The current crisis in American capitalism highlights a growing global challenge: social inequality has reached unprecedented heights, with wealth heavily concentrated in the hands of a small oligarchy, undermining democratic legitimacy. Meanwhile, militarism, authoritarianism, and the erosion of civil liberties are on the rise, and social cohesion is breaking down. Despite increased global economic integration, these issues are complex and cannot be solved by any single national ruling class.¹
In these conditions, grasping history becomes highly politically significant. The working class, driven into conflict by capitalist realities, confronts immediate issues of exploitation and oppression, as well as the ideological remnants of the past. The persistent leadership crisis in the global working class is closely tied to a wider crisis of historical consciousness.²
The ongoing popularity of Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States should be understood in this context. For many, particularly young people encountering radical ideas for the first time, Zinn’s book provides an essential entry point for critically analysing American history. It exposes the violence of colonial expansion, the brutality of slavery, the suppression of labour movements, and the imperialist tendencies in foreign policy.³
These contributions are meaningful, showing a widespread desire to understand their world and pursue social change. However, Zinn’s popularity also exposes the limits of radicalism that dismiss Marxism’s scientific principles. Today’s crises require more than just outrage—they need clarity; more than just exposing issues—they need explanations; and beyond simple resistance, we need effective strategies.⁴
Howard Zinn and the Appeal of Moral Radicalism
Howard Zinn’s work connects deeply because it highlights a key truth: neutrality cannot exist in a society divided by exploitation and oppression. “In a world riven by class conflict, war, and exploitation, the pretence of neutrality is itself a political position.”⁵ This idea, which Zinn encapsulated in his memoir title You Can’t Be Neutral on a Moving Train, reflects the moral necessity felt by many who oppose modern injustices.
Zinn’s historical narrative centres on a clear dichotomy: “resistance” versus “control.’ The oppressed—comprising workers, enslaved individuals, women, Indigenous communities, and antiwar advocates—stand on one side. The other side features powerful corporations, governments, militaries, and elites. According to Zinn, history is a chronicle of the ongoing conflict between these opposing forces.⁶
This framework appeals emotionally by affirming the dignity of the oppressed and emphasising ordinary people’s agency. It also questions the complacency of official narratives. However, this moral clarity has limitations. Zinn’s binary of “resistance” versus “control” cannot replace a scientific analysis of society. It fails to explain the root causes of oppression, how it persists, or which social forces can end it.⁷
Zinn’s history features heroes and villains rather than classes and their conflicting interests. It tells a story of moral outrage instead of offering a materialist analysis of capitalism’s workings.⁸
The Philosophical Roots of Zinn’s Method: From Feuerbach to the New Left
To understand the limitations of Zinn’s method, one must explore its philosophical origins. His approach is not Marxist; instead, it aligns more with Engels’ description of Feuerbach’s “old materialism.” This form of materialism acknowledges an external world but does not fully grasp the dialectical connection between social being and social consciousness.⁹
Feuerbach’s materialism was mainly contemplative, aiming to describe the world rather than analyse its internal contradictions or transformative forces. It categorised historical figures as noble or ignoble, oppressed or oppressors, without examining the social relations that created these distinctions.¹⁰
Zinn’s approach reflects these constraints. His history mainly records moral struggles rather than offering a scientific view of how society develops. While he notes oppression, he does not explore the mechanisms that create it. He also documents acts of resistance but overlooks the conditions that turn resistance into revolutionary change.¹¹
This approach situates Zinn within the broader context of the American New Left, which emerged in the 1960s as a critique of American imperialism’s crimes and the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic decline. The New Left rejected Marxism not due to a comprehensive refutation, but because it linked Marxism to Stalinist regimes that falsely represented it.¹²
The outcome was a political stance emphasising personal authenticity, local activism, and spontaneous resistance, while dismissing the necessity for a revolutionary party, a scientific analysis of capitalism, or a strategic focus on the working class.¹³
The New Left and the Eclipse of Marxism
The rise of the New Left in the late 1950s and 1960s responded to deep contradictions within American and global capitalism. Although the postwar boom temporarily stabilised the capitalist system, its limitations started to emerge. The civil rights movement highlighted the cruelty of racial injustice, while the Vietnam War exposed the imperialist core of American foreign policy. Additionally, the Soviet Union’s bureaucratic decline discredited the Stalinist assertion that it represented socialism. Consequently, a new wave of students and intellectuals pursued radical alternatives.
Despite its energy and moral fervour, the New Left struggled to craft a clear revolutionary strategy. Its opposition to Marxism, dismissal of the working class as the driver of history, and eclectic philosophical influences left it politically powerless. Instead of resolving the crisis of American radicalism, it embodied it.
The failure of the New Left was intentional, stemming from its class makeup, ideological roots, and political stance. It was driven by a segment of the middle class—students, academics, and professionals—who were truly dissatisfied with the current system. However, their social standing inclined them more toward moral protest than revolutionary change.
The legacy of the New Left still influences today’s political discussions. Its focus on identity, culture, and personal authenticity, along with its scepticism of class analysis, hostility to revolutionary parties, and celebration of spontaneity, remains evident in different forms. Recognising the New Left is crucial to understanding the ideological barriers currently facing the working class.
