory happening on the far right too where they are expelling libertarians and forming a communist-like synthesis with religion mixed in. Like Catholic uh, solidarityism or whatever.
This is one of the more interesting pieces I’ve seen attempting to explain the cultural and sociological transformation of the modern left without falling into purely partisan talking points - extemely well done on that front. The essay’s core argument - that large sections of contemporary left politics became detached from working-class reality and increasingly shaped by PMC institutional culture, symbolic politics, and status competition - is provocative but equally enjoyable to read.
What I found strongest was the focus on incentives and class composition rather than simply reducing everything to morality or “bad actors.” The sections on elite overproduction, activist culture, media ecosystems, and the tendency for politics to become performative identity signalling rather than coalition-building felt particularly sharp.
I also think the essay identifies a real tension many movements struggle with: the difference between trying to persuade ordinary people where they actually are versus assuming political transformation begins with ideological re-education and cultural purification.
Even where the piece becomes overly sweeping or inflammatory (this is rare), it still raises questions that are difficult to dismiss outright:
Why has class-first politics struggled to regain mass appeal?
Why do many working-class voters increasingly distrust institutions claiming to represent them?
And at what point does a movement’s internal culture begin undermining its external political viability?
A lot here will be controversial from all areas of the political spectrum, but the essay (at least in my view) explains the structural explanation for the last decade of political realignment rather than treating it as a simple battle between good people and bad people. I've written on similar topics (you can find my pieces on my publication), but I find your analysis on another level. This is excellently written!
Great piece
Got expelled from the DSA Discussion Board for reposting it there
Thats crazy. In 2026 they still like that. I remember when in 2020 they banned Adolph Reed JR. (a black marxist intellectual) because he was too “class reductionist”
My bad bad. Turns out they upped it to 3 years. Can’t post until 2029.
My bad. Suspended 10 days not expelled
Marxism is heavily rooted in Christianity, which itself is an idealist, universalist religion that sees itself as the "one true faith"- Marx himself drew his ideas from Hegel's views towards history as a narrative of progress towards a greater ideal (as opposed to a series of conflicts between opposing camps with opposing goals and opposing visions). This was directly derived from his Christian absolute idealism, seeing the world as progressing towards a sense of Christian morality.
The Roman-derived West has become more and more dogmatic, idealistic, and obsessed with rightthink witch hunts since Christianity took over this culture in the 3rd century AD, with only a few bursts of freedom such as the Protestant Reformation and occasional 18th-20th century Revolution that just resulted in counterchurches that see themselves as the greater religion (including secular religions like liberalism and Marxist-Leninism).
When American liberals try to witch hunt Nazis and hate speech over the "Paradox of Tolerance", or Soviet tanks run over Czech dissidents in the 1968 Prague Spring, I see the same mindset of the Spanish inquisition or the Great Schism of the Crusades. A universalist church created by a Jewish death cult from a man named Jesus Christ that will never cease to find heretics to hunt, that lucked out and conquered the known world in 400 years due to the miraculous combination of gunpowder and the carrack only to burn it to the ground in a sea of Christian witch hunts and Christian-derived liberal, communist, nationalist, progressive witch hunts.
(As an aside, I suspect that the success of innovation in East Asian countries over the last few decades can be at least somewhat attributed to their atheism, as Asians at the individual level are fueled by the very natural loyalty to their clan and raw competition, and the empirical, scientific analaysis of the world around them, as opposed to converting followers and hunting heretics from any dogma created around an ik onkar God cult).
excellent piece, perhaps one of the most complex i’ve ever read and one that i’m very tempted to cite in a planned YouTube video essay about leftists operating under the assumption that immigrant minorities will give them their support. it’s genuinely heartening to know that people are still willing to engage critically with leftist ideologies, especially as a Venezuelan who has had to deal with my experiences being forced into abstract concepts for the left to dunk on Trump while ignoring the cultural and political dynamics we have in our country.
Well said. Beliefs are often socially load-bearing, be they "religious" or ideological or political: a costly signal of in-group loyalty. The more heterodox or extreme, the costlier the signal, and hence the greater value for in-group cohesion (which IMO explains a lot of the dogmatism in Actually Existing Leftist Groups).
This can sometimes include what I'd call an "epistemic sacrifice": a sincere belief that the Earth is 6000 years old, functions exactly the same way as a belief that gulags and the Holodomor are merely Western imperialist propaganda: a sorting function for who to trust, and who to distrust.
"Elephant in the Brain" by Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler is a good read on the power of belief-as-signaling, and Robert Trivers' "Folly of Fools" covers similar ground, on the evolutionary incentives towards self-deception. (The most effective grifters often believe their own grift.)
I think you are on to something, but the term "symbolic capitalist" so much confuses my brain that I cannot really understand this essay. I mean, Marxists, leftists, etc. tend be against capitalists, not themselves being a kind of a capitalist. Could you rename it to something like symbol-controllers or something?
