This might be a silly question, so I want to preface it with an apology in advance and if you think there is a better place to ask please let me know.
I’ve come across a large number of self-described “anarchists” or “non-communist leftists,” or the like, mostly online,thanks to where I live (谢天谢地). But whenever you look a bit closer, the pattern is the same: underneath the aesthetics and language, it’s just liberalism. Pro-NATO positions, contempt toward the global periphery, and extremely reactionary responses when imperialism or capitalism are seriously questioned.
So my question is: Is adopting these leftist identities a kind of defensive mechanism (an attempt to distance themselves from the real-world damage caused by liberal ideology) or am I misunderstanding what’s actually going on?
I believe it is primarily a result of ignorance and self-denial.
At least in the USA, a lot of people went their entire lives unaware that there is any difference between liberals and leftists, and used the labels interchangeably for themselves.
Then, at some point along the way, they encountered actual leftists online and were told differently, so rather then confront that they’ve been accepting and perpetuating a falsehood about themselves all this time, they find some “legit” leftist label they can cosplay as instead. Engaging deeper with their new adopted costume label is something that hasn’t happened yet for them.
I think what you’re saying makes a lot of sense, especially regarding ignorance and self-denial.
But do you think there’s also a structural cause beyond individual misunderstanding, particularly liberal hegemony in the imperial core?
For example, I recently tried having a conversation with a Polish “anarchist” who openly exalted social democracy and the “Nordic Model”, treated Poland’s rising living standards after EU integration as caused by democracy winning over authoritarianism(?), and completely rejected the idea that social democracy and his treats were made possible only through the super-exploitation of the global south. The moment AES states or NATO were mentioned, he defaulted to the usual anti-communist, NATO-aligned talking points, very typical 白左 chauvinism, despite the anarchist label.
In cases like that, it feels less like incomplete political development and more like the material position of imperial-bloc citizens setting hard limits on how far their politics can actually go.
Do you think this tendency to “cosplay” leftist identities is partly produced by those structural incentives, not just ignorance, but the fact that liberalism functions as the ideological common sense of empire?
Sorry for the wall of text.
You might enjoy this old post
That was a very interesting read.
The idea of positive and negative cultural hegemony is very interesting. Also the contrast between the neoliberal end of history vs the communist urge to strive for more is something anyone can see. Great recommendation thank you.
Also obligatory anarchists and books mentioned in the same sentence
There’s lots of anarchists here on Hexbear that are more well read than you might expect! Definitely more well read than me, at least.
However unfortunate tho typical it may be that most of the rest of the internet is generally only home to different flavors of “anarchist” .
I look forward to interacting with the real deal!