The Philosophical Foundations: From Existentialism to Post‑Marxism
The New Left’s rejection of Marxism was driven more by the intellectual trends of the postwar era—such as existentialism, pragmatism, and neo-Kantianism—than by a deep engagement with Marxist ideas. These philosophies focused on individual experience, moral decision-making, and personal authenticity, dismissing the notion that objective laws govern history or that social classes have fixed roles.
This intellectual environment led the New Left to see Marxism as deterministic, authoritarian, or obsolete. The atrocities committed by Stalinist regimes, wrongly portrayed as the natural result of Marxist ideas, strengthened this view. Consequently, the New Left lumped Marxism together with Stalinism, dismissing both without making a clear distinction.
Instead of historical materialism, the New Left adopted a moralistic and voluntarist view of politics. They believed social change resulted from individual dedication, grassroots activism, and spontaneous protests. The working class was regarded not as a revolutionary force but as a conservative one, corrupted by consumerism or absorbed into the system.
This philosophical stance had significant political implications. It caused the New Left to underestimate the structural strength of the capitalist state, overvalue the transformative power of student movements, and dismiss the need for a revolutionary party. It shifted focus from strategic planning to symbolic acts, from careful analysis to indignation, and from organised effort to spontaneous action.
The Class Basis of the New Left
The ideological tendencies of the New Left mirrored its class makeup. It mainly arose among students and intellectuals rather than industrial workers. Its prominent leaders were from the middle class, which has a complex relationship with capitalism — oppressed by it yet reliant on it. While the middle class criticises the system, it also fears revolutionary upheaval.
This ambivalence influenced the politics of the New Left, which moved between harsh critiques of capitalism and calls for reform. It dismissed the working class as the revolutionary agent but did not propose an alternative social force. Instead, it focused on personal authenticity, lifestyle choices, and cultural rebellion—protests that voice dissatisfaction without challenging the core of capitalist power.
The New Left’s focus on class also sheds light on its opposition to the revolutionary party. In the Marxist view, the party represents the structured expression of the working class’s collective interests, demanding discipline, clear theory, and strategic focus. Such qualities clashed with the movement’s roots in middle-class individualism and anti-authoritarian principles.
The New Left’s suspicion of organisation was not a rejection of bureaucracy but a reflection of its own social position. It rejected the discipline of the working class while reproducing, in its own structures, the informal hierarchies and charismatic leadership typical of middle‑class movements.
The New Left and the Question of the Working Class
The primary limitation of the New Left was its denial of the working class as the true agent of revolutionary change. This denial was rationalised through various arguments, such as the belief that the working class was “bought off” by consumerist culture, integrated into the existing system, or made conservative by the welfare state. However, these claims were rooted more in ideological bias than in factual analysis.
The working class, rather than becoming part of the system, continued to be exploited. Its labour kept generating societal wealth. Its efforts—ranging from the mass strikes of the 1960s and 1970s to the current global wave of labour unrest—showed its ability for collective action. However, the New Left, unable to see beyond its own class perspective, failed to recognise this potential.
The New Left’s rejection of the working class led it to seek alternative agents of change: students, peasants, guerrilla movements, and marginalised groups. These forces played important roles in various struggles, but none possessed the structural power of the working class. The New Left’s search for substitutes reflected its inability to grasp the material foundations of revolutionary politics.
The consequences were severe. The New Left movements, disconnected from the working class, could be easily isolated, suppressed, or absorbed. Their wins were only partial and short-lived, while their losses were significant. Without revolutionary leadership, the working class stayed politically confused.
The New Left and the State: The Illusion of Spontaneity
The New Left’s rejection of Marxism led to an underestimation of the power of the capitalist state. It viewed the state not as a means of maintaining class control but as a neutral arena that protests could influence. It was thought that spontaneous protests, moral appeals, or cultural movements could bring societal change without directly confronting the dominant power of capital.
This illusion was repeatedly broken. The civil rights movement, though morally compelling, encountered violent suppression. Despite large-scale protests, the antiwar movement failed to stop imperialist actions. Police and military units suppressed student protests. Time and again, the state proved it would use violence to protect capitalist interests.
The New Left’s inability to grasp the nature of the state stemmed from its rejection of Marxism. According to Marxism, the state isn’t a neutral body; it represents the organised power of the ruling class. Reforming it isn’t possible through moral appeals or spontaneous protests. Instead, it requires a revolutionary working-class movement organised in a party capable of challenging capitalist dominance.
The New Left’s misconceptions about the state caused it to overlook the importance of organisation, strategy, and leadership. It confused spontaneity with strength and moral passion with real influence, ultimately leading to political ineffectiveness.
The Legacy of the New Left: Identity, Culture, and the Eclipse of Class
The influence of the New Left persisted beyond its political fall. Its concepts were integrated into academia, media, and cultural institutions. The focus on identity, culture, and personal experience gained prominence in numerous intellectual communities. Additionally, its scepticism towards class analysis and opposition to Marxism influenced the evolution of postmodernism, post-Marxism, and various identity politics movements.