Anyhow a very common problem is that it is impossible to represent all minorities because they are often against each other. Like how could one represent LGBTQ, feminism and Islam at the same time? And in the US black people have the highest church-going rate, and are known to be generally not being very LGBTQ-friendly.
I only wish I could easily convey to you the parallel’s I see here with the philosophy of Nichiren Buddhism
On some level if we accept everything you say, I'm not sure what you're complaining about. If populism is so great, what's the problem? Your boy trump is on the case. The common man should be reaping the benefits any day now. Is it just that the people taking the full settlers view are ruining the vibe?
That's got to be probably the most braindead criticism I've ever received. Good job
Shouldn't be hard to answer then.
Still reading, but about this:
“What makes racialized Marxism especially insidious within communist and socialist formations is that it wears the costume of materialism while operating on entirely idealist premises. “
My small contribution to this is that this may have something to do with the fact that many (if not most?) on the left have nothing but a remedial understanding of economics, if not a complete lack of interest in it. There are very few people on the left today (off the top of my head I can only think of Yanis Varoufakis) who can make meaningful contributions to the discussion “how should the world materially be and how do we build that”
Read Tyranny of the Minority and get back to me. We don’t even really know what the majority of Americans want anymore. The system for elections is incredibly rigged against what the majority of Americans want or even know about. How many democracies still have an electoral system like the representation of our Senate or an electoral college process for electing the President? We have fallen hopelessly behind in modern democracy. Read the book. Let’s get back to basics so we can actually have a country that is not overwhelmingly over represented by the most uneducated citizens of this country. Can we all agree long enough to get to first base so our government is forced to start DOING what the majority of Americans actually want? Nexus by Yuval ? is another excellent book that discusses the issues (positive and negative) with historical and modern communication methods. Parts are a bit dense for the average but the people engaged in this discussion would have absolutely no problem getting through it!
https://1drv.ms/w/c/c3598b38f68269be/IQC0tM9XJh6XSbPFJkfrjrZQAX75IT-_lja2BNCSZ4dHjuM?e=ptSXY0
Whether you can believe in democracy while disrespecting the opinions and intelligence of the demos depends on what you think democracy is supposed to do. It is true that a lot of accounts of the value and legitimacy of democracy are based on the idea that the beliefs and common sense of the demos are wise and worth listening to.
But I find a different account much more plausible: democracy, especially representative democracy, is a mechanism to hold elites accountable. Under this model elites generally know better than the average person, but like anyone else can become corrupt, incompetent, or insane. Democracy is a tool that allow us to discipline elites by removing them from office if they perform poorly.
Under this model, populism is a perversion of democracy where demagogues try to discredit and replace elites by promising to implement popular programs that the average person does not realize are bad. They frame elite resistance as an attempt by the elite to dominate the demos, rather than an attempt by the elite to save the demos from itself. It replaces democracy as an accountability mechanism with democracy as a way to decide on actual policy.
I’m a few paragraphs in, but are we insinuating that capitalism is communism here?
In re some leftist and feminist persons, if they make themselves physically ugly out of a misguided political impulse, would it not be reasonable to infer that their politics are themselves ugly? Seriously, I'm asking. I'm a leftist myself, at least economically, but the question presents itself.<<The overrepresentation of visibly heterogeneous individuals at left-wing protests, communist party events, and activist organizations is not a stereotype conjured by right-wing propagandists. It is an observable sociological fact, and it has consequences. Every pro-Palestine demonstration featuring a rainbow of pride flags, every communist party Instagram account that looks more like a catalogue of subcultural identities than a political organization, every DSA convention interrupted by privilege-checking rituals and trigger-warning protocols, confirms, in the minds of ordinary working people, that the left is a freak show run by and for people who have nothing in common with them. To be clear: there is nothing inherently wrong with being trans, non-binary, queer, neurodivergent, or any other identity that falls outside the statistical mainstream. Plenty of people who carry these identities live perfectly ordinary lives and have perfectly ordinary political instincts. The problem is not the presence of these individuals. The problem is the ratio, the degree to which they have come to define the left’s public face, and the degree to which the left’s cultural codes, from pronoun rituals to the privilege-stacking hierarchies in which straight white men are perpetually last in line, have been optimized to make these individuals feel welcome at the direct expense of making everyone else feel unwelcome.>>
Like communism here is so different. My granddad was in the Communist party in China starting in the 40s. He linked homosexuality, pedophilia and religion and largely neglected his kids. I'm center right, but I also keep an eye on the left because it's interesting.
There's a horseshoe theory happening on the far right too where they are expelling libertarians and forming a communist-like synthesis with religion mixed in. Like Catholic uh, solidarityism or whatever.