By Cake Bay

In recent years, we have seen the development of a new communist movement. The so-called “MAGA communism’ movement was created by Haz Al-Din (a philosopher) and his friends.

I have followed this situation, and it fascinated me. I’m not a communist, of course, but I still took a lot of inspiration from Marxism. I think Marxism is a useful lens. I like Marxism’s materialism (but not the dialectical/mystical part of it). I only accept the core premises of Marxism—you could say only the skeleton of Marxism. Marxism is not a political program but a method.

Haz said that communism always needs a basis rooted in popular culture. I think he is right. The ‘normal’ kind of people you see on the street need to know who you are and what you want if you are a political movement. Looking out of my window now, I see a man walking.  He has very short hair, Nike Air Max shoes, and an outdoor jacket. He probably has conservative values, he likes popular culture, and there is a chance he is a Christian. These kinds of people need to know about your existence if you are a political movement, party, federation, or syndicate.

In the last years, radical leftism has been reserved for a niche subculture—an academic subculture of people interested in gender, veganism, language, and identity.

Something like that might be interesting (or not), but it can’t be the basis for a movement.

Haz is right that you need the MAGA kind of mainstream people, as a current, if you’re a party. But I don’t think these people will go for communism. At least, not yet. The MAGA people are conservative when it comes to cultural issues. And they are neoliberal when it comes to economic issues. They believe in upward mobility, they believe in ‘the American dream,’ they don’t want to be ‘cynical,’ they don’t care, they make 6 dollars an hour, while the CEO makes sixty million an hour. They don’t care about paying rent to the landlord. They want to become one themselves. So, if the communists want to change their minds, there is a lot of work to do.

Anarchists could learn from Haz. If anarchism were a political movement, it would also have a basic MAGA, or let’s put it this way: it would appeal to the MAGA people. This would mean that anarchists should drop their cultural agenda. Anarchism as a materialism. Tell the guy on the street that anarchism is about syndicalism, workplace democracy, and decentralism. Anarchism doesn’t have an opinion on your meat consumption, your private life, your religious beliefs, your sexual orientation, the way you raise your kids, or the fact that you like MMA fighting. The only question you should ask him is: Wouldn’t it be nice if you owned your workplace and shared the profits? And then, let that question sink in for a while. Drop it there and make him think about it without judgment or force.

In my country, the left says they speak for the working class. While the working class says that they hate the left and that they are right. With rightwing, they often mean socially conservative. And that means, they read the bible, their woman wears make-up, their kids are obedient, the men have short hair, they eat meat, they drink beer (but don’t do drugs), etc. Left-wing academics look down on that culture, but they also want to mobilize the people who have that culture. Something bizarre is going on there. This was the contradiction in the radical left in the last years.

The working class feels that the left-wing academics hate them. And it’s true that some of the academics/leftist activists even call them ‘morons’ in public debates in this country. They call the working class the ‘moronic right.’ Meanwhile, they don’t understand why these people don’t join the radical/woke left.

Reading about anarchist history in Spain and Ukraine is all about material, economic, and immediate issues. How do we produce, who gets what, how do we defend ourselves? I never read about ‘self-critique’, pronounce, vegan taco’s, child liberation, trans identified, micro aggressions, men spreading, mansplaining, and ‘terfs’.

All of that cultural stuff has nothing to do with any kind of leftism. It’s something that was developed in the Academy in the 90’s by neoliberal/postmodern professors. And it attached itself to radical movements, to lift along with them. But this was not beneficial for either of these currents. It didn’t help the left, and it didn’t help this cultural/Judith Butler cause. It only caused confusion and division.

If the two currents would have been separate from the start, everything would have been clearer by now.

Woke is not by definition leftist (neocons and neoliberals are woke), and leftism isn’t by definition woke (leftism can be pretty conservative/masculine, especially in other parts of the world, like, for example, the Middle East or Africa, Iran).

I once heard a radical leftist/woke cult leader talking about his idea for ‘revolution’. He believes that working-class people will, at one point, start squatting in buildings. In these squatted buildings, they will all learn about critical theory, feminism, veganism, and queer studies. They will paint their hair blue, they will experiment with polygamy, their children will be raised by ‘the community’, and they will listen to ‘rebellious/empowering anarcho-punk’. Then, that cultural transformation is a real revolution. This cult leader actually thinks this will happen, it’s a bit scary to see how deranged these people are, that they believe their theory corresponds with reality.

In this country, the working class has a lot of respect for authority and rules. They also have a lot of respect for property. They would rather freeze to death than squat in a house. They, in a way, feel far more connected to the landlords than to squatters. I think this is because these landlords have the same culture as they have. These landlords also have short hair, go to church, their wife’s wear make-up, and look sexy. Also, these landlords are wealthy, and the working class adores money. The things I say might be ‘classists’ but they are just based on observations. There are classes, and they have different cultures.

Antifa activists here post stickers, on which there is written: be gay, do crimes (the most ridiculous thing ever). Being gay while doing crimes is the opposite of the working-class culture in this country. The working class obeys rules, and they like to prove their straightness.

A way to connect with the working class would be if the sticker was written: Be straight, obey the law!

These Antifa stickers, in a way, say: working-class people, fuck off! While Antifa claims to be for the working class. It’s a working-class movement without working-class people.

When I talk with mainstream/Maga people, I never talk about politics. Or I say: we agree to disagree. I don’t have to confine them to anything. That’s not really my way of dealing with politics. I know it would take hours and hours to change someone’s mind, and I don’t have time for that. The question is also, will the MAGA person want to listen to you for that long? The MAGA person I know wouldn’t listen to me for that long. He is so distrustful of everything that it reeks of a bit of leftism. Everything critical of the current order, capitalism, the state, and imperialism he sees as ‘woke,’ and woke is the same as Antifa, in his eyes. Here, we see how Antifa/cultural leftism ruined the possibility of any opposition or debate.

In short, if the culture war is not cooled down or ignored, the radical left (anarchism and communism) can never stand up again.

If anarchism were as strong as the ACP, it would survive. In the past, in the 20th century, it was also as strong as the Bolshevist/communist left and it was as strong as the social democratic left. There were three leftist mass organizations: communism, social democracy/socialism, and anarchism.

Social democracy has been the only big movement in the last few years. Now, communism has come back again.

But anarchism is still dead, lifeless. The intellectuals are trying to resurrect it, resuscitate it. It’s in the OK room, you could say.

People say Haz is a fascist because he is not woke, he behaves like a macho, and he is a patriot. Well, at first, we can say that maybe communism always had some fascist traits anyway. They both had their roots in Hegelianism and Platonism. They both came out of Europe, they both wanted revolution and radical modernization, they both talked about ‘socialism’, they both despised the classical liberal political frameworks, they were both against liberal democracy and anarchism, and they both saw no problem in violence, to reach their goals, ( ‘the ends justify the means’ stance)

Second, communism was patriotist, masculine, authoritarian, and ruthless in the past. The ACP understands what communism actually is. Communism always had some conservative traits, which aligned with the working class. The communist working classes were proud to be Russian; they had respect for authority figures and conservative values. Lenin talked about the factories, not about safe spaces for queers.

So, if you want to breathe new life into anarchism, learn from the ACP (but forget about their political program). How did the ACP people manage to get communism on its feet again? How do you do that?

I’m not a politician or activist, so it’s not really my problem. But I understand politics better than most of you, so I help you think.