These tendencies have severely harmed modern political dialogue. They divide the working class into conflicting identities, hide the fundamental capitalist structures, and replace the pursuit of universal emancipation with specific demands. The focus shifts from labour exploitation to recognition politics, and from fighting capitalism to overseeing diversity.
The legacy of the New Left thus fosters ideological confusion among the working class. It provides moral critique lacking material analysis, promotes cultural rebellion without strategic political plans, and emphasises identity-based grievances without proposing a universal emancipatory project. Consequently, it strengthens the fragmentation that capitalism depends on to sustain its dominance.
The Political Consequences: Radicalism Without Strategy
The shortcomings of Zinn’s approach are most clear when considering his political conclusions. For decades, Zinn highlighted the brutality of American capitalism, the hypocrisy of its ruling classes, and the ways dissent is co-opted and subdued. He stated that elections function “to consolidate the system after years of protest and rebellion.”¹⁴
However, when faced with the political crises of his era, Zinn often relied on the very institutions he had long critiqued. He believed in the moral transformation of individuals over the organised influence of the working class .¹⁵
This contradiction was not due to personal weakness. It stems from a politics that replaces class analysis with moral sentiment. Without a scientific grasp of capitalism, a theory of the state, or a view of the working class as the agent of revolutionary change, radicalism naturally falls into compromise.¹⁶
The history of American radicalism is full of such cases, where movements starting with protests against injustice eventually come to accept the current system .¹⁷
The Historical Function of Liberalism and the Co-Option of Social Movements
Throughout American history, liberalism has been key to maintaining capitalist dominance. It claims to defend democracy, push for reforms, and offer a rational alternative to extremism. However, its true role is to direct social unrest into controlled channels, absorb and neutralise opposition, and uphold the core elements of this dynamic that Zinn understood, documenting how liberal institutions have absorbed social movements. However, his distancing from Marxism prevented him from making essential strategic conclusions. While he acknowledged liberalism’s failures, he did not recognise its underlying class foundation.²⁰ Without a Marxist analysis of liberalism, Zinn’s critique remained moral rather than material.²¹
The Marxist Conception of History and the Role of the Working Class
Marxism starts from a fundamentally different basis than Zinn’s moral radicalism. It does not separate history into the noble and the ignoble, the oppressed and the oppressors. Instead, it examines society through the lens of classes, defined by their relationship to the means of production.
According to Marxism, the working class isn’t just another oppressed group; it serves as the revolutionary force in history because its role within capitalism gives it both a natural interest and the capacity to overthrow the system. ²³
Society’s transformation relies not on individual moral awakening, sudden acts of resistance, or guards disobeying orders. Instead, it depends on a deliberate, organised, international struggle led by a revolutionary party that understands the scientific laws governing capitalism.²⁴ This perspective is absent from Zinn’s work.²⁵
The Strategic Tasks of the Present Period
The crisis of global capitalism calls for more than just moral outrage; it necessitates a scientific grasp of the world and a revolutionary plan for change. The working class is beginning to engage in a global struggle.²⁶
But the crisis of leadership remains. The working class cannot spontaneously generate the consciousness required to overthrow capitalism. It requires a revolutionary party rooted in Marxism, armed with an understanding of history, and committed to the international unity of the working class.²⁷
Zinn’s approach is limited by its moralist stance, absence of class analysis, rejection of Marxism, and lack of strategy, making it unable to provide effective leadership.²⁸
Neutrality is unattainable. However, moralism alone cannot suffice. The world is swiftly heading toward either disaster or upheaval. ²⁹
Argumentative Footnotes
- Marx’s analysis of capitalism’s contradictions remains the essential starting point for understanding contemporary crises.
- Trotsky repeatedly emphasised that the crisis of humanity is the crisis of revolutionary leadership.
- Zinn’s narrative is strongest where it exposes the violence of American expansion.
- Moral outrage, without scientific analysis, cannot guide revolutionary practice.
- Zinn’s phrase captures a truth long understood by Marxists.
- This binary structure is central to A People’s History.
- Zinn’s framework lacks a theory of the state.
- Historical materialism is replaced by moral dualism.
- Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy.
- Feuerbach’s contemplative materialism is a precursor to Zinn’s method.
- Zinn documents but does not explain.
- The New Left’s rejection of Marxism was rooted in confusion about Stalinism.
- Spontaneity was elevated above organisation.
- Zinn’s critique of elections is accurate but incomplete.
- This reflects the limits of moral radicalism.
- Without class analysis, radicalism collapses into liberalism.
- The pattern recurs throughout U.S. history.
- Liberalism stabilises capitalist rule by absorbing dissent.
- Zinn’s historical examples are compelling but partial.
- Liberalism’s class basis is essential to understanding its function.
- Moral critique cannot substitute for material analysis.
- Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy.
- The working class is the only revolutionary class.
- Trotsky, The Transitional Program.
- Zinn never articulates the revolutionary role of the proletariat.
- Objective conditions for struggle are emerging globally.
- Consciousness must be developed through a revolutionary party.
- Zinn’s framework cannot provide strategic leadership.
- The decisive question is the intervention of the working class.
A Trumpet of Sedition 